27/04/2017 House of Lords


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Could the ministers say, is this a particularly complex area, is this


why legislation did not come forward in 2016? Is it proving more


difficult or is there some other reason why nothing was done within


the timescale which as far as I know the Government originally suggested


they would do so? There were various vehicles that the Government


explored, the opportunity for a sponsored private member 's' bill


and as I have said before without pre-empting what may have happened


or will happen in the coming months, I think it is important to recognise


that there were opportunities, certain legislative vehicles which


were in the current timetable which could have been used as an


opportunity to legislate in this respect. What does remain the case


is that I have given a personal commitment to the current


Government, and it is an important area to legislate in and we will


continue to do so at the earliest opportunity if indeed it is a


Conservative Government re-elected on the 8th of June. I endorse every


single word that the noble Baroness made there. Whatever Government is


elected in a few weeks' time, it should be top of the agenda to deal


with for the new travel secretary. I am sure those who aspire to hold


that position had taken note of the noble Lord's comments. Can he advise


us if the Government plans to make any economic assessment of the


imposition of bicycle lanes on London businesses, in particular,


small businesses mobile tradesmen such as stonemasons who have


effectively had to stop serving London businesses? As my noble


friend is aware, the issue of cycle lanes is primarily a responsible at


of London. I know there have been views expressed in this House and


house and elsewhere, and I'm sure those will be taken into account if


reviews are carried on of cycle lanes and their operation in London.


Can he assure us that pledges made to legislate on this matter will not


become a manifesto commitment? LAUGHTER


Again, I'm not going to prejudge the commitments within a manifesto. I


think I have made it as clear as I can at this juncture of what the


intention was of the current Government, what my personal view is


in this respect as someone who oversees legislation and indeed the


operation and coordination of such activity in London with the Mayor of


London and whatever Government I -- I am sure will continue to work with


the Mayor of London to regulate this industry in the years to come. The


confusion and despair seen as a result of this makes one think of


meat is. Of course, there was a mutiny 228 years ago on the Bounty.


228 years ago tomorrow. The Navy sent out ships to find the


mutineers. Today we would find difficulty doing that, and with that


have to be peddled as well to get there? I would like the noble Lord


to agree that we need more ships. Pedalling and votes, I think that is


something perhaps we have done in Hyde Park and elsewhere, but my day


would not be complete had I not received a history lesson from the


noble Lord and as ever I greatly appreciate that.


LAUGHTER I beg leave to ask the question. Can


I draw the House's attention to my entry on the register of interests?


The Government is committed to making patient and care records


digital, real-time and interoperable by 2020. Ahead of that, summary care


records which provide essential information about a patient such as


their medication, allergies and adverse reactions, are now available


in many parts of the country in key areas of the NHS such as ambulances


and A services. Health professionals can view these with


patient consent. Thank you. I am rather concerned that the data


guardians report, the third report, that was out last year, does not


fully address the issue as to who that electronic patient data belongs


to. Does it belong to the GPs, to NHS England, took NHS digital? And


this is particularly important because GPs now, some GPs, are


moving towards only localised electronic patient sharing, which


will in my view happen -- have an adverse effect on the efficiency of


the NHS, so can my noble friend the minister assure the House and myself


that electronic patient data records will be made nationally and that it


is the patient and the patient's choice as to who has access to those


records? My noble friend makes an important point about the use of


data and there is a balance to be struck. The first point to be made


about the use of data is that patients need to be part of any


decision about the sharing of data. In 2012, the NHS Future Forum


rubbished an independent report on this issue and used the phrase, no


decision about me without me, to describe the role of patients. Of


course, there is a deed to share data. It needs to be shared among


clinicians, particularly when they are treating a patient themselves.


There can be wider concerns, for example, a public health pandemic or


some such other incident where it needs to be shared widely but that


can only be done with a patient being informed and offering their


consent. Isn't there a problem here is that if all the focus is at


national level, that takes usually a very long time and inhibits local


progress? Wouldn't he agree that one of the great challenges is actually


being able to share information between the health service and


social care, if integrated care, particularly for older people, who


are discharged from hospital, is to be delivered? I wonder if he could


say if any progress is being made around what is clearly a challenging


area of getting full integration and local level.


The truth is there is patchy use of data within the health service and


practically all GPs not offer a laconic patient records, something


like 9 million people have registered to make appointments


online -- electronic patient records. But it is not at the same


level with trusts and there is the paper usage and the intention has


been to get to 2020 with a paperless NHS which means you would have, with


patient consent, the ability to share data around the patient


pathway in any part of the health service. Given the continued


revelations of data security breaches along with the absence of


response from last year's report from Dame Fiona Caldicot, how is the


government in to avoid a repeat of the fiasco several years ago over


care data and does he agree with me that it is vitally important that


patients are given confidence of the security of their data so that they


will not withdraw from allowing their data to be used for vital


medical research? The noble lady is quite right, the national data guide


produced a report last summer and has been the intention to reply to


that report and purdah has had an inevitable impact on it


unfortunately but the points she made in that about the simplified


process for opting out and also being clear there are vital users


that suitably anonymised data which can be made which benefit patients


directly, particularly through clinical medical research, and


making sure they know about that so they can choose to have their data


shared, it is encouraging that only around 2% of people of all patients


have opted to have their summary care records not being shared so it


suggests that went explained properly and with suitable


safeguards, people are happy to share their data.


He will have studied the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee


report, NHS treatment of overseas patients, it is chaired by the


Labour Party at present, which has identified a leakage of up to ?2


billion a year in the treatment of patients who are either not entitled


to NHS treatment free in Britain or whose treatment should be reimbursed


by the countries from which they come. The target the government has


for this leakage is only 500 million a year. We undertake that in the


event of the government being successful in the election, that the


government will make a real effort to stem this leakage which is dilute


Inc the impact of the health service on the British people? -- by


. What I can tell my noble friend about is the work the government has


been doing on this issue which is to make sure that I identity checks for


overseas patients in hospitals to ensure that those people who are not


entitled to free care either through reciprocal arrangement or other


means do pay for the care provided for them whilst making sure that


anybody who is in need of urgent care does not have that care not


given to them, even if they have to then pay later. Would the Minister


made clear to the house that there are four health services in the UK,


not one? And what negotiations are taking place with his colleagues, it


is equivalent colleagues in the other administrations in the UK to


ensure that there is one common computer system across the whole of


the UK? Because electronic patient records depend upon their being one


computer system and not a variety across the whole country. The noble


Lord is quite right that the UK Government speaks only for the


English health system. There is a different here between having single


ICT systems, we've been down that road with billions wasted, rather


than having systems that can speak to one another and having a code of


usage around data security robustness that will provide for


people, particularly in border areas, to make sure there is the


kind of ongoing access to information that I believe he is


talking about. My Lords, while of course patient confidentiality must


be respected always, in the recent next steps in the five-year forward


view of the NHS there was a very concerning item looking at urgent


treatment centres. I find it worrying that personalised care


plans for patients in mental health crisis or at the end of life would


only be available in 40% of emergency care settings, assuming


that the target of the report is met. If the government prepared to


look at these figures? And considered them carefully? I think


the picture that the noble lady paint is the one where we are


starting from a position of not a great amount of sharing,


particularly outside primary health care, and that is what the


government has been trying to address, the primary route of doing


that has been through the global digital exemplars which are enabling


data cherry with the appropriate safeguards in acute trusts and


mental health trusts and the intention is to increase that by the


time. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the


order paper. My lord, no such discussions have taken place, it is


the role of the local authorities to manage their networks efficiently


and determine their own policies for balancing the needs of their


communities but local authorities are required to have due regard to


the need to eliminate discrimination, advanced equality of


opportunity and foster good relations under section 149,


subsection one of the equality act 2010. I thank my noble friend for


his answer. Exactly a month ago I mentioned the problems I was having


with partying in Lambeth and since then the target has been wrecked in


the disabled bay where I live. Sometimes for three weeks in a row


and always with a blue badge on display has been moved. Clearly


somewhat at Lambeth Council is reading Hansard because the young


man I saw who walked away from the car in question without any apparent


disability has clearly been tipped off by someone in the council not to


park in the disabled by. Blue badge misuse is a serious offence yet


Lambeth says that in this case there is the evidence. Even though I have


been obliged that the blue badge in question was issued by Lambeth not


to a young man but to a 59-year-old woman. May I ask my noble friend the


Minister on behalf of all those disabled people who genuinely rely


on their blue badge and who do not have the privilege of standing up


and asking a question in your Lordships house, may I ask that he


urges all local authorities to prioritise tackling blue badge fraud


including when it involves their own staff? I think my noble friend and


first of all, I'm sure all Lordships are indeed very pleased to learn


that Camden Council are following our proceedings very closely.


Lambeth, I apologise, I'm sure Camden are as well! The issue which


he raced specifically about Lambeth and it is a serious one, I think the


abuse of blue badges in any place is something that is taken very


seriously and enforcement, while it is a matter for local authorities,


it is a criminal offence to park and misuse a blue badge. And offenders


may be prosecuted and fined up to ?1000. I would also say that in 2013


the Department for Transport also introduced new legislation to enable


on strict civil enforcement officers to seek misused badges, when


previously only the police could do this. The point about sharing of


good practice, I understand there are a series of road shows in which


the department is involved with local authority is intended


effective to do that, sharing best practice and to end this abuse. The


powers of local authorities are worth clarifying a few years ago in


a bill I had the honour of taking to your Lordships house. I just wonder


whether it is bearing fruit. Thus the noble lord have any figures to


say about this? The noble lady is right to raise, the actual numbers


in terms of specific prosecutions is still low income person to the


reports received partly based on this need to produce evidence but as


somebody involved in local government for ten years and who had


responsibility at local level for this, part of it is education. A lot


of people sometimes park inadvertently and think it is OK for


a few minutes. The more serious issue is a blatant abuse of those


spaces by blue badge holders and I think that is an area where there


needs to be great education and I believe that the road shows which


are sharing best practice will help to address the issue of enforcement


more effectively. Another friend advise the house how often checks


are made of the abuse of blue badges? Blue badges and disabled


parking bays are assessed as part of any traffic enforcement which takes


place in the local authority so whilst there are certainly to my


knowledge not any specific initiatives undertaken to check on


this as part of the general enforcement of traffic management


ruled at a local level they are conducted readily in each local


area. I refer to the response ability of local authorities to


enforce the blue but scheme but is there not a difficulty is blue


badges issued by one local authorities are used incorrectly in


another local authority? Don't we have to have that enforcement


procedures to make sure they are not abused? -- better enforcement


procedures. I agree that this is a vital point and that is what I


believe the issue of how we work across the board and sharing good


practice will address part of the issues. I do again enforce the point


that part of this is about education and information and dissemination


about this and other those involved in traffic enforcement should know


the specific rules in ensuring that effective enforcement can be carried


out. My Lords, I wonder if I could invite the Minister to extend his


comments to another aspect that affect people with disabilities of


all kinds which is about parking on pavements or obstructing pavements.


This has become an increasing problem for people with mobility


problems of one kind or another and I wonder if when looking at this


problem he could also bear in mind the need to keep pavements clear for


people? Again, the noble Lord raises an important point and outside


London and indeed 13 boroughs in London I know pavement parking is


permitted and it causes a big issue in terms of access not just dare I


say for the disabled, as someone who still has a reasonably young


children, one in a pushchair, for young families as well try to get


through and he makes a valid suggestion and we will ensure that


is part of the discussion. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question


standing in my name and I should mention that I co-chaired the


all-party parliament group on North Korea. My Lords, we have made clear


that North Korea must stop its destabilising behaviour. It nuclear


and ballistic missile programmes are a violation of multiple United


Nations Security Council resolutions and a threat to regional and


international security. We fully support action at the United Nations


Security Council to counter this threat and maintain pressure on the


regime put up the Foreign Secretary will shortly be discussing North


Korea's illegal activity at the UN Security Council. Yesterday's


presidential invitation to the White House of all 100 members of the


United States Senate for a briefing on the unfolding and dangerous


crisis on the Korean peninsula underscores its gravity but as does


the recollection that the last Korean War cost nearly 3 million


lives including those of 1000 British servicemen. With one quarter


of North Korea's DVP used on armaments and over a million men


under arms, how are we use our own present Pyongyang, Beijing and at


the Security Council to engage China and to avert North Korea's present


and long-term threat and to forestall a catastrophic outcome


closer to home, why wasn't the North Korea national insurance Corporation


not able to use London to generate over ?130 million to support both


the regime and its nuclear weapons programme?


Turning to the specific before I answer the more general. With


regards to the Korea wrote national insurance company, the EU designated


the London office on April the 28th 2016 and since that date, the UK has


taken appropriate actions to sanction the firm and has absolutely


followed that through. We issued a white paper on sanctions just last


week as we take it so seriously. We continue to work not only through


our critical engagement with the North Korean Government in Pyongyang


through our embassy there, but also at the United Nations, because it is


only by work amongst the United Nations Security Council, operating


with China asserting an influence, that they can be any change to


Korean behaviour. Can I reinforce the point that the absolute key to


this incredibly dangerous situation is the full engagement and support


of the Chinese Government and the sharing of their concerns with our


concerns and those of the rest of the world? And is it not possible


that HMG may be able to play a particularly useful intermediary


role in this area? As always, he makes an important point, and I can


give an assurance that the Foreign Secretary is meeting the Chinese


representatives when he travels later this day to New York, and


already has had very frequent discussions with China. It is


notable that the whole of the United Nations Security Council agreed that


there should be sanctions exerted on North Korea, including China, and


China has shown good faith in that, in its sanctions. My lords. My


lords. With brief questions we can hear


from the Liberal Democrats and then the Labour benches. What is the


response of Her Majesty's Government to the opinion expressed today by


the member of the administration of George W Bush, and is no shrinking


violet in these matters, that the solution to the crisis with North


Korea will not rest in military action, not least because of the


dangers that would present to the citizens of South Korea? My right


honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he


sees military action as being undesirable. We have not, with our


allies in America, take an offensive action. It is North Korea that has


been offensive in its actions. Clearly, the position of our on the


border does mean that any military action would be an absolutely


disastrous. That is why we are all with allies in the United Nations


working together to ensure there is a stronger will, particularly by


China, to exert its interest on North Korea to avoid an escalation


of what we have seen over the last few weeks. Given the uncertainty


about North Korea, not least after the discussions by the American


President yesterday with the Senate, if there is the possibility of


military engagement by the United States against North Korea, would


there be a situation similar to what the Foreign Secretary suggested this


morning in relation to Syria, which would engage British troops, and if


that is the case, what attempts will be made to consult Parliament given


that the elected house will cease to exist in very few Alice' time? It is


a straightforward fact that the United States has made it clear that


they are not seeking military action. What they are installing but


that is a defensive missile system, and working with allies, South


Korea, in the area. What came across very strongly yesterday from the


announcement by the secretaries of State in America is that they are


seeking a peaceful resolution. They made back clear, they made it clear


that what they want to do is bring North Korea to its senses not to its


knees. I welcome the response in terms of the Security Council, but


will she reassure us that the Foreign Secretary will be in


communication when he is in New York with his counterpart in the United


States, to ensure that these two great allies act in concert to


ensure effective sanctions? Yes, both in New York but also on a more


regular basis. I beg leave to ask a question of


which I have given private notice. It is as follows. To ask Her


Majesty's Government what assessment they have made up the situation


regarding child refugees in de Calais and Dunkirk areas, and


whether they will take immediate steps to allow a significant number


to enter the UK? In 2016, the UK transferred more than 750 children


from France as part of the comprehensive support for the Calais


camp clearance. The UK also offered support to France following the


recent fire at Dunkirk. We continue to work closely with the French to


transfer eligible children under section 67 of the Immigration Act


under the Dublin regulation. The fastest route to safety is to claim


asylum in France. I welcome the fact that the Government announced in a


ministerial statement today that a further 130 children will be taken


into this country under section 67 of the Immigration Act. Even if the


reason is the Home Office having to hang its head in shame because they


made an administrative error that is part of collating the figures. That


comes out of Yes Minister. I want to put this to the minister. Will the


Government now consult local authorities, because there are many


not just in England but in other parts of the UK, who have expressed


a willingness to take more child refugees. Is the minister not aware


that many representations have been made recently about the available of


local authority faces? The administrative error is most


unfortunate, and for that I apologise. I wouldn't want to see


that happening. The good news is that we have an additional 130


places and I think we should all be very pleased about that. I think the


important thing here is that no child has been disenfranchised, any


eligible child has been taken this part, 200 children have been taken


this far, so we haven't even got to the 350, so I wouldn't want the


noble lord to think that any child is disenfranchised because of this


administrative error, which is, as I have said, most regrettable. In


terms of the consultation, we have consulted local authorities and I


would like to say to noble lords, just for the record, that there are


4000 unaccompanied children in local authority care as we speak, and some


local authorities, like Kent and Croydon, host a disproportionate


number of judging. We are always very glad to hear local authorities


coming forward to take children through the National transfer


scheme, or indeed to take refugee children. But, my lords, it is not


like we had not consulted properly. I know the Immigration Minister


wrote to all local authorities, a national launch event was held, and


over ten metre events were held in every part of England as well as in


Scotland and one in Wales. -- and over ten regional events were held.


There were reports last week in the context of child refugees that an


assumption was being made that if such a child is disabled, they would


be debarred, because they were regarded as being too burdensome.


Will she take the opportunity to deny in all... With all possible


strength but that could be the Government's policy. It would never


be the Government's policy. I don't think it would be any government's


policy to disenfranchise a disabled child because they were too


burdensome. A child will be assessed under the criteria of Dublin or the


Vulnerable Children's Refugee Scheme. No child would ever be


disenfranchised because they were disabled and I can very strongly


confirm that. My two questions for the minister. Is the minister aware


that Help Refugees will press ahead with their pending court case as


their information data shows that further clerical errors exist? And


secondly, will become at except that we have a moral and legal duty to


these children, and reopen the Dublin Scheme to make sure that


these areas are ironed out once and for all and that we act with utmost


haste in bringing these unfortunate children to the UK? The Government


has been far too slow in acting. As of my first answer, we haven't


closed the Dublin Khan scheme. We have 200 children here. There is


potential for another 280 two arrive. And in terms of the court


case, I look forward to the outcome of the court case and I would not


want to comment on it at this stage. My lords, France or Europe is not


some war-torn country. So I am delighted that refugees are being


able to get to a place of safety, whether that is in France or indeed


here. My concern, of course, is that they are the most vulnerable


children and women and -- the most full of all women and children are


still in Syria and on its borders and can the minister say what


support the Government has given in this vital work? I am very pleased


to be able to do that and she is absolutely right that the most


vulnerable are actually still in the regions. And last year, the former


prime minister made an announcement to double the amount of assistance


going to the region to ?2.4 billion. Double the amount it had been


previously. But my noble friend makes exactly the right point that


we should be sending help to the regions where it is most needed. I


think it would have been better if the Government had come with an oral


statement to the House on this issue, rather than putting it in a


written statement just as we are about to seize sitting and it is of


considerable interest to the House. But when we discuss this in the


House the night the fabric, -- on the ninth of fabric, the Government


had in the official report or statement in the Commons that


McQuaid, local authorities told as they have capacity for about 400


asylum seeking unaccompanied children until the end of this


financial year, that been 2016-17. And I asked the noble lady the


minister what capacity have local authorities told the Government they


have for unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the next


financial year? Namely 2017-18. On the basis that the current level of


Government funding is continued. I did not get a direct reply to that


question I asked. She has said the Government has been in constant


touch with local authorities, so can the minister gives the figure? What


capacity have local authorities told the Government they have for


unaccompanied asylum seekers and children in the next financial year,


namely this one, 2000 7-18, on the basis that the current level of


Government funding is continuing? As I outlined... As my right on both


run in the Other Place outlined in the written ministerial statement


yesterday, the capacity for the section 67 children is 480. In terms


of future commitments, obviously, we are ours from dissolution, so I


cannot make any future declarations at the dispatch box, much as I would


want to, those figures will be forthcoming should we be successful


in the general election. She says that there are 4000 children in


foster care. Are these 4000 asylum seeking unaccompanied youngsters to


be voted on? 4000 asylum seeking children? An issue about that of the


children dispersed in France, the 600 have made their way back to


Calais because they have been most not accepted in a very friendly way?


I'm not sure why children who had been accepted for local authority


accommodation here would want to go back to Calais. I'm sure there are


various reasons for that. To France. Sorry, I've slightly misheard the


tenet of the noble Lord's question you asked if 4000 unaccompanied


children in local authority care in this country, and there are, and


other children who were not eligible for either Dubs or Dublin have been


dispersed within France. My Lords, in these debates which we have on


the issue, the focus is almost exclusively on local authorities,


suggesting they are the only and best providers. Is that the case and


if so what is the arrangement by which other providers can link into


the system in order to increase the numbers of places available? I'm


glad my noble friend asked that question because the one thing the


government has been keen to promote is the community sponsorship scheme


which the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken part in in Lambeth Palace,


to take Syrian families and indeed in my own local authority of


Trafford we also have the community sponsorship scheme and I never let


the time pass up without encouraging noble lord who might know any


community sponsors who might be willing to come forward to take


families. My Lords, on Monday I advised the house that subject to


the progress of business we hoped to prorogue when today's business was


completed. The timing of prorogation today will depend on the time this


house takes to complete its business which is a course in the hands of


the house itself. We will adjourn and after we have considered the


motion in the name of Lord Clarke of Windermere and then resume for the


Royal commission. I anticipate this will not be for the -- before the


middle of the afternoon but when times are more certain we will


indicate them. Finally my Lords, I should alert the house to some


breaking news. We now have dates for state opening. On Monday the 19th of


June. And for the first meeting of parliament on Thursday the 13th and


Wednesday, I'm sorry, I'm getting the days muddled! These are a little


unusual as noble Lords will note. Tuesday the 13th and Wednesday the


14th of June the house will meet for the purposes of swearing in. I


understand the house authorities will shortly be issuing a Lords


notice confirming the arrangements for state opening and disillusion


including the use of the facilities of the house. The third reading of


the local ordered public access to documents Bill, Baroness eaten. My


Lords I beg to move that this bill now be read a third time.


The question is, that this Bill be now read a third time, as many of


that will -- that opinion say content, the content is have it. The


question is that this build now pass, as many of that opinion say


content, the country not content, the contents have it. The third


reading of the merchant shipping such conduct Bill. I beg to move


that this Bill be read a third time. The question is that this Bill be


read a third time. The contents habit. My lord I beg to move that


this Bill now pass. The question is that this Bill now pass. The


contents have it. The third reading chip of the guardianship missing


Persons Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. The


question is that this Bill be read a third time. The contents have it. My


lord I beg to move that this Bill now pass. The question is that this


Bill do now pass. The contents habit. The third reading of the


barriers registration Bill. I beg to move that this bill be read a third


time. The question is that this Bill be read a third time. The contents


habit. My lord I beg to move that this Bill now do pass. The question


is that this Bill now do pass. The contents have it. Consideration of


commons wheezing and a moment to the higher education and research Bill.


The question is, I apologise that the Commons reason and amendment be


now considered. The contents have it. Motion A, Viscount Younger.


I beg to move motion A that this house do not insist on it amendment


one and do agree with the Commons in their amendments one A, one B, once


the and one D in new. I would like to say that I'm pleased to return to


the higher education research Bill which has been strengthened in this


house by the attention and expertise shown by noble Lords. Turning first


to the amendments, there has been much debate and discussion about the


importance of interlinked to protect both institutional autonomy and use


of the term University. In particular noble Lord Lord Stevenson


and Lord Kerslake and the noble Baroness is, Lady Woolf, Lady Brown


and Lady Gardner spoke eloquently at the committee stage about the


importance of ensuring there is proper protection in place and as a


result your door sips agreed amendment one. -- your Lordships. We


agreed with many of the sentiments behind the amendment, to continue to


protect institutional autonomy and responded with a significant package


of amendments designed to provide robust and meaningful protection of


this important principle, so vital to the success of our higher


education sector. Today the government proposes further


amendments to continue to protect the value and trepidation of the


University title and I am pleased to report that these amendments were


agreed yesterday in the other place. Our amendments ensure that before


permitting the use of University title, the office for students must


have regard to factors in guidance given by the Secretary of State.


Further to that, before giving the guidance, the Secretary of State


must consult bodies that represent higher education providers and


students and any other appropriate person. This will ensure the


guidance is correctly focused. Let me also reassure noble lord that


this consultation will be full and abroad. It will reference processes


and practices overseas, for example in Australia, and provide an


opportunity to look at a broad range of factors to consider before


granting the University title. This may include factors such as track


record in excellent teaching, sustained scholarship, cohesive


academic communities, interdisciplinary approaches,


supported learning infrastructures, dissemination of knowledge, public


facing role of universities, academic freedom and freedom of


speech, and wider support for students and pastoral care. These


factors chime with the comments on the definition of a university given


by my honourable friend the Minister in the other place and he has said


previously, in a limited sense a university can be described as


predominantly a degree level provide up with rewarding powers and if we


want a broader definition, we can say that the university is also


expected -- expected to be an institution that brings together a


body of scholars to book eight cohesive and self-critical academic


community that provides excellent learning opportunities for people,


the majority of whom are studying to degree level or above. We expect


teaching at such an institution to be informed by a combination of


research, scholarship and professional practice. To


distinguish it from what we conventionally understand the school


's role to be, we can say that the University is a place where students


are developing higher analytical capacities, critical thinking,


curiouser Diabate the world and higher levels of abstract capacity


in their thinking. -- curiosity in the world. The strength of the


university sector is based on its diversity and we continue to


recognise that a one size fits all approach is not in the interests of


students and wider society and particularly small providers that


are right the creative arts, agriculture and theology have a lot


more students with highly specialised career aims the


opportunity to study at university. As we said in the White Paper, and


throughout the passage of this Bill, the diversity of the sector and


opportunities for students have grown as a result of the important


changes introduced by the Labour government in 2004, namely the


lifting of the requirement for universities to have student in five


subject areas and award research degrees. We do not expect to go back


on the specific changes that were made. Turning to the teaching


excellence framework, I would like to thank noble Lord again for the


constructive engagement and consideration in particular the


noble Lord Lord Kerr slick and the noble Lord Lord Blunkett for the


time and energy they have put into this issue -- Lord Kerr 's lake. We


all agree students deserve high quality teaching and need access to


clear information as they make one of the most important decisions of


their lives so far. The crux of our debate has always focused on the


operation of the TEF and without financial incentives it would not


focus on teaching and help students make better choices and that is why


we are proposing to remove the two amendments this house previously


voted in which would render the TEF unworkable but it was clear from our


previous debate that no blood remained concerned about the


operation of the TEF and the link between it and fees -- noble Lords


remained concerned. We have listened to concerns raised and I'm delighted


to be able to put before this house is a set of amendments which I


believe directly address the most fundamental concerns raised during


our previous debates. I'm pleased to endorse amendment 23 C which


requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of


the TEF within one year of the clause commencing. Crucially the


amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay this report before


Parliament. This will ensure greater parliamentary accountability for the


framework as it moves forward. The report itself must cover many of the


aspects that have concerned members of this house and the other place


including firstly whether the metrics used are fit for use in the


TEF, secondly if the names of the ratings are appropriate for use,


thirdly the impact of the TEF on the ability providers to carry out their


research in teaching and other continents and finally an assessment


of whether the scheme is, all things considered, in the public interest.


I am happy to repeat the commitment made in the other place that the


Secretary of State will take account of the review and if he or she


considers it appropriate, will provide guidance to the OFS


accordingly included on any changes to the scheme that the review


suggests are needed, whether in relation to the metrics or any of


the other items that the review will look at. We have also had concerned


about the impact of the link between TEF and fees. We recognise the


important role of parliament in setting feed caps and that is why


I'm also pleased to seek your support for our amendments 12 a, B,


F and G, which meant the polity procedure required to alter in lieu


limit amounts to ensure any regulations that raise fees would be


septic as a minimum to the authority procedure which provide a greater


level polity oversight and the current legislation. But the more


these amendments demonstrate our commitment to a considered roll-out


of differentiated fees. Amendments in lieu 12 C and B will delay the


link between differentiating TEF ratings and tuition fee caps so this


will not be introduced over three years with the first year of


differentiated fees as a result of TEF ratings being no earlier than


the academic year beginning of autumn 2020. I would like to clarify


this point as I know that it is slightly complex.


Until August 2020 there will be no different show -- differentiation of


fee uplift. The fee cap will not differ according to the different


ratings they might be afforded. These amendments mean that until


that point or English providers participating in TEF will receive


the full inflation rate uplift, regardless of their rating. It will


be up to devolved administrations as before to determine whether they are


content for their institutions to participate in TEF and what impact


participation may have on their fees. So in practice, this means


that differentiated fees will not be introduced until after the


independent review as reported to the Secretary of State and


Parliament. I would therefore like to reiterate and reassure this House


today by repeating the commitment made by the minister for


universities in the Other Place yesterday that the ratings awarded


this year will not be used determine differentiated fees unless a


provider chooses not to re-enter TEF after the independent review.


Therefore, this year's ratings will only count towards a differentiated


fees if after the review, the provider does not ask for a fresh


assessment before the next one is due. An opportunity that will be


open to all participants. Before moving to our other amendments,


would like to reiterate to this House that we remain committed to


ensuring that the TEF will evolve to assess the teaching of quality at


subject level as well as institutional level. I know that


many noble lords feel very strongly, as we do, that the move to subject


level needs to happen as quickly as possible. However, we recognise that


subject level assessments are more challenging and that is why the


Government has previously announced an extension to the roll-out of


subject level TEF with an additional year of piloting. This follows the


best practice demonstrated in the research excellence framework and


means that subject level assessments will not take place until spring


2020. I beg to move. The question is that motion let a be agreed to. I


rise to speak to motion letter a. The Lords amendment defined the


functions of the University essentially protecting the use of


university title by describing the characteristics of an organisation


which can be granted such title. The several purposes of this amendment


included ensuring institutions called link themselves universities


engaged in scholarship, both as part of student learning, learning that


would take place in an environment where disciplines meet and melt, and


that universities would recognise the special place they hold in


society by contributing to our society not only by teaching and


dissemination of knowledge but also for example by partnering with


charities, schools and colleges, local, regional initiatives, to


deliver a benefit well beyond their immediate staff and students.


International research clearly demonstrates the impact that engaged


universities can have on local communities. Many other countries,


including for example Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, the Canadian


provinces, Germany, Spain and India have a definition of university or


or its functions and activities in legislation. So an overarching


objective of the Lords amendment was to protect the reputation of


universities in this country, going beyond the situation in the bill


when the OFS might consent to the institutions' use of the university


title if that institution were a registered higher education


provider. I think this would have community to the world, and I think


that is particularly important at a time when we are leaving be you,


that are higher education system is open for expansion and innovation,


but that university title in England is not given easily. It would tell


potential students about the sort of institution and learning environment


that they should expect from a university, and I think it would


also encourage new entrants to the sector.


I appreciate that the Government has worked to ensure that university


autonomy is a strong feature of the bill but I'm disappointed elsewhere.


However, I'm reassured that the Government amendments in the Other


Place, in view of the Lords amendment, required the OFS to have


regard to factors set out in guided by the secretary of the state by


awarding the university title and I'm pleased that the Secretary of


State will consult on these factors. Indeed, I'm strongly welcoming of


the comments by the minister for universities' science, research and


innovation in the Other Place yesterday. That is about the


consultation being full and brought and about the type of factors that


would be included in the consultation. I agree that this is


an approach which can deliver both widely supported and strong guidance


for the office the students, with criteria to award the university


title. So I would like to record my thanks to the ministers and their


team and I would just like to put one final question to the noble


Viscount, the minister, today. In the week that we have heard that


China has sent senior Government officials into its leading


universities because of concerns over Government criticism and


westernisation, does he not think that it would have been a great


message for us to have been positively encouraging, if not


insisting, that universities act as critics of Government and the


conscience of society, as the Lords amendment also suggested? My Lords,


I should first declare my interest as chair of the Board of Governors


of Sheffield Hallam University. I should also record that the Vice


Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam, Chris husbands, has been leading


work on incrimination of the teaching excellence framework on


behalf of the Government. -- implementation. It falls to me to


lead the response on the set of governments amendments in motion B


and D. It is important to say that this part of the bill has been


subject to many contributions during debates. From the start, it has been


clear that there has been general support for the Government's decide


to raise the profile importance accorded to teaching in our


universities. That has not been a point of issue. There has also been


a general understanding that fees will over time need to rise with


inflation. The concerns have been with the Government's approach to


introducing TEF at the link being made between the TEF and increases


in fees. In particular, that the TEF was being introduced with undue


haste, that the gold, silver, bronze rankings being put forward by both


inappropriate and potentially damaging to the sector. And that the


TEF was not the right basis for allowing differential fee increases.


The amendments now being put forward by the Government in place of our


amendments I think go a considerable way to addressing those strong


concerns. As the minister has said, the review will be independently led


and must cover the process by which the ratings are determined, whether


the metrics are fit for purpose, whether the classification is


awarded are appropriate, what the impact of the scheme will be on


higher education providers, and whether the TEF is in the public


interest. By any measure, that is a comprehensive review, and we will


all await with interest the outcome. It is essential that any future


Secretary of State takes full account of its findings and


recommendations. All above tests are important. But I would place to give


emphasis on the review of the rankings and the public interest


test. In this context, there is one point that I would like the minister


did horrify, and I have notified the minister's office in advance -- I


would like the minister to clarify. I would be grateful if the minister


could confirm that it will be open to a review to say that we should


either stay within the current rankings, propose an alternative set


of rankings, or indeed conclude that ranking of universities of any sort


is simply not appropriate in what is a very diverse sector. I look


forward to the minister's response. The ability to differentiate


increases linked to the TEF has not been removed from the bill as we


proposed. But the Government's amendment will delay any


differentiation until at least the academic year 2020-21, and as the


minister has said, this will allow time for the review to be completed,


and its conclusions properly considered. And in the meantime, it


is something that all sides of the House supported, existing


universities involved in the process will get the full inflationary


uplift. I believe this is a significant and very welcome move by


the Government, and I know that it has not been likely conceded. There


remains, though, the issue of publication of the results of the


trial TEF assessment process. I understand, although it would be


helpful for the minister to confirm, that these results will not now be


published until after the election, when a new ministerial team are in


place. I hope that that new ministerial team will consider very


carefully how the issue of publication should be handled,


particularly given the implication that TEF will be subject to a wide


ranging view. I set at committee stage that I could not think of


anyone better placed to lead the work on the TEF and Chris husbands.


That firmly remains my view. He and his fellow assessors have applied


themselves diligently and fairly to the task they were given. The fault


here, I fear, lay in the way that they were commissioned by the


Government to undertake the task. The independent review and the delay


will provide an opportunity to get this right. In particular, I think


that the gold, silver and bronze rankings are not long for this


world. I hope that what comes out is a much more sufficient indicated --


sophisticated and evidence -based approach to subjects, as proposed by


a noble lord. Finally, as I am unlikely to speak again in this


debate, I would like to pay tribute to peers on this side of the House


for their valuable work in reviewing and amending this bill, to the noble


lord Lord Stevenson and two lady Garden and to others in this House


for being both willing to listen and to respond to our concerns. That is


what this thread should be about. This is still not the bill that we


might have wanted, but it is considerably improved from when it


came into this House. I hope that there will be no further bills on


higher education for a considerable period of time. And the sector will


be given the chance to have the stability it needs to do what it


does best to represent the interests of this country. I share some of the


disappointment accepted by my noble friend Baroness Brown about the


definition of a university. But I take great comfort at a significant


step forward, which may have escaped the attention of some members of the


public, I am extremely grateful to both the minister Joe Johnson and


the noble Viscount Younger, for having listened to those who have


expressed significant concerns about the inroads into freedom of speech


in our universities. And the growth of the most unpleasant racism


expressed in the widespread extent of anti-Semitic activity. I am sure


all members of the House will support me in expressing gratitude


to the two ministers for having understood that and having addressed


it, albeit off the face of the bill. Universities' obligations and


freedom of speech have been extended and all universities have been


reminded by the minister of the definition of anti-Semitism, which


has been adopted internationally. That, I think, is a great step


forward towards repairing the replication of our universities,


which has been suffering internally, if not internationally.


I also take some comfort from the fact that the last president of the


National Union of Students has not been re-elected in part because some


consider some of their remarks have been racist and I believe we are


moving into a new era as far as that is concerned. I would also like to


take this opportunity of saluting Sir Eric Pickles, the government's


envoy for post-Holocaust issues, who joined in the fight to preserve


freedom of speech and stop anti-Semitism and this is very good


news. We will miss him sorely. And finally, especially on these


benches, it has been evident in the discussions about this bill just how


much expertise there is in this house about higher education,


chancellors, vice chancellors, administrators and professors have


all joined in and we have eventually been listened to. I think that goes


to establish the value of the expertise accumulated in this house.


Some of it may be very elderly but there is a great deal of expertise


in higher education and it has come in the end, shone through. My lord


could I firstly draw attention to my declaration of interest on the


register. It is not my intention to repeat the excellent contributions


that have already been made but I would like to put on record my


commendation for Chris husbands, the vice Chancellor of what some


unwisely called the University in which I'm involved, the other


university in Sheffield. His work is of excellent quality and I hope very


much that we will be able to build on that in the years to come. I


would however like to repeat what Lord Kerslake said in terms of what


happens after the general election in ensuring that nothing is done,


particularly in relation to the evaluation in the ratings, that


damages in any way the enormous contribution of the higher education


sector in this country both to the well-being of students themselves


but to our economy and our standing in the world. I think there can be


no doubt after the considerable debates we have had in this house


that there is a deep commitment along with the Minister and the


noble Viscount in hearing this house to improving teaching and to


recognising the critical role of teaching excellence framework going


forward in ensuring that along with the research excellence framework,


it is worth putting on the record at this late stage, there is still a


major tendency to value what will pull in major grants for research


even when the research might be of doubtful value rather than the


importance of balancing the commitment to high-quality teaching


learning with the REF and that is what I'm committed and have said to


Joe Johnson in the Commons and repeat today, a real support for the


endeavour to put teaching very much at the top of the agenda. Could I


also commend the government for having listened. This has been an


exemplar in terms of the way in which we can work across the


different divides politically in this house and beyond, and I hope


that, and I refer now to speculation in the more reliable media, no one


will be punished in any way for having been prepared to listen and


debate. The idea that a minister should not be able to express their


view internally within the government is a disgrace. And I know


that, I don't wish to bring in party political matters, but I know


Conservative MPs are said to call the Prime Minister mummy but I


remember mummy telling me that she heard me once and heard me twice and


didn't want to hear me again but you can't conduct government on that


basis. And therefore whatever happens on the 8th of June, I hope


we will move forward understanding that the spirit of cooperation


create better legislation which is more easily implementable and


received a wider welcome that would otherwise be the case and therefore


achieves is objected also I would like to thank the Minister for his


words, repeating those of Jo Johnson, relating to the move as


rapidly as possible to subject rather than institutional comparator


and I think this is an important part of what we are debating on what


has Amendment 72 morphed into Amendment 23 and is back with is in


a different form today. I also want to say how impressed I've been as a


new member of this house with the crossbench contributions and I


repeat the commendation that Lord Kerslake made rather than going over


them again. I do think that ministers and civil servants have


been of the highest possible calibre in being prepared to listen and


respond and I thank them for it. ... Associate us with the eloquent words


we have heard here. There will inevitably be a measure of


disappointment not all of your Lordships whisper and has been


accepted unequivocally by the other house but we have made immense


strides and we are deeply appreciative of the way in which the


ministers have listened and come forward with proposals here. If I


can pick up one thing about which we are particularly pleased, that there


will be Adelaide in implementing this while there is a review because


there are some key measures within this Bill which do need more


reflection to see if they are the right path to be treading -- there


will be a delay. I think we can appreciate that has been built in


but we appreciate the measures the government has taken to come towards


us on these issues. My Lords, first I should declare an interest as a


full-time employment Council member of Kings College London. I had not


expected to speak in this part of the debate and I will be speaking


again later but since I am on my feet I would also like to reiterate


and agree with everybody who has said how much we appreciate the ways


in which the government has listened to opinions and to this house


generally and I also feel we have come a long way. And in this context


and speaking in order to bring back a couple of points that were made in


the earlier debates by the noble duke, the Duke of Wellington, and


myself in the context of amendments table and since the noble duke is


unable to be here this morning, I am going to make them briefly on both


of our behalf is. I think like pretty much everybody here we


welcome strongly the delay in implementing the issue and I would


like to endorse the remarks on this and I'm delighted to hear that we


are moving very fast to a situation where we have sub sect level rather


than institutional level assessments. -- subject level. I


would like to make the point that one of the reasons we became so


concerned about the TEF is putting a label on institutions is potentially


very damaging to it. One of the things which has been to me rather


an eye-opener is the extent to which perhaps inevitably, I have been


rather surprised by the extent to which the sector in the view of


government is the organised universities you get -- universities


UK and at by how few good mechanisms there are for the bill team and the


Department to actually get the voice of students as opposed to


occasionally that of the National unions are students and students


have been desperately concerned about this. They are in a world


where they are paying fees and the reputation of the institutions is so


great and they have been worried and is deeply opposed to anything which


just put a single label on them and I think it is this single national


ranking which caused many concerns. Therefore what I would like to say


is a couple of things which are really for the incoming secretary of


state and government and Minister which I hope they will bear in mind.


The first is something which other people have already alluded to, the


fact that we have a pilot going on and a system of graves which is


going on and I understand it is underweight and there are enormous


lessons to be learned from it but I very much hope that after the


election the government will think very hard about how they use that


information and publish it and whether or not they are in any sense


obliged to come forward with the type of single rank National League


table which has caused so much anxiety to students. And I do think


that it is of great concern and it is hard to see how this serves the


purpose which is also expressed in the current Conservative manifesto


of preserving the reputation of our great university sector. The other


thing which I do feel is something I would love the incoming government


to think about is how to widen out their contacts with not just the


organised sector, not just universities UK, but with the


academics and students who are really what the sector is about. We


have great universities not because we have activist managerial vice


chancellors but because they are autonomous in large measure


internally as well as these are the weak state and that is a real


concern and since you are going to have an office for students, it


would be very good if post election we could actually make it genuinely


an office for students. Thank you. My Lords, this is a very big Bill


and I share the feeling of Lord in lieu that is perhaps one we will not


seek for a long time to come and we should enjoy what we are seeing. I


think we should bear in mind that this bill attracted over 700


amendments and has resulted at the latest count in 31 major concessions


made by the government to the voices raised both in the other place but


particularly here in relation to some of these issues. The noble


Baroness was right to reflect on the fact that we have in the Kvist


although impotent is indeed the end of the process rather than the whole


process -- in front of us is important. In the list of things


that have moved in the bill that are important aspect not just freedom of


speech which is tremendously important but also measures which


will improve collaboration in the sector and will help reverse the


decline in part-time students and will assist those mature students


who wish to come back and paves the way for more working if they are


going out of flexible causes. These are more changes to the


infrastructure of the higher education system and will make it


better and have not been picked up today because they were dealt with


early in the process but they are important as have not been


forgotten. We also do not have anything today about the UK are eye


and the developments in that area which is to change radically the


consensus operating in science and research more generally -- in the UK


RI. It is important to reflect the changes went through after debate


and discussion after some minor adjustment but not many primarily


because there was an effort made to make sure that the words being used


to describe the changes made were understood properly and a lot of


time was spent in going around talking to people and make sure they


were happy with that. This whole process has been -- is an example of


what this house is good at, which should be more widely developed


within the political debate, that there is room for civilised debate


and discussion about every issue, it does not have to be party political,


it can be small p political but it can aim to arrive at a better


overall solution and I am sure what we're achieving today has ticked the


box on all these areas. The four motion introduced by the noble


Viscount the Minister which I'm grateful to him before and he spent


time, having been warned by us not to spend so much time on his feet,


be time for that as ended and was necessary to go through that process


but we have all benefited from it because these words are important in


understanding the changes made at relatively high speed in the last


few days in order to get this bill to a point where it could pass


through both houses so I'm grateful to him for that and I think his


words are important and as far as I could tell they were the same as


those used in the other place, close reading of Hansard might be required


but I'm confident that this ability is there to make sure women right


place. On the definition at university I have confidence that is


what is now in the statute will get us to appoint that will reach out to


a point which will allow us to have a better understanding it


constitutes a university which will be of benefit to us both internally


in the UK and On the TEF which has been the main


issue, the main concern, three points. I think it is important that


we pick out the flurry of amendments that the main factor that this is


that together Parliament retains a lock on how the TEF will be


delivered and the design and the implementation. I think that is


important, partly because of the way in which the review will work but


partly also because of the change to an affirmative regulation of


unnecessary regulations of this. I think that is good and I welcome


that. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the focus that may be


behind it in relation to course level issues. I wonder if I could


just ask the Minister if he can reflect a little on that. I don't


think this is an Iva- or, is that the less that can be said about an


institutional measure and the more that can be said on what is actually


going on in the courses and subjects taught in university, the battle


that will be and I wonder if he would like to confirm that that is,


at least in part with the government is also trying to get to because


that will take a lot the heat out of the issues that remain in this area.


On the issue of the of the pilot result, which was touched on by Lord


Kerslake, there are questions about that and I look forward to hearing


the responses. It seems to mirror reflecting on the issues we have in


front of us that way you are committing to carry out a review of


this is you, digging up the trains and examining how these uses are put


together, reflecting on how it is presented, how it appears in public,


I think it would be injudicious to make too much of an issue about the


publication of the pilots, which are only pilots, which we all know are


not perfect and not the way that this thing runs in the long run. It


would be helpful if more could be said on this point. My Lords, there


is a fourth motion, I think it is a technical one, it wasn't referred to


much by the noble Lord the minister but it is consequential on


amendments to affirmative regulations and affects the rather


narrow issue, the question of accelerated degrees, where an


institution wishes to complete in a shorter period of time than is


conventional in this case, the course or degree it is teaching,


that it will be possible for it to raise fees to compensate for that. I


think this is probably a good thing but I wonder if, when it comes to


responding that you can confirm that these amendments do not affect the


good progress we're making on trying to make a more flexible system


available in higher education will encourage people to come in, take


part in the course, go out and work, come back, all the flexibility that


goes with credit transfer and flexible courses should not be


debarred because course fee structures are being inflexible. My


Lords, I would like to make a Fisher brief comments in response to those


contributors to this short debate. Can I just start by agreeing with


the comments made by the noble Lord Lord Stevenson and 2-mac about the


spirit in which this bill has been taken to the House. I agree with


pretty much everything the noble Lord has said. I would like to start


by addressing some points made by baroness Lady Brown, particularly in


terms of protecting university title. I would like to thank once


again the noble Lords for the active engagement around new clause one and


in particular the noble Baroness for making such strong arguments for the


need to protect the value of University title. We recognise the


need for strong protections, which is reflected in our amendment in


you. The noble Baroness Lady Brown also asked about universities asking


as critics of government -- acting of critics. There was a mention of


China. I agree that universities and stuff must have proper freedoms to


question and test perceived wisdom. And to put forward new ideas and


controversial or unpopular opinions. Which is why we have ensured that


these continue to be enshrined in legislation and the public interest


government 's conditions which will be imposed on only registered


providers as the UFS considers appropriate, it's important at this


late stage in the bill to reemphasise this and I thank the


noble Baroness for that. I would like to thank Lord Dursley for the


progress made on the TEF. I would like to respond to him and reassure


the noble Lord Lord blanket. Lord Kerslake asked of the independent


review would be open to amending the existing rankings, a different set


of rankings on a system of ranking at all. I'm pleased to give the


noble Lords of this House the categorical answer that yes, the


independent review is required by our amendment which leads us to


consider whether those names are appropriate. The review is also


required to consider whether such schemes are in the public interest


and other matters that they consider relevant. The independent reviewer


would therefore be free to describe the matters described by the noble


Lords so I hope that answers that question. The noble Lord Lord


Kerslake and the noble Lord Lord blanket asked if the trial results


of TEF would not be published until after the election and I can confirm


that the Higher Education Funding Council will publish this's TEF


results after the general election on eighth June. I would like to say


briefly some thanks to the noble Baroness Lady Deitch for kind


comments about the important issues of freedom of speech and more


generally for the considerable contribution and she has made


personally on these important issues. Moving on to courses which I


think the noble Lord Lord Stevenson raised, absolutely, it is desirable


to move towards the assessment of courses, because as we know,


students when they are looking at which university to go to, look, or


perhaps they should look, thinking of my own children, at what causes


are most suitable for them, that is a desirable way forward and doesn't


mean that the full spotlight is on the focus themselves which I suggest


is the gist of the questions about is very much the spirit of what I'm


aiming to do. The noble Lord Lord blanket praised Chris husbands and I


would like to say that I do agree indeed that Chris Husband has made a


significant contribution towards the TEF and I want to thank noble Lord


Lord blanket as well for his contributions to this debate and


praise for the TEF chair. The noble Baroness Lady Woolf raised some


points about not publishing the results of this your's ratings. I


would like to point out that the first TOWIE assessments are well


under way, and almost 300 providers, I think it's actually 299, opted to


participate, fully aware that by participating they would receive the


ratings, so they would be published. I should make that clear in terms of


the point that she raised. I do believe that I have covered, there


is one final point that I would like to cover raised by the noble Lord


Lord Stevenson. He asked if this affects the ability for flexible


learning and I can confirm that they do not. So we do agree with him


about the importance of flexible learning. And with that my Lords I


beg to move. The question is that the motion may be agreed to do. As


many that are in agreement say content, the contrary say not


content, the contents have it. The motion may be moved formerly. The


question is that motion brother Mike B agreed to, those in favour say


content, those against sin not content. My Lords I beg to move


motion C that this has agrees with the Commons in the amendments of 15


A and 15 B in lieu. Turning to the issue of appeals against revocation


of degree awarding powers and University title. We introduced


amendments during the passage of the bill in this house which provide


additional safeguards around the revocation of degree awarding powers


and University title. By clearly setting out when these powers can be


used. This was in recognition when these are last resort powers,


amendments were also passed relating to appeals against such decisions.


But report stage in this House the noble and learned and Lord Lord


Judge and others advanced compelling arguments about the need for strong


appeals provisions in cases where a provider's degree awarding powers


title revoked. Including the first we take tribunal to take the


decision. We absolutely agree that the powers in this respect need to


be subjected to the right safeguards so I am pleased to say that the


other place has agreed these amendments in lieu, amendment 78 a


278 age. The same aims as a Lords amendment 78 and 106 but would align


the wording more closely with that used elsewhere in the legislation.


The amendments allow an appeal on a limited grounds and permit the first


tier tribunal to retake any decision of the OS as to revoke degree


awarding powers or University title. I would like to thank the noble and


learned and Lord Lord Judge along with the noble Baroness Lady Felix


Abril powers of the committee for the time, energy and expertise that


they have put into the scrutiny of this bill. Moving to the issue of


student electoral registration, in both this House and the other place,


we have heard powerful and convincing arguments about the


importance of student electoral registration. I do commend the noble


Baroness 's Lady Royal and Lady Garden and other noble lords who


have spoken eloquently on this issue. We all agree that


participation in the democratic process by all parts of society is


vital for a healthy democracy. We have thought carefully about the


issues raised both in this place and the other place. In place of the


amendment passed on this issue at report stage I'm pleased to invite


this House to agreed amendments 15 A- 15 B in lieu, which will improve


the electoral registration of students. The amendments to this by


permitting the UART FS two compose a process of registration which will


require governing bodies to take steps required by the U FS to


facilitate cooperation with the bodies in England. The amendment


replaces requirement within the new regulatory frame network while


equally importantly maintaining an altered the statutory roles and


responsibilities of ER ohs for ensuring the accuracy of the


register. These amendments will complement the existing powers of


the Euros. The UFS will have regard to ministerial guidance, is sued


under the general laws of the bill. This layout of the government


expects in relation to the electoral registration condition alongside


expectations about the other function of the UART FS. In using


the term co-operation in the amendment we anticipate that the


ministerial guidance will state that is part of this corporation Mac that


the URI FS should require providers to facilitate student electoral


registration. We also anticipate that the guidance will state that


providers will cooperate with ERos for purposes of maintaining the


accuracy of electoral registers. There are many excellent examples


across the sector of methods to encourage students to join the


electoral register including models put in place by the universities of


Sheffield and Cardiff which provide examples of good practice. I also


wish to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness Lady Royal


for championing this issue and recognising the work that she and


others have taken forward on registration at the University of


Bath. Through our amendments the URL as well have power to impose an


electoral registration condition to deal with higher education providers


not doing enough to cooperate with administrators. When imposed the


commission takes effect as their requirement. It will oblige action


to be taken. The clear rain is whether you are FS to look across


the sector and when needed to make sure that necessary action is taken.


The committee than Compal steps to be taken so that registration can be


facilitated. Noncompliance as with any registration condition is


possible including from you FS sanctions and I want to reiterate


our commitment that the ability of students to register to vote should


be as broad and strong as possible. To conclude, my Lords, the


government shares the aim of increasing the number of students


among young people registered to vote. We agree with the noble Lords


that it is vital that we have a healthy democracy that works for


everyone and the views of students and young people are reflected in a


democratic process. My Lords I believe that this amendment will


help achieve this goal and I beg to move.


The question is seen would be agreed to. -- Motion C. I speak to motion


at the very briefly. The original bill produced an appeal system that


was far too narrow. The Amendment proposed by the Lords and myself


suggested it should be wider. We used words which were reflective of


advocacy rather than law. We argued that the ground of appeal should be


on the basis of the decision being wrong. That view appealed to this


House. We have reconsidered it am a we have discussed it with the


secretary of state and the Minister. The Amendment now proposed by the


Government makes much better lot and in those circumstances I support the


Government's amendments. Villa my Lords, I declare my interest as the


register and I am very grateful to the Government for tabling


amendments a and 15 B and I put on record my specific things to the


ministers Joe Johnson and Chris Skidmore along with her officials


for their time and their willingness to find a compromise following the


adoption by this House of my Amendment. This issue of advocacy by


my honourable friend, who has done much work on the registration of


students to vote and by organisations like Catt ballot, the


voice and use of Association of the lecture ministers was very upland


selecting my case and I have to say the chief executive John Turner


expressed some surprise that the Minister suggested at the report


states that the association did not take a positive view. It is divided


on the issue, but I trust they will now do everything possible to ensure


all universities comply with this new requirement, this new


obligation, at the earliest opportunity. I well understand that


we all have the same aim to enable the greatest number of students to


register to vote and will shape the future of this country so it works


for the future of young people. It will probably not be possible for


ministerial guidelines to be published before the enrollment of


students this autumn, so I hope that whatever minister is in office will


draw attention of higher education institutions to best practice that


exists, for example that has been cited today and I am very proud of


what Bass has done in this in these endeavors. Could the Minister... I


am very grateful to the Minister for the just and in the guidance, very


welcome, but I wonder if he could say when the guidance is likely to


be published and also when the Government, if it is the


Conservative government, might expect higher education institutions


to comply with the new obligations, because while smooth might not have


another general election for perhaps five years, there will be local


Government elections in May 2018 and it's my fervent hope that all


institutions would have a system in place by then. My Lords, I read a


rate my thanks and I look forward to working with the next Government to


ensure that maximum number of students registered to vote, so not


only their voices are heard, but their views are expressed in the


ballot box, thus enabling them to exert maximum influence that they


should in the Democratic life of this country. As it won't speak


again on this particular bill, I also think the way in which all


benches have cooperated and collaborated on this bill has been


extraordinary and very, very welcome. To be partisan and just for


a moment, I have to say a great thanks goes to my normal friend Lord


Stevenson and the support he is received from Molly Critchley. I


miss my noble friend will be stepping down from the front bench


shortly and I think he has done the most superb job am a notch as for


the Labour benches but for the House as a whole. I look forward to


working with him on the back benches. Thank you, my Lords. And I


very really add support, having been a staunch supporter of this


Amendment, and in trying to engage young people in the importance of


voting and elections? I think this is a very valuable step in pointing


out to enable them to get involved in the university level. Once again,


grateful for the Amendment which has come in from the Government. If I


may say, if we are trying to involve young people in voting, wouldn't it


be wonderful if we could now think of lowering the voting age to 16 to


allow more of them to do so? The Amendment in this motion was regards


to the appeals system is, I think, greatly improved, as my noble friend


Lord judge has said and I am delighted that this has happened,


because I think it is of vital importance in relation to the very,


very serious matters that the Office for Students has power to deal with.


My Lords, I want to thank the ministers and I include in this


particular thanks Lord Young for a reason which I will explain in a


moment, and also the Minister in the comments for the very kind way in


which various reactions of mine to this extremely important bill have


been handled. Lords, I want to mention one particular matter which


does not arise especially under this motion, but from my point of view,


it's rather important. When the noble Baroness Lady Brown raised the


issue with regards to the new power to search the headquarters of higher


education providers, she indicated that this new power was something


that the higher at education suppliers anticipated with some


apprehension. In response to that, my noble friend read out the


statutory requirements before such a war could be granted in schedule


five of the bill. And I ventured to suggest, I had listened to a lot of


this in and without, particularly talking myself, but on this


particular occasion it occurred to me that one of the assurances that


the academic community were entitled to get was that these particular


restrictions, which are quite powerful and important, would be


definitely the subject of consideration by the magistrate. And


I suggested that the magistrate should sign a document to that


effect. I got a letter almost immediately, which is still on the


website, to say that such a thing was unheard of and I thought, well,


in that case, it's 20 years since I handed over with confidence my


responsibilities for this part of what is now the Ministry of Justice


to my noble successor, so it is a long time since I dealt with this


particular thing directly. But that is what I was told. I thought, in


that case, the thing to do is to alter the words of the word to make


it clear that the war in carries that with that. And that was


objected to for all sorts of reasons, which are lordships may


remember, and some of them were put forward by my noble friend Lord


Young at the report stage. I felt rather strongly about it, as he


recognised, and he kindly said that he would consider it further at the


full report stage, which gave me an opportunity, which otherwise I


wouldn't have had, to raise the matter at report stage. I was still


very insistent on this because I couldn't see any objection to it and


I'm greatly obliged to the Minister in the comments, Ian Johnson, for


raging at the last minute that I would get a chance to deal directly


with the Ministry of Justice, from which the objections to my


amendments were coming. -- for arranging. In that afternoon, I was


able to meet the official in the department, the Ministry of Justice,


and that part of it for which I say I used to have long-ago


responsibility, and he eventually told me that in fact, the procedure


for dealing with warrants had now been altered by orders of the Lord


Chief Justice, particularly in criminal cases, so at the end of the


application for the war and, strangely enough, there is a place


for the magistrate to indicate whether or not he or she agrees that


the war and should be granted and if so what the reasons are for their


decision. And he said that he thought this was probably the


general tract is in relation to warrants, because this is not a


criminal warrant under this bill, in relation to warrants in the


magistrate court. Am I know about -- noble friend did in fact say that


that was the position when we came to move the motion on the third


reading. I want therefore to express my gratitude to the ministers and


also the team, the build team from the Department for Education, for


their kind treatment of me in connection to this and other matters


as well. But I do think that it is important that, where a ministry


other then the Minister directly responsible for the bill, gives the


advice to block an Amendment coming from somebody who, after all, is


thought of as a Government supporter, should be blocked, in a


way that depends on their expertise and for which, with all respect to


Mr Johnson's rate for righty of imminence, he wouldn't be


particularly interested in the magister 's courts procedure for a


warrant. So it's nothing really to do with him. It is similarly for my


nubile friend -- noble friend,, it is damaging way of damaging your


colleagues without apparently much responsibility and my qualifications


therefore for thanks in relation to the work that has been done behind


the scenes here is modified to an extent by that particular matter


which I think the ministers responsible for the bill have a


right to have it made clear that it was nothing to do with them and it's


come from a source for which they have only the responsibility of


being in the one Government. I was going to intervene on this point


because I think the case for excepting the amendments have been


made very strongly by Baroness were real and Lord judge, but this has


put me in mind of two things I thought we should share with the


House. First of all, the noble lord has been quite active on this bill


on a narrow issue and therefore I have got to know him better and he


kindly shared with me a speech he gave recently at a rather arcane


group of people who seem to be interested in the Minister does a


lot, a matter I'm sure the Lord goes to ever be, but the first time I


heard of it. They debate series important issues. His address was


about the quality of legislation going through your Lordship's house.


I recommended to all noble Lords, because I observed a little of what


he has said, and she has been... When the annals of this Parliament


are written up, I hope there is space for this little vignette of


persistence over every other aspect of life, which have resulted in a


terrific results. They didn't quite give the nuance that he thought he


was going to end up with that I just want to share that with the House


because there weren't many of us there late at night when this was


finally resolved, but it is worth bearing in mind. The Lord makes the


point that, very often in considering legislation, there is a


mentality that sits in on the building which is called the tyranny


of the bill, and the tyranny of the bill is an article of faith which is


that the bill must be right, and it must be right because the people who


put it together has spent most of their professional lives working on


this piece of legislation, particularly in the case of higher


education, they are not going to give up a,, let alone a word or a


phrase, without considerable resistance. Any praise avidly backed


legislation in both houses and get around that and I mention this point


because we found this a lot of times that the results that we are seeing


today, they weren't always... Perhaps I shouldn't have done, but I


did say because I mentioned it at the time and I thought of that, that


we were in a spirit of cooperation trying to get a better legislation.


It didn't feel like that at the time. Certainly not on day one of


the committee, when we had every chance to compromise on the issue,


the Minister offered the chance to take away the issue and look at it


every conceivable reason to say no every conceivable reason to say no


and I don't think that was to the benefit of the bill. But the point


that the Lord was making was that he was blocked at every attempt to get


this very sensible measure through, a measure which he is, he was too


kind to say it, but he knew a lot more about it than probably anybody


else on the planet, and they still said he was wrong, but he persisted


but and got it to the point where it was agreed, but it was agreed in a


slightly craven way, which is the point I want to make. The front


bench still resisted the need to amend the bill to reflect the know


-- noble lordLord, and they found a way to do it anyway. I'm not sure


that's the best way we make legislation, idly thought that with


you. -- I leave that thought with you.


My Lords I want to make a view brief comments in response to this debate.


Can start by thanking the noble and learned and Lord Lord Judge for his


kind comments and supporting government amendments. We welcome


his support and thank him and also Lord Lisvane for his work and


engagement this issue. I would also like to thank the noble Baroness


Lady Royal for her persistence and passionate commitment to the cause


of student electoral registration including as I said earlier at her


own university, the University of Bath. She asked me when the guidance


on student electoral registration would be published. Can I reassure


her that he ministerial guidance to the U F as will be assured shortly


after it is established. And its guidance to providers will be issued


in mid-2018 in preparation for the move to the new regulatory


frameworks are the sector will have the chance to express its views on


the regulatory framework during the public consultation this autumn. I


listened carefully to the comments made by my noble and learned and


friend, Lord Mackay. Can I say first of all that I thank him for his time


and expertise and engagement on the bill. He was obviously referring


specifically to the matter of the warrants. I would like to apologise


for any misunderstandings that arose through the process to say rather


than being drawn into further debate on the matter I hope he understands


that, although it was somewhat protracted, we as I say got there in


the end. With that, my Lords, I beg to move. That motion C be agreed to,


as many of the opinion is a content, the contrary not content, the


contents have it. Motion D moved formerly. The question is that


motion D be agreed to, those of that opinion is a content, the contrary


not content, the contents have it. Motion E, Viscount Younger. My


Lords, I beg to move motion E that the Lords to agree with the comment


in their - the Commons on the amendment. Our reforms are designed


to make it simply for high-quality providers to contribute to greater


student choice and ensure that our higher education sector remains


innovative and can respond to changing economic demands. We must


be clear that new providers cannot come at the price of lowering the


quality bar. We are committed to protecting the value of English


degrees and throughout the passage of the bill we have added to the


legislative protections to achieve this. At report stage in this house


we have tabled an amendment based on a proposal from the noble Baroness


Lady Woolf requiring the UFS to request advice from a relevant body


on quality standards before awarding powers or revoking them on the


grounds of quality of provision. The rule of the body would be similar to


that of the A 's CDP. The position we are putting in place will build


on the valuable work they have done over the years. For further strength


of this requirement for expert advice in particular this amendment


makes clear that if there's not a designated quality body to carry out


the role the committee that the UFS must establish to carry it out must


feature a majority of members who are not members of UFS. Additionally


in appointing those bodies, their advice must be informed that the


interest listed in the tours, this will ensure good information. This


amendment also makes it clear that the advice must include a view on


whether the provider under consideration can maintain quality


and standards, and in line with the arguments put forward by Lady Woolf,


it requires the UFS to notify the Secretary of State as as soon as


possible after it grants degree awarding powers to a provider who


has not previously delivered a degree course and validation


agreement. So let me be clear that, is the case at the moment, I would


expect the Secretary of State's guidance to the UFS on degree


awarding powers to continue to require that a provider's


eligibility be reviewed if there was any change in its circumstances such


as a murder or a change of ownership. The UFS has powers under


the bill to remove degree awarding powers from a provider whether our


concerns as to the quality and standards of its higher education


provision following such change. I can confirm that we expect the UFS


to seek advice from the relevant body on any such quality concerns


before taking the step of revocation. My Lords, I beg to move.


The question is that motion E B agreed to. I would like to first of


all take the opportunity to thank the government and noble minister


and Minister for higher education sincerely for listening so carefully


and patiently to the arguments that I and many others put forward on


these issues. I would like to follow other noble Lords by saying that


while this has been a grind all parts of the house have found


something to discuss and agree and in that sense it has been, I would


not say enjoyable but certainly an educational and ultimately a


positive process. I would like to repeat that I appreciate the time


that everyone in the Lords is put into this and very much appreciate


the work put in by the team. This clause which I am very happy to see


moving towards the statute book does seem to be slightly ill understood


perhaps outside this chamber, certainly outside this building. I


think it might be worth my while to reiterate some of what I think is


important about it. I would be grateful if the minister would let


me and the house know if he disagrees with anything I am about


to say, not too slowly. It seems to me that one of the major reasons


this bill is so important is that it sets out what is happening in the


sector could, possibly for decades to come. And that is a reason why we


have to take account, both of whether it can provide innovation


and new ideas and allow the sector to move but also whether it's going


to provide guarantees of quality and standards and protect students, many


of whom take out large loans, and the whole country against what is


always possible, which is that some institutions and some people will


not have the interests of the not have the interests of the


country and the sector at heart. And I do think that innovation is a very


important part of it and I would like to also take this opportunity


to welcome in this house the fact that the government has recently


given some money to the new university being established in


Herefordshire which I think is important because of the role it


will play in helping to develop engineering skills and to work with


small businesses and supply chains and I just think that's the sort of


institution we need many more of it and I am really pleased that the


government has given its support. But I think it is also worth


remembering that one of the things that has bothered us very much in


thinking how this bill should go forward is the knowledge that it's


only too easy to create a situation in which institutions arise and gain


access to public funds, whose existence is very hard to justify


and can do enormous harm. And it is not just this country although the


US has given us the largest and most catastrophic bankruptcy is leaving


students stranded. It's after all not long ago that the Home Office


was moving to investigate and shut down higher institution


establishments in this country which were... This part of the bill has


always been enormously important. And I am extremely happy because it


seems to me that one of the things that this clause does is instituted


quality assurance process which focuses the whole attention of the


office the students on a number of critical issues when this is


granting awarding powers and which also clarifies the importance of


independent advice from outside institutions. Again, this is always


important because an institution creates its own understandings and


the world. And I think that the the world. And I think that the


potential strengthening and improvement of the advice which the


UFS will get from outside which will build on the cue a A but will


potentially be more independent and therefore will be both an additional


safeguard and add more to the process, is very, very often. And


the other thing about this clause is that it clarifies the general public


the way in which the government envisages new institutions coming


through and it clearly envisages two pathways, that many people will come


through validation which is a process which is has grown over the


years, but if an institution is to get degree awarding powers from day


one, and this is something of which the Secretary of State must be


aware, noble Lord Willetts earlier pointed out that anything that goes


wrong tends to rant on the desk of the Secretary of State. What seems


to me important here is that we have an extra element, not of formal


accountability but something that will bring into the process is both


a clear ability for the Secretary of State to create a new institution


which has to be awarding powers because this is seen as something


they are capable of from day one but also something in which this process


has to be public and one which cannot slide through. Unobserved. So


really I think this is an area in which we have made enormous progress


and maybe all this would have happened anywhere but I am extremely


happy to see it on the face of the bill. I'd like to finish once more


by expressing my gratitude to everyone who has worked on the bill


and has listened to our concerns and my appreciation of all the comments


and information and hard work that the colleagues in the House across


all benches but it would. And I welcome this amendment. I would like


to endorse everything that the noble lady has said. I want on behalf of


the House to thank her for luck hard work and effort she has put into


securing these changes. This part of the bill in its original form was


the one that gave cause to a great deal of worry, for me the most


worrying of all because in my view it threatened the reputation of


higher education, not only in this country but overseas as well. I


think we are now in a much better place, the only thing that I would


ask is that there is some monitoring of how it works in practice. I think


it is very important that there should be some evaluation to make


absolutely clear to the higher education sector and those who might


want to enter it that there are going to be rigorous tests of both


quality and standards before any quality and standards before any


institution can have degree awarding powers and access to grants and


loans through the system of financial support that we have.


Having said that, I am grateful to the government and the Minister for


bringing forward this amendment because I think it is a huge


improvement to the bill compared with what we had originally. I moved


briefly to intervene to say that at the end of the directions on this


important aspect of the bill, I think we ended with a more rigorous,


more transparent and more demanding regime for alternative providers in


higher education and we have ever had before. I regretted that it was


not possible to get legislation during the previous parliament that


would have gone alongside the initiatives we took that we


certainly have a very significant regulatory regime in place now.


The Baroness has been one of the people pressing for this I would


question one point she has said, she said that the Home Office had closed


down lots of higher education institutions because they were bogus


and didn't need proper standards. I think those were colleges, which you


can call yourself a college and there were people getting into


Britain because they said they were studying at colleges, but there has


always been a regime for validating degree awarding powers. I think


would be dangerous if we get in this House that there have been lots of


bogus higher education institutions, which I don't think has been the


case. The problem was colleges. And even there, the Home Office did get


occasionally over exuberant. At least one college which won a Queens


award was subsequently closed down. They were tried to stop people from


coming to study a vocational qualification in a college, but


setting that point aside, we now have a very rigorous regime and I


hope we will now see the spirit of what Baroness Wolf said practice,


which is that we need innovation in higher education in this country and


although it is great when existing providers innovate, we know in many


sectors the best way to get innovation is for new people coming


in doing things differently, but I hope we can all agree, especially


with his regime in place, we can give a very warm welcome to new


higher education is attuned to this country. From these benches, we


would agree as well that this is the result of the work, we have got a


much better regulatory framework, rigorous tests for degree awarding


powers are important. I was very much taken with the Minister's


comments when he said there should be no lowering of quality in


protecting the value of university degrees. There are private


providers, the majority of private knowledge do a fantastic job. But


let us not kid ourselves that there are still some other colleges, and I


would use the bogus colleges, which, with these new powers, these new


regulations, will not carrying on letting the quality of our


university degrees down and they will not let university students


down. It cannot be right, for example, that a student is enrolled


to do a degree course which is validated by one of our


universities, the only requirement is one GCSE. That cannot be right in


our higher education system. So these new powers, from what the


Minister has said, will ensure that we can be proud of all of our


private providers as well. I echo much of what has already been said,


particularly the introductory remarks about the noble Baroness


Baroness Wolf, who has inviting this corner we have been supporting her


all the way, I'm glad we have reached the point where we are all


very happy with what we have got to. The main focus of the amendments


report and also of the ones that are report and also of the ones that are


now being presented by the Government in Leo, are about the


ongoing arrangements in universities and colleges, sorry, universities,


in order to provide higher education providers to provide higher degree


level politicians. The problem with what happens when eight existing


provider is taken over by merger or purchase, still I think needs a


little bit of care and concern because there is a fear within the


sector that this might well become a feature, perhaps an unwelcome


feature, not against new institutions. We always said we


would support those, we'll want them to be proper institutions, with


procedures and processes in place, and on that basis would


that. But if there is an issue where that. But if there is an issue where


a commercial imperative rather than academic imperative, I wonder if the


Minister can make some comments about what he anticipates will be


the arrangements should that merger or takeover be in play?


My Lords, I would like to start by echoing the thoughts made by the


noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, by thinking the Baroness Lady Wolf in


safeguarding the quality of English degrees and also her engagement in


the bill's overall, which I may not have said so far. I would like to


agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of diversity in the


sector and agree that new providers, such as the new bottle on technology


and engineering, will serve the interests of students and wider


society well. The noble Baroness Lady Blackstone and board stories


spoke about the important point about all of the of standards, which


has been a theme throughout this bill. I would like to agree with


them that we must maintain quality and standards in the sector and the


bill is designed to do just that. Our Amendment further restrictions


the bill's provisions in that respect, which are help the House


now is behind. The noble lord Lord Stevenson, at the very end of his


brief comments, asked about change of circumstances, in other words,


what happens every degree power older is sold to someone with no


experience, will there be a review? And if they were sold to a body with


no track record, we would expect their eligibility to continue to


hold degree awarding powers, but it would be subject to a full review.


That review would be implicit. I would like to finish by thanking my


noble friend Lord will it for his engagement throughout the bill's


passage. The bill, if I may say so, builds on his work as minister and


the proposals for his original White Paper of 2011, headed students at


the heart of the system. My words, I beg to move. The question is that


motion he be agreed to. As many are of that, say content, not content


say not. The contents have it. The question is that motion as it be


agreed to. As many are of that opinion is a content, to the


contrary not content, the contents have it. Motion G. My Lords, I beg


to move most motion G that this House does not insist on Amendment


156 and you agree with the comments in their commitments 1568, 156 B and


156 C in Leo. I welcome this chance to discuss what's more international


students will stop we have heard some of the most passionate debates


in this House. Let me just say that the Government welcomes genuine


international students who come to study in the United Kingdom on


Monday enhanced our educational institutions both financially and


culturally, the in Everest the experience of domestic students and


they become important ambassadors for the United Kingdom in later


life. For these reasons, we have no plans to target or reduce the scale


of student migration to the United Kingdom and, as I have said before,


and as a house full of heard, we have no plans to cap the number of


genuine students you can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an


institution's ability to recruit a genuine international students based


on its TEF rating or any other basis. Therefore, I do not believe


that the Amendment is desirable. Discussed in this House on this


issue has provided us with an important opportunity to reflect on


the message we send out to the world on the welcome that international


students receive when they apply to study in the UK. We want or promote


this offer and make sure it is understood and communicated and I


would like to set out what the new duty as. Firstly, the duty will


extend the information publication duty on the designated data body on


the Office for Students so it explicitly covers what information


would be helpful to current work respect of international students


and the registered higher education providers back recurred them are


thinking of doing so. The new duty will also require consideration of


publication of information on international student numbers. My


Lords, this goes further than ever before to ensure that international


students get the information that they need about our offer. Alongside


this, we believe we need a campaign to raise awareness and that is why,


in tandem, we are refreshing our international engagement strategy.


We will seek reviews on, we will distribute there are embassies


overseas and the British Council as well as universities themselves.


This will ensure that the right messages yet to the right places. My


Lords, we have a good story to tell and we are keen that is told. We are


remains one of the best places in remains one of the best places in


the world for research and innovation. Let me assure you that


the UK research and innovation will continue to fund an extensive range


of international collaborations, directly facilitating partnerships


between UK research establishments and their international


counterparts. We expect the UK are I board members and UK are I itself to


take a clear role in fostering collaboration internationally. We


have already included the need to take an international perspective in


the job specification of the UKRI board, which is currently being


recruited. To underline this, I will confirm that we will ask UKRI to set


out in its annual report what work it has undertaken to foster and


support such collaborations. My Lords, I beg to move. I would like


first to respond to the noble lord Minister's opening statement on this


motion and thank him for some of the motion and thank him for some of the


things that were set, which picked up one of seems that is in the


Amendment that he is proposing to be rejected. I think it is a great pity


that they are not on the face of the bill, but he has made some helpful


remarks there. I would say in relation to the Government's


Amendment that is being moved, that I think it shows yet again that we


are slight cross purposes over this. This is not a statistical matter. Of


course as to the six enter into it, but is not basically a statistical


matter. It is about to be public policy purposes we take with regard


to overseas students and so even the improved, suggesting improved ways


of statistically analysing overseas students, they don't really address


what my Amendment was meant to address. I just want to speak


therefore, on I hope you will forgive me for not saying anymore


about his Amendment, which I have no objection to at all, but which I


don't think actually answers the problems which my Amendment and the


Amendment which was moved I the Baroness Royal, the Baroness garden


and Lord Miles was the main thrust of which was, to bring an end to


what I would regard as a bearing practice of treating overseas hire


education students for Public policy purposes as long-term migrants and


that, alas, will continue. That Amendment in this House was carried


in the last month by a majority of 94 omicron from all groups in this


House. So I'm afraid I do speak with deeper Gretz, tinged with some


bitterness, at the summary rejection of this Amendment. If the bill


before us had followed a normal course, I believe, although I cannot


prove this of coarse, I believe that summaries more compromise would have


been breached either in the other place where there was substantial


support for the Amendment, or through a negotiation between the


two houses. The washup process, which we are busy completing now,


but to a premature end any such possibility and the fact that the


Government felt it necessary to state that, if this Amendment was


not brought, they would kill the whole bill, sheds a pretty odd


lights on their priorities and on their intransigence will stop


altogether, I suggest a rather shabby business. Now, ceasing to


treat overseas hire education students for public policy purposes


as long-term migrants is not only, I would suggest, a rational choice and


one which has, which the chief competitors of this country in the


market for overseas students, mainly the US, Australia and Canada, have


already adopted, it is also... Has a wide degree of cross party support


from a whole series of parliamentary select committees from both houses,


most recently just this week from the education committee in the other


place. A recent survey by universities and UK shows that a


large majority of those polled do not recurred oversea students as


economic migrants, do not consider that they contribute to the


immigration problems which are the focus of so much public debate at


this stage in this country. And the fall in numbers of overseas


applications which we are seeing at the moment amply demonstrates how we


are already losing market share, and undermining the future validity of a


crucial part of our society and our economy, our universities. This


morning I listened with great interest to the Foreign Secretary


replying to a question on this on the Today programme. He made most of


the points that I have just made. So I have no quarrel with what the


Foreign Secretary said, merely with what the government is doing. A bad


choice has been made in my view and no convincing rationale for making


that choice has been forthcoming from the government. In conclusion I


would say this, the problem will not go away. And the rejection will not


be the end of the story. The damage that this system of treating


students as economic migrants will continue to inflict on our


universities and soft power assets in the decades ahead. I believe we


will need to come back to this issue when the government brings forward


as it stated in its white Paper on the Great Repeal bill, comes forward


with post-Brexit legislation. I would hope that a period of


reflection will bring wise counsel and the realisation that predict


victory is like this one are a kind with which we could well do without.


My Lords, I would like to briefly congratulate Lord Hannay on the


energy he has put into scrutinising the bill, the debates we have had


have made it clear that on all sides of the House week support legitimate


students coming from overseas to study both because it enhances the


academic experience of British students and is good for overseas


students and is a great British export. Signalling again that the


policy remains to attract legitimate overseas students was more welcoming


than Hannay accepted that Lord Hannay accepted although I


understand why he made his reservations, he says statistics are


less important than policy but I think that the point we had a moment


ago from the minister about these new statistics does have


considerable potential value. Aside from the general arguments one point


about the debate is a genuine empirical disagreement about how


many students from abroad overstay in this country. A lot of the debate


is shaped by a view that we have a problem with a lot of other stayers.


If there is such a problem we need to tighten the regime, if not, if it


can be established authoritatively that there is no such problem I


think that would be a significant contribution to the debate and the


statistics at the moment are very unreliable. If someone comes to


study and tells someone doing one of these surveys they are studying and


then stays on to work for time and leaves and answers the question when


they leave, what have you been doing, and they say, working, they


count as a leaving worker, not a student. If someone comes to study


thinking they are here for more than a year but end up because many


masters courses are advertised as your bid you can complete them in 11


months, they leave, having been in Britain for 11 months, they do not


count as one of those students departing. There are lots of


problems like this in the statistics. They have proved a bane


in the debate about overseas students and their numbers. I very


much hope that the important initiative which the Minister has


announced today, and which was discussed in the other house


yesterday, he enables us to get to the bottom of those empirical


questions that would be an important contribution to the debate about the


minister can confirm that those type of questions will be within the


scope of the exercise and we will learn more about it. I also hope


that, thinking of all the time we have spent on attracting overseas


students to this country that we might briefly remind the government


of the importance of encouraging British students to study abroad.


And dare one say it, if they were to study abroad for more than a year it


would reduce net migration, not that that's the main reason for promoting


it. But when one looks at half a million students going from abroad


to study in Britain and 30,000 British students studying abroad


especially if we are to be a dynamic global presence even post-Brexit we


do need to do better at promoting and encouraging students to go


abroad and one way to do that is to make it easier for them to take out


loans to finance this study abroad and I hope that is something we will


look at. For my last intervention I would like briefly to congratulate


the ministerial team that has brought this bill to a conclusion.


Viscount Younger has been courteous throughout the debate. Jo Johnson


has been extraordinarily diligent in spending time in this chamber,


observing our debate. This is a very substantial piece of legislation, we


only legislate... This legislation finally puts in place regulatory


regime that matches higher education in Britain. We could not have


carried on with the old grant giving body an informal regulator using the


power of the purse to rhetoric the sector, this is a better, more


transparent, rules -based system. I think our debates in this house on


all sides, it is clear that we care passionately about the autonomy of


higher education institutes, the new provisions we have been debating


today and hands that autonomy. I have to say, looking back, one of my


regrets, thinking of this debate, is, while we intended to look at


this from an English perspective from one of the conversations I have


heard from vice chancellors, it is clear to me were the biggest threat


to our autonomy rise, it is the relationship between the Scottish


Government and its universities, if I may say so, it is far more


intrusive, far more overbearing than anything that would be acceptable in


England. And sometimes we have had an English minister with English


teaching responsibilities facing challenges about autonomy for which


he is not actually responsible. I hope we will be as avid in


scrutinising and protecting the autonomy of Scottish universities


which matters enormously in Scotland and more widely. We have a better


regulatory regime. We have spoken up for autonomy. And also very


significantly, the focus on teaching has reminded us of the importance of


the education experience in the University and after so much


attention it is excellent that we have spent such time focusing on


teaching. Therefore I would like to thank the Minister is, thank their


built-in for the way in which they have engaged with many of us as we


have had questions to make sense of specific proposals and try to engage


with them and indeed this has been a cross-party debate. We've had


excellent interventions from experts in crossbenchers, people who work in


and understand how education works and that is enormously enhanced our


debate. We have heard from opposition benches and I agree that


Lord Stevenson has made a very important contribution from the


opposition front bench and from the Lib Dem benches I had to remind


myself sometimes that we had worked on this together in coalition! And


some of the measures now proving so controversial could trace their


origins to a government in which I think there was even the Secretary


of State that I worked with who belonged to a certain party


opposite! But I think all parties have worked together on this and I


think we can be proud of the bill now going forward. My Lords, if I


may just follow the noble Lord, Lord Willets. In echoing so much of what


he said. But I want to start with what the Prime Minister said when


she announced the election and she referred to the unelected House of


Lords. My Lords, this unelected House of Lords is at its best when


it does what it has done in this bill. This is probably one of the


most amended bills in the history of Parliament with over 500 amendments.


It is because of the expertise that exists in this has across the board,


depth and breadth of expertise that no chamber anywhere in the world


comes close to buy a factor of maybe ten. For me universities Minister


has just spoken. Chancellors of universities, vice chancellors of


universities, former vice chancellors of universities at


Cambridge, head of Oxbridge colleges and I could go on. Where in the


world would you get that and we have had it in this bill. And I'd like to


thank the global Lord the Minister Viscount Younger for always being


polite and decent and for having listened. It may not be where many


others want to be but there has been a lot of movement and the government


seen a minister so insidious in attending stages of this bill. And


it shows visibly that he is listening. I'd like to thank the


noble Lord Lord Hannay for his initiative, he is a former


Chancellor of the University of Birmingham where I am proud to be


Chancellor today. My Lords at every stage of this bill normally you are


not meant to repeat things come you can't make a second reading speech


later in a bill. But here there's been a new information and new


reports coming out at every stage. So for example and EU UK report


revealed that international students, the contribution is much


higher than we had ever thought. We quoted ?14 billion, it's actually


?26 billion a year. New information to add to what Lord temp max three


was trying to do with this amendment. And on top of that the


education committee's report on extending opportunities for higher


education dated April 25, my lords. Before I go further this unanimous


consensus around the country, little known in this house when we won this


amendment to close to a hundred votes, that international students


should not be included in the not migration figures. The National


Union of Students have said as long as they are included in the net


migration to districts policies that adversely affect them owing to


governmental desire to reduce levels of immigration will only exacerbate.


And then they said that the government's abject failure to offer


anything substantial and removing international students from net


migration targets is, in their words, outrageous. There's immense


support for doing so from cross-party parliamentarians, from


UK students and from the general public. It is not acceptable that


the government continues to ignore this support. So my Lords I come to


the report that no one has spoken about, of the House of Commons


education committee and their report, published just now, 25th of


April. In it they have an entire section on international students


and the migration target. They say clearly that as far as we all know


this target of 100,000 still exists and yet overall net migration we all


know as 273,000, that's the latest figure. Government always gives of


removing international students from the figures is, UN rules means we


have to include them and treat them as immigrants. My Lords, yes, those


are the UN rules. And the government's about answer is always,


there's no cap to number of international students, any number


welcome. My lords it is a perception that is created by continuing to


include them and treat them as immigrants that is the danger. And


the Home Secretary and the Tory party conference spoke about


possibly reducing the number of international students and that is


scary. It's a message that goes out to the outside world. And the


Commons education committee said that the majority of their written


evidence and witnesses at their meetings were very clear that


international students should be removed from the net migration and


it would help offset the risks to higher education from leaving the


EU. In fact their evidence was unanimous, saying that international


students were positive force for education. ?25.8 billion ago,


creating over 200,000 jobs. Contributing to the richness of our


universities as well as the UK's soft power. And then it is poll


after poll, my lords. The contrast poll after the referendum, said,


said only 24% of the public thought international students were


immigrants. And there was only a 2% difference when split into the Leave


25% and the Remained 23%. So whether you are a Brexiteer or a remainder,


people don't think international students are immigrants.


My Lords, other countries, competitor countries, have targets


to increase the number of international students. The demand


for countries like India for studying abroad is increasing at 8%


a year and yet the NUS poll found that slightly half of overseas


students thought that the British Government was either not welcoming


or not welcoming at all to international students and there are


half as many Indian students today, or 2015, as it was in 2010. But in


Canada and Germany, it is growing by 8% a year. This is why, please


answer this question, why is it that, with the UK's main competitors


for international students, the United States of America, Canada and


Australia, all categorized international students as temporary


migrants rather than permanent immigrants? Why can't we do the


same? What are we scared of? And then the statistics that the noble


Lords spoke of, the Minister spoke of, what statistics him a my Lords?


The statistics are bogus because they are based on the international


passage survey. There are some estimates that 90,000 international


students overstay, other estimates of 40,000. And yet they are our


supposedly a report, eight Home Office commission report that shows


only 1% of international sins overstay their visas, according to


the Times. That would be 1500. At this report is not being released.


Tell us why this report is not being released and this is supposedly


based on new exit checks that the Government has. My Lords, I have


been a lone voice in this Parliament and I feel like a lone voice in this


country, asking the Government to bring back physical, visible exit


checks at all our ports and airports and borders. The Prime Minister Tony


Blair took them away in 1998, it is negligent from a security point of


view, negligent from illegal immigration point of view, negligent


from the ability to count the number of international sins coming in and


out of the country. Every passport, EU and non-EU should be scheduled


this country, every passport should be scanned when people leave the


country. Then we would know the correct statistics. Why can't the


Government implement this straightaway? So, my Lords, I


conclude the committee said that over the last few years six


parliamentary committees have recommended the removal of students


from the net migration target with opinions at the highest level. It


was spoken about were started, I believe even Liam Fox, they all


believe that the international students should not be treated as


immigrants and removed from the net migration figures. My Lords,


Margaret Thatcher was famously known as, this lady is not for turning.


Well, the Prime Minister, by continually saying there would be no


election till 2020, is I think, this lady is for turning. So why, why is


she not listening to us? Why, because this is such a


disappointment, this is ruining the reputation of our country, other


universities, of our economy. My Lords, perception becomes reality.


It didn't need to be in this bill, my Lords, the Government of Prime


Minister can still do this unilaterally and removed


international student from the net migration figures. And I would


remind the Prime Minister and the Government that, it is better to


fail doing the right thing than to succeed doing the wrong thing. My


Lords, I will not attempt to emulate the Lord by giving a full speech,


but I would like to make a couple of brief points. I strongly supported


the noble lord Handley when he introduced his Amendment and have


spoken many times on the subject in your Lordship's house. I deeply


regret the fact that the Government has not felt able to accept his


Amendment and committed to the other place. I echo everything that has


been said about the understanding, the capacity for listening, both of


the Minister of your Lordship's house and Joe Johnson, but I think


it is a pity that an opportunity has been lost. I'm sure we will return


to the subject as the noble lord said in a future Immigration Bill.


But although I welcome what the Government has said, or what the


Minister has said today, and what is in the Commons Amendment before us,


I don't think it does go far enough and I think there is going to be


real interest in how the Government is able to produce good statistics.


My Lords, it is 35 years ago almost to the day when a female -- famous


BBC reporter from the Falklands said, we counted them all out and be


counted them all in. Well, we need to start doing that with students


and in all students. My Lords, however gently, it damages are


reputation as a place where, all over the world, students at


undergraduate and postgraduate levels can feel welcome. The more we


can do to achieve that the better and we must do everything we can to


make sure there is no input is at the Terrance. My Lords, I am sorry


that, after a very good morning where the Government has made some


really good concessions which we are all extremely grateful for, this


particular subject is not as great as it should be. -- the concession


on the subject. I hope my noble friend of the front bench will take


note of that and I hope that we will come back before too long with a


reinforced Government front bench and a new determination to accept


the logic of the Amendment. Can I strongly support the noble lord's


Amendment and indoors which everything the noble lord has just


said. We were reminded of the days of Coalition, when I was his


opposite number in this House, and I remember the debates that went on


between the secretary of State for this and the Home Secretary and on


this particular topic where there was, he could never get any movement


on seeing the logic colony, and what baffles dairy many of us is that the


Government reiterates that there was no cap on genuine international


students, and then they say I'm a we will count them as migrants and we


are determined to reduce the number of migrants. It is that sequence


which makes it so incomprehensible that the Government can't see how


very unwelcoming it is to put those things together. We do find it


completely baffling that we are not getting any movement on this. We


recognise it as an issue that is probably outside the departmental


brief of the Minister, but I think I would echo the voices that have been


said already that we really do hope that very soon there will be


movement on this. The noble lord always speaks with great passion and


eloquence on the subject with evidence and with the facts behind


him. My Lords, I think this is probably the last time that I shall


speak in this bill, so I would like to reiterate that very sincere


thanks to the Minister... I shouldn't be getting that wrong at


the stage. And to the Minister Joe Johnson, to the build team and the


other colleagues who have actually been so helpful to us on what has


turned out to be a very long drawn out discussion on this bill. And the


Amendment switch of come through today, I think have already improved


the bill we have before us. It would obviously have been lovely if we


could've had all her amendments, as I said before, but we do recognise


that we have done a very good job in making this bill a whole lot better


than it was before. I. I can I also echo the things noble lord Lord


Stevenson, who has led a collaboration of the engaged, from


our benches, from his badges, from the cross benches and occasionally


some from the Conservative edges on particular issues as well, to try


ensure that we can all get the very best possible out of this bill and


indeed to my noble friend Lord story who has been a tower of strength


this as well. So, finally, it is to say I think we have made this very


much better bill than when it reached us and I'm very grateful to


the Minister for helping that to happen. Can I say, in relation to


what the Lord said about the Prime Minister's remarks on calling the


election, I don't think she said... And I'm only relying on my memory, I


don't think she said the unelected House of Lords, what she did say was


unelected Lords who had made it clear that, for everything they


could do to stop Brexit would be done. Something like that. I don't


think it really was a reference to the House of Lords as a whole,


because apart from anything else, it wouldn't fit the description. I also


want to support what Lord Woolwich said about the hope, he knows much


more about the atmosphere in Whitehall than I do, he said that he


hoped the research promoted in this might well have a good effect in


that erection. Finally, I want to agree with what has been said


about the noble lord Lord Stevenson, I hope you will enjoy the freedom of


not being on the front bench. I want to include in that all his


colleagues in the French bench, and the front bench of the Liberal


party, and some of my efforts, I have enjoyed the Corporation and I


am very grateful. -- front bench. And the cooperation of many of the


Prime Minister referred to us all as Prime Minister referred to us all as


some pitchers more than anything else, which is not a consummate in


some ways. -- saboteurs. This is a section of the bill for which I


think we must except we have made no progress at all. It would probably


be wrong of me to give too much detail of what happens on the


washer, I was only there for a very small part of it, most of the time I


was left hanging on her mobile phone in a remote area which did not work


very well and I was getting more frustrated, on my inability to have


any influence at all on some of the debates. But one would hope that the


arguments that we've found today would lead to at least a discussion


about what should be the way forward on a very comp Lex and rather


annoying area that we unable seem to be able to get into focus. The fact


was, it was made very clear the start, I understand, that the


Minister concerned was unable to discuss any concessions in this area


and it was ruled off the table from the very beginning. I think it plays


a little bit to the conversation we had earlier that there is something


dysfunctional about Whitehall on crosscutting issues. We all know the


wicked issues are difficult ones, the ones that no one wants to play


on, no minister will take full responsibility for. Because prime


ministers are not always as powerful as the public misconceptions have,


you will not make the progress which is to achieve something genuinely


about the whole of the Government, this is a whole that has been


created in this area that it think we have fallen into. What appears to


be almost uncanny ability of the current Prime Minister to be able to


exercise control in a very remote part of the Government. I think


there are two other things I would like to say before we hear from the


Minister, as he wants this. The first is, I do think a little of


what Mort Willetts has said about the need to use the fact that we've


been rebuffed here again -- Lord Willetts, to try and get this case


right would be a good thing to do. I would like to focus not just on the


statistics, they are very important, but it think it might be ambitious


to think we will get a counting income accounting out system because


of the issue here, the issue is, who was controlling the entry of our


students to our universities? The Lord Willetts said we would have the


best regulated sector, in terms of the UK if not the world, ...


Shouldn't we be trusting them to get the best students that would benefit


from the education here? The truth is, it is all second guessed by the


Home Office and who have their own teams of people who interview the


students nominated by the institutions come and set the quota


levels, although they are said to be unlimited, although they are in


practice set and only increased on application. It will change the code


is available to every institution if they feel that an institution is


making mistakes in terms of the people they recruit, not just


because at the point of entry, my Lords, but what happens to the


students after they've left the responsibility of the institutions,


with a get out to the wider world, if they are able to get a job or


even if they do disappear from the statistics, somehow the original


institution that brought them and is responsible for them. That seems to


be a double penalty, in terms of what they are doing but also for


future recruitment issues. I think all of this has got to be picked up


and looked out. This is not a good system. There is a pilot ongoing, a


pilot which is affecting Masters courses, deliberately chosen so the


results would be available earlier. There is some hope that we might be


able to use that system to drive a different approach to this were


trusted institutions, well regulated under a new system which has the


support of both houses, is able to make the decisions necessary to


recruit the right students to benefit from our system and that the


filthy response abilities and duties and activities that everyone we know


will do with the soft power of going back to create economic activity


before they do to and be good citizens both here in the world. At


the moment, we have failed completely and I really regret that.


I have the bitterness and were granted as much as the noble lord


has share his pain. But I think we must move on from here, this has


not, this must not go away, it is too important for the economic


future of our country, the institutions concerned who need the


students if they're going to be successful and make progress, and


for the individuals concerned to her getting the benefits of the


education here. I do hope we will make progress at a the disaster we


now face. My Lords, the noble Lord Hannay


spoke after my initial remarks, I understand how he and others. Views


on this international student topic that I do appreciate his


understanding of the current process needed to move forward, alluded to


by him and the noble Lord Stevenson. In terms of concluding remarks I


would like to say that we have had an exceptionally rich debate in the


last weeks and months. As the minister in the Other Least noted


this House is contributed enormously to the bill, expertise and step has


been cleared not just because the nub of amendments but also the


quality of the debate. The government has reflected deeply on


these points throughout the debate and I hope has understands this now


including the most recent amendments, the voice of the sector


has also been hurt and I'm glad that the universities work and able to


give support to the package of amendments tabled in the other place


at the start of this week. I recommend without reservation that


the noble Lords give support to this bill, as Lord Willets said it


represents the most important legislation to the sect of 45 years


and will set the framework for our world-class education sector and


global leading research-based to continue to thrive in the 21st


century. My lords I beg to move. The question is that motion G B agreed


to, those of that opinion will say content, the contrary not content,


the contents I have it. Motion H move formally. The question is that


motion capital H B agreed to. Those of that opinion say content, the


contrary not content, the contents have it. Consideration of Commons


reason and amendment to the Digital economy Bill, Lord Ashman pine.


My Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House does not exist... I


beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments being considered. The


question is that the Commons reasons and amendment now be considered, as


many of that opinion say content, the contrary not content, the


content Dexter habit. Lord Ashman. My Lords, I beg to move that this


has do not insist on amendment Bay and agree with the Commons on the


amendments 18, one B, once EMU. This group covers two areas where the


other place has offered amendments in view of your Lordships's


amendments. Lords amendment one on the universal service obligation


challenged the government to be more ambitious on universal Digital


connectivity. A broadband was set initially at 10 megabits per second,


formed part of our plans to make sure that no one is digitally


excluded. Lords amendment one would have disrupted those plans. In our


view it makes this an workable and because of the risk of legal


challenge would lead to delays in implementation. The US over can only


work if it is legally robust and enforceable. EU law requires it to


take into account technologies used by the majority of subscribers.


Today 30 megabits per second is enjoyed by less than Teddy percent.


Two gigabits per second is enjoyed by less than 1%. While we may have a


majority taking up 30 megabits in a few years' time, the government


wants to implement a USO now. This would be difficult to achieve. No


concern to many is that the whole country should access superfast


speeds of 30 megabits per second. We show that ambition, we therefore


propose that a superfast USO will be reconsidered by Ofcom was 75% of


premises across the UK subscribe to superfast broadband. On Lords


amendment to the other place agreed with your Lordships's concerns in


relation to Bill capping and proposed amendment to a Hindu. As


with the Lords amendments we provide that mobile phone customers must


have the opportunity to place a limit on their bill. Any limits and


cannot be exceeded unless the customer agrees and Ofcom is given


enforcement powers. The requirement placed on providers to ensure that


customers can contact the emergency services will not be affected. The


government also reflected on roving elements but was not convinced of


their merit. We do not believe that roaming is the right solution and I


will set out our reasons. With regards to switching the bill goes


further than the proposed amendment, the provision in the bill confirms


Ofcom's power to set a condition about switching relates to operators


of all telecom services including fixed line, broadband, and pay-TV,


not just mobile phones. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that


motion A B agreed to. My Lords, speaking about motion when, as


someone who was renovated Victorian house I know one thing to be true,


it is all very well stripping off the woodchip and slapping on some


thing else and it's all very well improving the coving and putting up


a dado rail but if you don't tackle the fundamentals you soon raising


floorboards again. It's the roof, the electricals and the plumbing


that call you out. My Lords, I had hoped that this bill would tackle


the fundamentals of the nation's Digital plumbing. I had hoped that


it would put in train a revolution for our Digital network and really


enable the entire country to participate in the digital economy


that I believe this bill will be setting out to achieve. I still hope


that that is true but I have my doubts. I think without a


requirement for a fast digital for the arrival of that fast digital


network, we will struggle. I think the notion of 75% threshold


description is a tricky way of going about this. I think we will have to


use the reporting requirements of gone obliges to do and that is a


move forward, how they are driving usage of broadband because we are


using the commercial arms of the same companies asked to deliver


broadband, to promote the use of the broadband itself. We have a closed


loop here that does not have an incentive necessarily to drive up to


the 75% threshold. Because I would be more confident in the progress of


this country in delivering this network if there was not a dominant


player that sits on a Victorian asset of copy wire which it wants to


sweat, quite understandably, it has to be for Ofcom to drive our desire,


to move forward. We are closing the door on a shiny new bill which tills


smells of new paint that just like Mike has I can't help thinking that


we will be raising the floorboards on this time and again in


Parliaments to come. -- just like in my house. My Lords, we welcome the


two amendments proposed in lieu in the motion, just proposed by the


noble Lord and Mr. I think we are also at liberty to regret that they


don't go further. The is you we are in, which has been well picked up,


59% of rural Britain has no access to Internet and that is a concern


for a major concern, the root of the problem is that while USO sounds


good and is an effective way of getting across the argument that


this service should be for everyone, the reality is that unless there are


sanctions to make sure that it happens and there is an incentive in


terms of investment to make sure that the funding is there for them


to take place at an appropriate time, it will never happen, so it's


only part of the story. And the effort we have got locked into


unfortunately seems to be one that divides the floor, we have that with


this amendment although it is a very low floor. But they don't have the


aspiration yet embodied in the amendments that this has agrees to


get the theme up. We are stuck in a situation where the spirit may be


willing, the flesh is weak and we cannot say that we will look forward


to this in the immediate future. The root of the problem is another


source which is the reliance on the Europe European Commission


requirements. The government has made great play of this but I think


the point is the only legislative framework under which Europe is


operating, one which will fall away in 2019 if the new government gets


its way, is that they should be a non-biding guidance in terms of what


constitutes a universal service. And yet the government has chosen to


interpret that as a limit on what they are doing rather than an


opportunity of going further. While we welcome what is happening here we


do not think of the mechanics chosen would be at 30 megabits per second,


I think we will be back having to look at this in very short order. On


the question of mobile phone capping we are pleased that the government


has accepted the amendments made to the bill at an earlier stage. This


will help consumers not to get into trouble with bills and we're glad


they accepted it. I am grateful for those remarks by the noble Lords, if


I could refer to the noble Lord Fox he talks about the fundamentals,


these are the things we have tried to address in this bill, we have


tried to increase digital connectivity around the country and


its measures did not... They are part of that. The USO is slightly


different. It was never intended to drive increased speeds. We said


separately that we share the ambition of the noble Lords to


increase those. But of course the USO is there to tackle social


exclusiveness. Exclusion is the word I'm looking for, eventually! But I


can assure the noble Lords that it's not about delaying superfast


connectivity, to the contrary we don't want to be involved in


protracted legal disputes. The fact is that the House can legislate for


whatever speed it likes but it will only make a difference to people up


and down the country if it is implemented properly. That means


that the bill must be legally watertight and realistic. The


government will put its money where its mouth is and as the noble Lord


Stevenson mentioned we have now put in legislation that the broadband


USO will be set at a minimum of 10 megabits per second and we will


ensure that if the minimum has not been raised to 30 megabits per


second by the time take-up of broadband has reached seven the and


premises a review must be triggered. That is practical and interesting,


it will give this country the fastest USO in Europe. I do hope, my


Lords, that we do concentrate on the benefits, so we are receiving from


this and I beg to move. The question is that the motion be


moved. The contents have it. The question is that Motion B be agreed


to. If many of the opinion, say content. The content Abbott. -- the


contents have it. I move that the House do not insist on Amendment be,


I want to start again, my Lords, by saying the Government accepts and


agrees with the spirit of the Amendment 40 which is drafted, it


risks potential consequences. It is not clear who would be notifying


social media content. The requirement to notify the police if


it contravenes any existing legislation could have... This would


do little to increase public protection. Amendment 48, we believe


will achieve a similar outcome by setting out the expected behaviour


while protecting users. As explained in the other place by my right


honourable friend, the Minister of state for digital and culture, there


is good work being done by some companies to prevent the use of


platforms for illegal purposes, but we agree that more can be done by


social media to tackle harmful conduct online. Particularly


bullying behaviour which can have serious consequences. Our intention


is that the code would set out a guidance on what social media


providers should do in relation to conduct that is lawful, but


nonetheless distressing or upsetting. The intention is that the


guidance and legislation will address companies proportionately.


We believe that this code, together with the Internet safety strategy,


will result in a properly considered copperheads of approach to online


safety. One that will deliver protections that this Amendment


seeks to procure. The question is that Motion C be agreed to. I have


no doubt that the noble lord Stevenson will want to give a more


substantial response, but this was supported on these benches very


strongly. I do accept that the Minister has tried to incorporate


the spirit of the original Amendment in this Amendment coming from the


Commons, and my Lord made a number of detailed points about projections


to the drafting of the original Amendment, but my Lords, there is


one thundering great hole in the Amendment as brought forward by the


Minister, which is their is no obligation on the providers to


comply with the code of practice once it comes into force, so my


Lords, it is nakedly voluntarily code rather than any code that is


actually able to be enforced by the secretary of state and that is the


major difference between the Amendment that this House passed and


the Amendment that is now come forward to us. My Lords, I wonder,


he mentioned the Internet safety strategy and the work being done


about. Many of us are convinced that when the work on that is done, it


will become quite clear that there will be a need for an enforcement


power in this kind of obligation, on this kind of code of conduct. I


wonder if the Minister will give us an assurance that that will be


considered, that the question of enforcement of this kind of code of


conduct will be considered as part of the Internet safety strategy and


if the overwhelming body of evidence is that such a form of compliance is


needed, that the Government will come forward with amendments. My


Lords, I want to lay the House too much to repeat what Lord Clement


Jones is just sad. No enforcement and no sanctions, but the important


thing, and I do recognise the words of the noble lord, the Minister, in


reflecting the spirit and intent of our original motion, and I think


this is what this Amendment now seeks to do, the Government


Amendment, which is to give notice to the social networks. That failure


to comply will result in further Government action. And I, like


global North Lord Clement Jones, would hope that the Minister would


be able to respond positively, particularly on the Internet


strategy review, but I think in conclusion, we have had an extremely


good examination of the issue at committee stage in the Lords and at


the core stage and I do think we now have a policy which is clearly


setting out and giving notice to social networks that we do want to


ensure proper standards are maintained an action is taken when


evidence of abuse occurs. It shouldn't be a matter of days or


weeks as it has been to take material down, that is offensive. We


have seen evidence of some of the horrendous things that have gone on


social networks from the US and Thailand and we do want to ensure


that they fully understand the gravity of the situation. I am


grateful to the noble lord's marks. Starting right at the last remarks,


I think the social media companies are absolutely in no doubt about the


Government's determination to her view what they do and live up to


their responsibilities. I think we are all agreed on that. We realise,


even when some things are technically lawful, they are very


damaging and unpleasant and things that are set out to humiliate people


have no place in our society. I of course understand why some noble


Lords are disappointed that the code of practice is a mandatory, what I


think we should have confidence that it will make a difference, if we


take it seriously as I suggested that we do, and that the social


media companies do. The code of practice will clearly set out our


expectations on social media providers. It is in their interest


to be responsible in regards to online safety. It is critical for


their future, for the users to trust them and protect the health of their


brand. . As far as the Internet safety strategy is concerned, and


there has been a lot of talk about that, I except that, we haven't


ruled anything out of that strategy that we have clearly heard the views


of the House and I can say that we will consider the points raised


carefully in the development of the strategy and we welcome


contributions from noble Lords and other interested parties. I repeat,


my department has absolutely taken on board the views of this House, in


addition to many other state courts in relation to social media


companies, and we will see what comes of it. The fact is, after this


Amendment, if it is accepted, the code must be produced and it will be


and I'm convinced it will have a beneficial effect. The question is


Motion C be agreed to. As many of that opinion, the same content. On


the contrary, say not content. The contents have it.


I beg to move motion D, that this House do not insist on it amendments


237, 238 and 239, to which the comments have disagreed for their


recent 239A. My Lords, we return once again to the issue of BBC


funding, having debated this at length during the committee and


report. Honourable members and the other place have disagreed with the


amendments that were inserted into this bill at report stage, which


sought to establish a BBC license fee commission. The Government


remains clear that it must have a free hand in determining the BBC's


overall funding deals on the level of the license be, following


negotiation with the BBC itself. Noble Lords will appreciate the


decisions on the level of the license be our a matter for the


elected Government. Similarly, we are not convinced that consulting


the public on the level of BBC funding is the right approach to


determining its funding settlements. The BBC's funding needs are a


complicated and technical issue, not one that lends itself easily to


public consultation. Although the Government has persuaded the


honourable members of the other place, the Government has listened


to concerns from noble Lords about the process about setting the BBC's


funding settlement, and about making sure the BBC has an appropriate


level of funding. The new charter endorses the BBC's mission and


reinforces the role and independence of the BBC in a much changed and


much changing beauty landscape. The specific provisions that the BBC


Charter has for setting the next settlement, it should also give the


noble Lords that have some concerns him comfort. We know exactly when


the next funding period will commence. The Government will allow


the BBC to make its case and it will consider taking independent advice


before reaching the final decision. I hope the noble Lords who supported


the noble lord Lord asked at earlier stages will recognise that their


efforts and their arguments on this matter have not been wasted. The


Government is under no illusions that the next funding settlement


should be one that is carefully considered. There will be no


question of the so-called midnight raids with a five-year settlement,


which is inflation protected, has been agreed. Everyone knows when the


next settlement will begin. I'm turning to motion the EE, which


relates to public service rod casting prominence on the electronic


programme guide, an issue that has been much debated in this House and


the other place. The Government has heard the strength of feeling on


this issue. The Government has concluded that he can see no


compelling evidence of harm, we do recognise that this is a fast moving


technological landscape which must be under review, a point I think was


made clearly by the Lord Boyd at report stage. Amendment Will Place a


new requirement on Ofcom to publish a report which looks at the ease of


content across all television platforms, both on a linear and


nonlinear basis. The report will focus consumer pressure on TV


manufacturers to improve the prominence of PSP on-demand services


where this has been identified as an issue. We know that platform


providers and TV manufacturers respond most strongly to consumer


needs and developing their products, therefore developments in EPG should


be customer driven. The new duty will also impose an ongoing


obligation on Ofcom to report its EPG care by the 1st of December 2020


and to publish its first report on the ease of accessing and finding


PSP content before then. As my right honourable friend made clear


yesterday, if Ofcom's report makes it clear that there is a problem in


this area, and one which can only be fixed by legislation and assuming


the Government is returned in June, the Government will bring forward


that legislation as soon as possible and I think that is why the Labour


front bench spokesman said she was happy to support the Government


Amendment. I beg to move. Side the question is that motion D be agreed


to. The three amendments that are the subject of motion D K before


your Lordship 's in the name of myself, Aaron is Carter and Lord


Inglewood and Stevenson. They were passed by your Lordship 's with a


thumping majority. But they are now to be rejected with no alternative


amendments in lieu of these. My Lords, the issue here concerns the


process by which the BBC license fee is determined. There has been


extensive condemnation of the current process, condemnation from


the right honourable John Whittingdale wintering the CMS


Select Committee in the other place from the chair of the BBC trust,


along with a range of organisations including the voice of the listener


and viewer, and you Jay, and your own Select Committee on


communications which I have the honour of chairing, at least until


the dissolution of Parliament. What everyone agrees is that the current


process has met the secretary of state deciding on this vital matter


in a most unsatisfactory way behind locked doors in secret on a basis


that has, on the last two occasions, involved as well as freezing the


fever many years, the allocation of the feed to many other purposes,


midnight raids, broadband roll-out to free licenses to the over 75. --


fee. The amendments which turn out to be rejected would not tie the


hands of the secretary of state, who would still make the determination,


but the revised process would involve public and parliamentary


consultation and expert advice from a specialist BBC license fee


commission. On the decision over the license fee hangs the future of the


BBC. It does seem vital to ensure that that decision is based on an


understanding of both what the public wants and on hard evidence of


what expenditure the BBC needs to make, to fulfil its public or


Chris's. But I conclude this expression of disappointment with


the rather limited things to the noble Lords the Minister for a


technology that this is a technical and complicated matter, which is one


on which Government will consider taking advice. I think they would be


very well advised to take advice on this matter am a but we have five


years until the license fee is reset and during that time I think it


might be worth your Lordship's returning to this matter.


I think it was about one year ago when I introduced a Private members


Bill as too low in the ballot to have any chance of being debated and


passed. And when that became evident I decided instead to use this bill


as a vehicle to protect the financing of the BBC. And as the


Minister will I'm afraid recalled painfully throughout most of the


last year we have been debating this is to do with the independence and


funding of the BBC. The first subject was whether it was proper to


have legislation and a charter. The government originally took the


position that they were inconsistent. I am grateful for the


fact that eventually, having listened to the noble Lords with the


authority of Lord Inglewood, Lord Fowler while he was a free man and


Lord best about how a charter is not anything more than what the Minister


's desire, it is not like legislation, and eventually the


government came to the conclusion I believe that there was nothing


incompatible between having a charter and having statutory


underpinning. So the next question was, why do you need any statutory


underpinning. And the answer is, because if you read the Charter,


including the current charter, there is no obligation in it upon the


government to provide sufficient funding or for that matter even to


respect the independence of the BBC. I made it clear before this bill


left this has for the other place that I was not wedded to any


particular solution to the problem, of ensuring that the government


would be providing sufficient funding and would respect the


independence of the BBC and would do everything in its power to secure


that. And one of the ways as this has as syndicated, expressed our


view that by adopting his more moderate approach than mine, since


his approach, or his commission would not bind the government to


anything in particular other than considering the outcome of the


review commissions, whereas my approach would create an obligation


upon the government as regards funding and a prohibition against


the kind of top slicing the transferred to the BBC of matters


that were the obligation of the Department for Work and Pensions to


ensure that that never happened again. Before we finally approve


this motion, one point is that the government does not accept any


obligations as I understand it about the sufficiency of funding or any


obligation upon it as to respecting the independence of the BBC. So I


asked the Minister, I asked him last time and he wasn't able to answer, I


asked him this time can he please assure the House that the government


does accept that there is an obligation to provide sufficient


funds to the BBC, whether through the licence fee or otherwise, to


ensure that the BBC can fulfil the public purposes as an independent


public service broadcaster that are enunciated in the charter. And does


not accept also that there is an obligation to ensure that the


independence of the BBC is guaranteed and that there will be no


further raid upon it to top slicing, if the government can give those


assurances today than I will not feel that I have wasted most of the


best part of the last year in these debates. If he cannot do so, and I


very much hope that he will be able to do so, if he cannot do so I'm


afraid I shall have to bring in another Private members Bill and a


ballot. I just want to say that I regret that the government did not


accept the laws Amendment two 42. The Minister of State in the other


place in a speech yesterday said that an Internet based on demand


viewing is different. I don't think that's right. The two technologies


are emerging as television sets become multipurpose computers we are


seeing convergence between TV and Internet increasing at a rapid pace.


It is crucial that the regime should keep pace with changing viewing


habits. However the response from the other place does give me some


heart. At least there will be an Ofcom review of the PSP Providence


guidelines, I would like to urge the noble Lord the Minister to ensure


that Ofcom starts the review as soon as possible, and not allow them to


put it off until late 2020. Every month we are seeing the PSP on


demand and digital services are becoming more important for


broadcasters. I'm sure your Lordships would like to see viewers


having easy access to programmes which in the case of the BBC funded


by public money and in the case of Channel 4 are publicly owned. My


lord, I very much hope that the Lord Minister will take the threat from


my noble friend seriously and will rise to the challenges that is put


to the Minister on the question of funding and independence and


carrying out the activities of the BBC. I do in particular want to


agree with the noble Best with in his disappointment with the decision


today. My noble friend Baroness Bonham Carter added her name


this. It was the product of the committee occasions select


committee,... Independent oversight and the setting of a licensee and of


course my Lords the Minister pushed back a report, committee and a


reading by talking about the licensee being attacked but of


course my Lords it's a rather exceptional tax, it is a hub tax,


paid by the public to fund the BBC. So my Lords it's entirely correct


that there should be a different mechanism for the setting of that


licensee. My Lords, it arises because of the midnight raids by the


Treasury, the hijacking by the treachery of the licence fee


progress that has taken place at least twice recently my Lord. And,


my Lords, the minister, and this is one of the worrying phrases users,


the government wants a free hand following negotiations with the BBC,


my Lords, that is exactly what the original amendment was designed to


prevent. My Lords, what I think is the nub of the concern is that


assurances, and the Minister did give assurances, he gave some new


language to lead my Lords, assurances given by government, we


have seen what assurances are worth in terms of snap elections, my Lord!


Assurances can be given by government one minute which can be


broken the next, my lords. And my Lords, however carefully we


scrutinise the noble Lord's wording today, if his government is in a


position in the future to negotiate the licence fee my Lords, we have no


absolute assurance that those words will be followed. So my Lords I join


with deep disappointment with I am sure almost all benches around the


house in sharing that disappointment. I do apologise. I


haven't dealt with the second amendment, Amendment E. In many ways


it's even more disappointing. I think that it is a perfectly valid


thing that Viscount Colwill expressed some reports of the Ofcom


review but given that the government can say it is a political decision


whether or not they have the BBC licence fee commission, my Lords,


this is much more miles, and at least two occasions we've heard DC


MS secretaries Jeremy Hunt and Maria Miller both saying that the position


of the public service broadcasters was very important way of


safeguarding that position. We already know the Minister has


undertaken a review by Ofcom but my Lords Ofcom already know that there


is a problem. They recommended in their 2015 PSB review that


policymakers should form the rules... So that does not seem to be


a particularly constructive way forward, despite appearances. So, my


Lords, there are a number of questions that arise from the


government amendment E. Can the Minister confirm that statutory


change will be necessary to bring on demand PSP content and the


collective EPG is where they are found into the scope of Ofcom's EPG


code, my Lords? The Minister has claimed in conversation that it


wasn't possible to have a Henry VIII power that would implement Ofcom's


recommendations for OnDemand, my lords. So I am assuming that there


is no current statutory power and we would be talking about primary


legislation in that respect but it would be helpful to have that


confirmation, my lords. Is the Minister going to give an assurance


that the government will act? We would not have brought forward the


amendment unless we thought this was a real and present is see that


needed to be tackled. This wasn't a frivolous amendment, but the


government seems to have a completely different view. The


earnest attention is important. The amendment sets a first December 2020


statutory deadline for the review and the revision of the EPG code


that does the Minister not agree that it would be desirable to


commence work earlier, given the need for prior statutory changes,


probably? In order to bring on demand contact into scope? And


finally my Lords, it does appear that there is the statutory power to


bring the prominence of PSP children's channels into EPG's. And


my Lords, does the Minister agree with that and would he agree that if


Ofcom so recommends, it could be brought in earlier than the OnDemand


provision? I very much up that the Minister can answer those questions,


my lords. My Lord, these elements taken together workshops of the


government. I think with predictable certainty they've fallen into both.


-- they were traps for the government. The one discussed on the


question of the need for Ofcom to have powers to make sure that there


was a proper rule about provenance applying not only to the linear but


also the off-line world, the world via player and others, it was really


a test about whether or not the government believed in public sector


broadcasting. And if it did it needed to make proposals for a


channel funded by the public to have access on a fair and equal basis to


other commercial channels. By bringing forward a moment which was


simply one for report without the necessary requirement that there


should be legislation, in three areas that I think we are agreed


should be happened and I think they've failed this test. But we


welcome they have got to, a further review is important I hope it will


bring out the complexity of the issue, the changing technology and


the difficulties of assessing this in a way which will make it easier


for the to honour its commitment and if the report does make it clear


that there is a problem in this area which can only be fixed by


legislation, that the government will bring forward that legislation


as soon as possible and may I also, if elected, give the commitment from


this side of the house that we will do the same.


On the BBC license fee, the issue again is of trust. There is a real


danger that those institutions that seek protection in Royal charters


from what might be a Government of the day, will not be able to rely on


that as we go forward. I think the smoke and mirrors effect that was


always there with Royal charters is now gone. Therefore there is a real


problem about BBC. The Government will only end up convincing if he


can show by its actions that it does believe in the independence of the


organisations for which Royal charter protection are so important.


We are visiting attacks in higher education, where it is no longer


possible for those who have guardianship of the funds that we


put into research to have Royal charters, they are being removed.


There was a threat to universities that will no longer be able to


continue to have or change their existing Royal charters, and


therefore we've got to be careful on where we are going on this. I think


the Government has not been very successful in convincing and we will


do both the charter and fee for the BBC. I had some hope during


discussions on the charter this time around, with the care and


consideration of the Government did give to the question of how the


renewal of the BBC Charter and the settlement of the license fee would


be protected from the electoral cycle, that we would get somewhere


with this and we would continue to trust them. But we've just change


the electoral cycle. We have an election in 2017, which means the


next election will be in 2022, the year in which the BBC license fee is


settled. The election after that will be in 2027, the year of the


charter renewal will take place. Do you, my Lords, really believe that


we have the best system of protection in place? If we do not


seek more information and transparency about a Government that


deals with such an important institution as the BBC. I think the


noble lord Leicester is right to think again about how we might want


to protect in statute the organisations for which we have


care, and I'm very sad the very step on that which might've protected us


against the move that way in terms of the BBC license fee commission,


which after all is not an new idea, it did operate in 2005 /6, it was so


successful it annoyed the Government of the day that it recommended to


hide the license fee, it recommended Ali offered advice on the detailed


examination on the case for what the BBC needed to the fillets charter


obligations. That is what we were tied to do without an Amendment and


I supported the one that came out of the communication committee. It was


right at the time it was proposed, it was supported here at the time


that may be supported in the absence of the trump card, which is to


change the electoral cycle. If we don't get a commitment from the


Government today that there is going to need to be another look at this


whole question of the timing, I do think we are in a very bad place. My


Lords, I am grateful for all his contributions in May I start with


the noble lord Best, I am grateful for the limited thanks he gave me


and I give him unqualified things in return, because we have talked about


this for a long time both in and out of the chamber. The one thing I can


say about the Government's view on the BBC license fee is that we have


been entirely consistent. I think I can say to Lord Leicester that, in


conversations over a period of time both in and out of the chamber, I


have never given him any reason to expect that we should change our


view on this and he said he was apathetically optimistic, and I hope


he remains optimistic and other things, but we have been entirely


consistent on this matter. Because, as they explained at length, we do


not believe that it is right for a tax to be consulted on. I do


understand that the issues, and I do understand the strength of feeling


in this House, but that is why we have made some changes and during


the charter renewal process, we have outlined, as I said earlier, that we


protected the funding for five years, we won't have any so-called


midnight raids. It has been protected from inflation, which it


wasn't before. We agree that we will take in information and take expert


advice before this process goes ahead in five years' time. Of


course, I do take the noble lord Leicester's threat of a Private


member's bill extremely seriously and I must assume there is a


possibility it will be forthcoming, and I look forward to debating with


him on that will stop at the moment, I do not believe that there are


situations that are likely to change, but of course in 11 years'


time, it might. I don't think I'll be involved with it at that time. He


asked a number of questions about the Government guaranteeing the


independence of the BBC. Will we adequately funded? The new charter,


it indoors is the role of independence and increases the


independence of the BBC in a number of ways. Of course, this Government


will live by the provisions of the Royal charter as far as independence


of the BBC is concerned. On funding, we agreed that we will give it a


five-year period, and of course we will ensure that it is properly


funded for the future, but it will be a negotiation that takes place at


that time. As far as the noble lord's point about timing, Ofcom


will get going when they feel it is necessary. But what we have done by


our Amendment is put in and day on that so they will have to reduce the


report by about 2.5 years' time. That is a great advantage. I am


sorry... Just now, to have given an assurance to the House that the


Government does regard itself as under a duty to respect the


independence of the BBC and to provide sufficient funding to pursue


its purposes as an independent public service broadcaster, because


if the answer to those questions is yes, I am extremely grateful and if


the answer is no, that I would say to the Minister, power is delightful


and absolute power is absolutely delightful, but that should not be


his motto. What I said was, we of coarse abide by what we put into the


Royal charter and it mentions the independence of the BBC and it


enhanced the independence of the BBC from what came before. As far as


funding is concerned, we have a five-year deal and the funding will


be in negotiation as it goes on, but it is clearly not the Government's


desire to prevent the BBC carrying out its purposes. But there will be


an negotiation, this is a tax to provide for the BBC and each


five-year period will be taken on a separate basis.


So I'm just moving it on to the EPG now. I'm sorry, I should mention


also that the noble lord Stevenson mentioned the problem with win the


next funding period is coming around in connection with the election


cycle and of course it was carefully, the 11 year cycle was


carefully chosen to remove it from the electoral cycle I think at the


suggestion of this House, amongst others. It is of course unfortunate


that it is... Has been changed by the absence of the fixed term, but


of course the fixed term parliaments act is not an absolute guarantee for


a five-year parliament and it is true that...


The provision was written into the act itself to make sure it was the


case. Of course, the five-year settlement will be reached, the new


settlement will be reached before the next election, assuming it goes


to the full five years. The funding settlement is an 18-24 month


negotiation, so that will take place before the election takes place, if


it goes to the full five-year term. Fundamentally, though, a long


charter allows the BBC to operate with greater certainty and with the


freedom and confidence to deliver its object is. And it is also worth


remembering that, it in the course, where the charter process has


collided with the electoral cycle, it has always managed to conclude


successfully that the continue will continue -- Micah BBC will continue


to thrive. Moving onto the EPG, there was a suggestion that we


should take a broad Henry VIII power, I think both the noble Lords


Steven Finn mentioned this, the problem with that, there is an


unusual situation where both some French benches -- front benches are


almost amending the Government to take a broad Henry VIII power and


normally I would say I agree with that. But in this case, this would


really have a broad and wide ranging... He would have to be very


broad and wide reaching, because amendments could be necessary to the


communication act. The broadcasting act in 1990, the broadcasting act


1996. Depending on what Ofcom recommended, a wider Amendment might


be needed beyond traditional legislation beyond delete back to


other areas, which we would not necessarily want to capture, such as


online services. We think that this is the best way forward. The noble


lord Stevenson also asked about our belief in public sector broadcasting


and we have accepted the arguments of your Lordship's house to maintain


on our free to air channels, children's TV from the noble


Baroness Lady Benjamin, so they are evidence of our support for PSP 's.


-- PSB 's. I know noble Lords were disappointed about the BBC license


be will stop as I said, we were entirely consistent on this and I


think the commitment that we have made on EPG and the Minister in the


other place made should be some comfort to those who were


disappointed with our answers on this and, as a result, I hope they


will be able to accept them and I beg to move. The question is that


motion deed be agreed to. As many of that opinion essay, content. To the


contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that Motion


B he agreed to. As many of that opinion, say content. To the


contrary, not content. The contents have it. I beg to move motion as,


this House to agree with the comments in there and manage 2468.


We recommend the good intentions behind the original amendments and


we have accepted it, but we need to make some technical amendments to it


and that is the purpose of this Amendment. The Government's


Amendment clarifies that it should refer to the unique ticket put up


for resale and enable the buyer to identify the location of the ticket


within the venue. Our Amendment also removes the provision requiring


ticket sellers to provide, quote, at any specific condition attached to


the resale of the ticket. Many global Lords have asked me about


this, I want to put on record why. The Government is firmly of the view


that when a secondary ticket provider with the ticket on sale,


they must give the buyer clearer information about the conditions


attached to the ticket regarding resale. This is in provision 93 B of


the consumer rights act 2015. Duplication can only add to


confusion. It can only add confusion, where as we want


secondary ticket sellers absolutely clear on this point. This Amendment


is in addition to DMM meant of buying tickets to it and maximum


amount by a bot illegal. I begin by declaring an interest as


co-chair of the all-party Parliamentary group on ticket abuse


and pay tribute to my co-chair for the standing work she has done on


the subject. In brief, I welcome the Government's amendment and I also


welcome their response by the Government to the Waterson review


accepting the recommendations in full. The power of God but now to


introduce a criminal offence to stop the use of bots to purchase tickets,


the provision of funding for enforcement action and I hope that a


future government will work to strengthen enforcement and I also


look forward to the outcome of the Competition and Markets Authority in


their enforcement investigation into suspected breaches of consumer


protection law. That is very important because the evidence in


the secondary market consistently flouting the law on a daily basis is


clear for all to see on many online sites. I welcome the comments made


by the Minister saying a ticket should have a unique reference


number that people can see when they purchase it. That would make it easy


to identify the reseller and it is an important step forward but I


would like to ask for one further assurance from my noble friend the


Minister. Just now he said the original amendment that I had put


forward was not necessary in whole because it included the addition of


a requirement to list any terms and conditions and the Government has


deleted that contending this is already covered under section 90 of


the consumer rights Bill. This is an important issue just to have clarity


on. The Government have argued that section 90 which requires online


secondary ticket websites to provide information about any restriction


which limits use of the ticket to persons of a particular description


effectively means that my amendment was unnecessary and duplicative. The


understanding of many has spent that section 90 was designed to ensure


transparency about any ticket which was for a child or disabled person


or had a restricted view and other similar restrictions and was not


about the resell terms and conditions which was not subject to


did date -- debate. Maybe it would assist if I gave an example to


demonstrate this point. Metallica have an upcoming UK tour and is an


example why the scope of a consumer rights act targeting secretary


websites is necessary. In the instance of Metallica, well-known to


many members of the House, although our strict conditions are in place


to mitigate ticket tempting with names being printed on tickets to


prevent resale, the photo ID of the book must be presented and


accompanying guests which must enter at the same time. Tickets are


limited at four per credit card and this is clear when you buy a ticket.


Do I understand without doubt that my noble friend the Minister is


saying that requirement, those terms and conditions making that


information is mandatory on the secondary market sites and is fully


covered by the existing law? I think that was what he was saying but it


would be useful if he could confirm that. Because it would be of


assistance to the CMA and to trading standards and not least because it


would support and protect the interests of fans of Metallica and


indeed the show Hamilton which faces the same challenges. With that


requirement for final assurance from my noble friend, could I conclude by


thanking noble Lords for the support on this and for the hard work he has


undertaken to ensure we have made progress. My lords, can I join with


the noble Lloyd Moynihan and I wanted to make a brief intervention


because I wanted to congratulate him and Sharon Hodgson in their


persistence in achieving what we have achieved so far. I think it is


considerable, a great deal of progress has been made in


restricting the activities of the secondary ticket sites and we all


look forward to the Competition and Markets Authority report which may


well suggest further changes to legislation and certainly will give


us a good idea as to whether or not the provisions of the consumer


rights act are being properly enforced and I think that will be


extremely illuminating. I hope the Minister will be able to answer what


they noble lord has raised in terms of visit duplication or have we


thrown something out through the Government's Commons amendment. I


want to end my contribution today by saying that this bill perhaps in the


words of my noble friend, we have not taken up the floorboards today,


but we have given the Digital economy a decent lick of paint in


the process. It is not a very ambitious bill and I think many of


us could argue at length as to what other aspects we should have covered


in the bill, but I wanted to thank the Minister for his unfailing help


for this and the Bill team and I very much welcome not only the


movement today which is perceptible, which is not always the case on wash


up, but also some of the movement that was made in the course of the


Bill and Lord Moynihan talked about the outlawing of mass online


purchases but new Ofcom powers in respect of children's programmes,


particularly welcome, so there has been movement in this House as a


result of amendments in this House and discussions we have held so I am


grateful and I look forward to new digital economy bill before too


long. This marks another stage in the campaign led by the noble Lord


Monaghan but also was led by the Baroness who played a huge part in


this. I am sure she is a part of this wherever she is. The noble Lord


has mentioned bots and we should not ignore the fact that that will make


a huge change to the secondary ticket market. The solution that the


Bill team came up with is creative and I hope it works, but the first


step has been taken and this will crack down on secondary ticketing.


The question the noble Lord Moynihan raised and I hope the Minister will


answer, whether or not the conditions apply because they are


not drafted quite like that in the original legislation. I also ask


about the particular amendment we have got. In its original


formulation they inserted the words any unique ticket number. In the


final version it says, any unique ticket number that helps the buyer


identified the seat. Does that in some sense employ a voluntary


obligation because if it does, that would be very unfortunate. Could


somebody argue that they did not include the unique ticket number


specified because in their beauty did not help the buyer identify a


seat or standing area or its location. What is it a variation on


the word must that a ticket number could help the ticket buyer identify


a seat and location. I am very grateful to especially my noble


friend Lord Moynihan and other noble Lords and I think we have to some


extent overcome the great disappointment in the previous


group. Noble Lords have been clear in this debate that they want to see


tough action to deal with a serious problem in the secondary ticket


market, and the Government is taking action that is why we have provided


funding for national trading standards to take further


enforcement action. We have facilitated the industry and the CMA


has launched an enforcement investigation into suspected


breaches of consumer protection law. I am sure that the noble Lord Lord


Moynihan and other noble Lords will continue to keep this issue under


the spotlight and will make progress in protecting consumers and


supporting our national sporting, Cottle assets. There were some


specific questions about that and as my noble friend, the Minister in the


Other Place made clear that as far as the Gottman is concerned, the


advice is that the consumer rights act, we are firmly of the view that


when a secondary ticket seller offers a ticket for sale, they must


give the buyer clear information about certain conditions attached to


the ticket and when we said it is duplicated, our advice is it is. If


I say to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that the notes under


section 33 B of the consumer rights act to makes it that the buyer must


give information about any restrictions that apply to the


ticket. My noble Lord Stevenson asked about the wording of the other


bit of... The text, any unique ticket number may help the buyer


identified the seat or standing area or its location. Does that may make


this voluntarily? The answer is no, it is mandatory in its technical


language to link this to such action -- subsection 90. I hope that


answers the questions. I wanted to reiterate what the noble Lord


Clement Jones mentioned about some of the advantages, some of the games


that this bill has had from your Lordships house and the opposition


amendments and suggestions in the Other Place as well and I say this


to acknowledge their input into it, but also to show that we have been


flexible in some things at least, in many things and I think where we


have made progress and we have, and these are all areas that were


suggested by the opposition in various houses, extension of public


lending rights to eat books, children's television accessibility


of on demand services including subtitles, we have maintained the


capability of having listed events which was first tabled in the


Commons. We have Bill limits as we talked about earlier for mobile


phones, we have a code of practice for social media, we opened the


group and reach, we have Internet filters which protect children and


the review of the electronic programme guide although not quite


as much as some noble Lords wanted. But also, the opposition has


supported things that will make a great advance in the Digital


economy. The electronic communications code, a crucial piece


of amendment. Age very location for online pornography where we have


also listened and adjusted the regime to address the concerns of


the opposition. We have extended age verification on on demand television


so 18 certificate to you is kept away from children and government


data sharing will enable us to deliver better services to the


vulnerable and there is a repeal of section 73 of the patents act which


I think was accepted. I mentioned my thanks to many noble Lords at third


reading, I repeat especially to the noble Lord Stevenson, the noble Lord


Clement Jones who headed the various, quite large teams in this


House and I am very grateful to all of them and my Lords, I beg to move.


The question is that motion have to be agreed to, as many of that


opinion is the content. And not content. The content habit.


Specified agreement on driving disqualification. My Lords, this


statutory instrument is being made to be introduced an agreement to


allow for the mutual recognition of driving disqualification is between


the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. The noble Lords may recall


that the previous arrangement on this matter under the 1998 European


Convention on driving disqualification is seized to apply


in the UK in the 1st of December 2014 when the UK exercise that right


to opt out of the these EU police and criminal justice matters under


the Treaty of Lisbon. The UK has one of the best road safety records in


the world and the cooperation between administrations in Great


Britain and Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland will improve it


further. This measure is particularly important for the


people of Northern Ireland who share a 310 mile long border with Ireland,


where around 15,000 people across 300 crossing point on a daily basis


travelling between the two. Last year traffic accidents caused 68


people to needlessly lose their lives in Northern Ireland. If a


British or other Irish driver receives an instant disqualification


from driving while travelling in the Republic of Ireland, see for example


for drink-driving or causing a series injury to another road user


this disqualification can follow the individual back home. The same is


true for Irish drivers disqualified here in Britain or in Northern


Ireland. My Lords the treaty that officials have negotiated with the


Irish is almost identical to the now-defunct European Convention on


driving disqualification is but with one important difference, the


convention gave rise to a liberal in its wording whereby some drivers


could escape the ban following them home by four -- falsely claiming


residents in the country where the offence occurred. We have amended


the wording accordingly to close this loophole, ensuring that those


unscrupulous individuals trying to escape punishment can no longer do


so. This process is straightforward, when a British or Northern Irish


court rules that a driver is to be disqualified and the drivers


normally resident in Ireland and can hold any particular driving licence,


the driver will be able to appeal the decision. If the appeal is heard


and rejected or not filed the DVLA will write to the road safety


authority in Ireland and inform them that a driver resident in Ireland


has been disqualified. It is then that the cases referred to the Irish


courts and the judges there can elect to uphold the ban. The same is


true of the British and rather manage drivers disqualified in


Ireland. These measures are not to be considered as double punishment,


drivers do have the right of appeal against the initial ban against the


ban applying in the country of normal residence but a driver who


commits an offence serious and often edit instant disqualification needs


to be taken off the road in the UK and Ireland for the appropriate


duration. If the Irish court imposes additional punishments are being


forced to reset a driving test or taking an extended driving test we


in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will similarly impose


additional punishments. I should like to point out for the noble lord


that any driving this cold occasions arising from the trotting up a


penalty point is not covered in the series of measures still I would


share with noble Lords that Ireland and indeed Northern Ireland are


continuing to engage on a bilateral basis and continuing the discussion


is that the North-South Council for mutual recognition of penalty


points. The agreement on mutual recognition of the -- cold occasions


in the UK and Ireland will not be affected by the United Kingdom


decision to leave the EU, indeed as the Prime Minister herself stated on


the 30th of January following a meeting with the chief negotiator


for the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland the ability to move


freely across the border is an essential part of daily life which


is why the tioseach and Primus has been clear that there will be no


return to the borders of the past. Economic links with Ireland will be


an important priority for the UK in the talks ahead and I look forward


to the brief debate this afternoon. Goal the question is that this


motion be agreed to. I noticed the noble Lord as referred to the brief


this afternoon, I take it that this is a statement of hope on his part,


judging by the numbers in the chamber brasserie both Mr Stitt and


the debate on driving disqualification regulations 2017 is


packing in the noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord for his explanation


of the purpose of the regulations which we support in the background


to them but I have one or two queries. The note indicates that


mutual recognition of driving disqualification between the UK and


Ireland was previously in operation between January 2010 and December


2014 pursuant to the European convention on driving


disqualifications. It then indicates that following the Lisbon Treaty we


opted out of the convention from December 2014 as part of the block


opt out under the treaty and the memorandum then states that the


purpose of this instrument is to specify a bilateral agreement dated


30th of October 2015 between the UK and Ireland on the mutual


recognition of driving disqualification is imposed by


either state for certain specified road traffic offences, but as I


understand it and indeed has the Lord Minister has confirmed do not


include disqualifications arising from the trotting up process. Now


that the Minister has confirmed that that is the case with elation to the


potting up process and I invite him to see a little more about why that


is the case? I appreciate that in the Commons a government minister


said the Northern Ireland and Ireland were engaged in bilateral


discussions through the North-South ministerial Council about major


recognition of penalty points. But the minister in the Commons added


that this was still a work in progress, frankly is this such a big


problem that it still cannot be resolved some 18 months after the


bilateral agreement dated 30th of October 2015? Even accepting that


penalty points are assessed in a different way in Ireland? How much


longer is it going to take? The main point I want to clarify is the


length of time for which there has been no mutual recognition of


driving disqualification between the UK and Ireland. On the understanding


that the previous arrangements ceased on the 1st of December 2000


-- 1st of December 2014I want to clarify, I think I know the answer


but I want to clarify that they were then not reinstated to the bilateral


agreement. And that the impact of that agreement is only be brought


into effect by these regulations some 18 months later and some two


and a half years after the ceased to apply, which appears to be the


situation and I think that is what the noble lord the ministers


indicating. If it is that likely to have a half year period which these


arrangements have not applied, why has it taken so long since


presumably a government have decided well in advance of the 1st of


December 2014 opt out state that it would be making the block opt out


from the Lisbon Treaty and surely steps that would at least reduce the


length of this apparently length the gap could have been put in train


much earlier. I would like an extra nation from the government as to why


this whole process could not have been expedited somewhat more


quickly. It does not look as though it has been given a very high


priority, even though it relates to road safety and even though the opt


out lead to a weakening of the legislative power on road safety for


which there was no supporting evidence will order -- or


justification on road safety grounds. Could the noble Lord


Minister also see what happened to the mutual wreck nations on


disqualifications then in force under the convention when we opted


out? Did they remain in force? Or did they then no longer have any


legal standing? Finally what is the government estimate of the number of


people who could have been disqualified under the mutual


recognition agreement arrangements in the not apparently been brought


to an end in 2014 with the opt out, but in respect of women has not been


possible since then to apply the mutual recognition arrangements


because they have no longer been applicable since the opt out? In


particular how many people today have we had to have been able to


drive in the United Kingdom who would not have been able to do so if


we had not opted out of the convention on mutual recognition of


driving disqualifications? And how many of those people have


subsequently committed road traffic offences in the UK? And if the noble


Lord Minister thinks I am asking for somewhat obscure information, I am


certainly not. This is about road safety and potentially about people


who should not be driving around on the road in the UK and I ask for


this information particularly in the light of paragraph 72 of the


government's on explanatory memorandum which accepts that it,


quote, is important to the UK for reasons of road safety to ensure


that drivers so disqualified and Ireland cannot drive on UK roads. It


appears as though they have been able to drive on UK roads for the


past two and half years. By Lawrence, maybe perhaps I was


presumptuous in my opening remarks but from the response perhaps I was


right that this would be a short debate. I thank the noble Lord for


his support of this measure, he has made a number of important points


and I would look -- I would look -- I would not say that the pointy


noble Lord has raised our not important. I let myself with his


sentiments about the importance -- the importance of road safety. If I


could take some of the issues the noble Lord has raised. First of all


the issue of why it took so long since 2014, in terms of the EU


committed itself the 1988 convention ceased to apply in the EU in


December 2016, contempt of the mutual recognition between ourselves


and Ireland the only way that we could reintroduce these particular


arrangements was by the treaty as the Irish Constitution itself


forbids agreements of this nature to be made by items such as in a more


year, for example, are similar in formal instruments and therefore it


does take time to be agreed and the provisions from the Irish side I


believe carried within wider bill that was subsequently passed by the


Irish Parliament. On the issue of penalty points, which the noble Lord


raised, about not being included, there are different methods of


calculating penalty points between the UK and Ireland, so just to give


practical examples, it is legally incompatible, for example the UK


also counts one we and the Irish Kent and other so the actual


enforcement, there are different points apply for different offences.


In terms of Northern Ireland specifically, I will get the


Northern Irish offers to write further in terms of specific


arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland. In terms of the


numbers of drivers there are around 100 people who are affected from


Ireland per year who were banned under these measures in Great


Britain and Northern Ireland and an equal number were banned in Ireland.


I think I have answered most of all the questions the noble Lord has


made but slightly once again emphasise with the noble Lord, he


raised the borders of the issue and the fact is that here we are at the


last steel terms to speak actually with the government putting this


forward again it undermines the importance that we do attach to


ensuring that these provisions can be made and that these can be


translated into statute. Can I ask before the noble lord sits down, the


disqualifications in force under the mutual recognition arrangements that


will enforce at the time of the opt out in December 2014, did they


continue to apply or did they no longer have any legal status


following the opt out? And could the noble Lord Minister for whatever


reasons may be just confirm that it has been it in a tuna have your


period in which the happy people driving around on the road in the UK


who would not have been able to do so if they opt had not been made in


2014. On the issue as I said the convention continued in seats to


apply in December 20 16 -- December 20 16. On the issue here is about


the number of people may not have been driving through any intervening


period, I will again get the information in writing to him. But I


would emphasise once again that the reason there has been a delay as the


season, but the reason is between the 2014 and the date that we are


now putting forward was also due to the fact of respecting the other


side of the discussion, which was the Irish site, in ensuring that


they would go through the appropriate due process to ensure


that they could then implement this particular piece of legislation. The


question is that this motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion


will say content. Content. Country not content, content is added. Lord


Clarke of Windermere. My Lords, in moving the motion in my name, I


think it is particularly important that the final debate of this


Parliament in this house is on a matter of such concern to the


British people, our National Health Service. And if there is one group


of people who actually are top, always, the approval rate of the


British people, it is nurses. It is widely accepted that the


national health service provides real value for money. In fact we get


health on the cheap in this country. We actually spend less on health


than any other member, bar one, of the G-7 nations and I am not sure


that that can continue for very much longer. I think we are going to have


to spend more on health with our ageing population and with the


growth of what is technological possible. It a sense, we have been


helped in this debate by a report of a select committee of this House on


the long-term stability of the NHS and adult social care. They draw to


our attention how we failed over the years to have long-term planning for


the way in which we organise staff and of course we must remember there


are approximately 150,000 people who work for the health service. It is


indeed a fascinating organisation. You have this labour-intensive


organisation which nursing in one way implies, yet it is married and


works alongside high, cutting edge technology and science and it works


and we must continue to ensure that it works, but the key is actually


the staff. The staff at every level. And I think anyone who follows the


press, who talks to doctors, talks to nurses, talks to the other


professionals will know that our health service, our national Health


Service is actually in deep trouble and is only functioning safely due


to the work level of the staff and the intense dedication they have


towards the service in which they work, but that, cannot continue


indefinitely. The Royal colleges are telling us of nursing, midwifery and


all the medical disciplines are telling us that we are getting


towards a breaking point. This strain is intense, the morale is


low. If we just take nursing, there are currently and I think there is


no disagreement with this about 24,000 nurses short. That doesn't


only affect our National Health Service but it affects something


else, which is a big issue at the moment and this is the after-care


service, because quite frankly I have had a number of care providers,


nursing home providers contacting me and saying they have had to close


beds because they cannot get nurses to staff them. And we tend to


neglect that I dress mention it in passing today, because I want to


concentrate on the whole service. Indeed gather the Government have


had a report which is not yet public, which was available to them


in March which suggested on a worse figure scenario, I have the size


that, that by the early 20s, we would not be 24,000 nurses short but


we would be 42,000 nurses short. And all this is not helped. The morale


is not helped by the fact that nurses who are not well paid to


start with but are highly qualified, all the nurses are now graduates,


they have got to do professional work, increasingly they are doing


the work that was traditionally done by doctors. They are able to do it,


they are skilled to do it and we benefit greatly, but the 1% annual


pay which they have been... They have had to accept since 2010 is


having a massive effect on morale. Especially when people are having to


work so hard. We only get by because we imported nurses from overseas. We


have traditionally done that. I am not just blaming the Government in


this case, but the problem is now acute. Because of those nurses from


overseas, 20,000 of them originate from European Union countries and in


spite of efforts and pleading by myself and other people, we cannot


get the Government to commit to those 20,000 people who work so hard


in our National Health Service that they should be allowed to stay in


Britain. That would be easy to do because all we need to do is


actually to tweak the residency rules and that could be done without


causing any problems, yet it would be of great benefit in retaining


those nurses. I do believe we should of that -- offered them permanent


residency as they have dedicated so much effort to providing health care


to our population, but at the end of the day, we must train more


home-grown nurses. The supply is there because for every person who


has accepted onto a nursing course at the University, there is twice as


many people applying, so there is the quality and quantity of


individuals who want to train as nurses and the reason why they are


not being trained as nurses is because the Government have insisted


on a cap on the numbers. The universities are not allowed to


accept more nurses than has been agreed with the Government and I


think by imposing this cap we actually are exacerbating the


problem and actually, and I got to challenge the Minister on this, it


does come to the point that we are only really talking about saving


money. That is what is dominating the Government's approach to the


training of nurses. Now, just to re-capital, the system that has been


developed, the bursary system meant that nurses who went into training


didn't actually pay fees and the quid pro quo was that they then went


on and worked in the care services or the National Health Service. That


system worked well and was fully subscribed. But under the proposals


we are debating today, these individuals will have to pay ?9,000


per year in fees for three years, which with their living costs mean


that the nurses enter a profession not well paid, with ?50,000 minimum


hanging on their shoulders. And I don't think that is a very sensible


way of approaching it, because we have to accept that the nursing


students courses at universities are very different from most courses. It


isn't just lectures and library work. At least half the time of


nurses in training is spent on the job. It is spent on clinical


training and indeed in most hospitals, most patients wouldn't


actually really determine which was a student nurse and which was a


qualified nurse, because the student nurses are actually doing the work


of the trade nurses as well except in a few technical specialist areas.


It is ironic, yes... Could he tell the House his point about the number


of nurses who previously got bursaries and his point about the


financial controls on bursaries, could he tell the House what


proportion of those applying were unable to get bursaries and


therefore unable to get training places? As I understand the question


that you were not allowed anybody who was on the course was accepted


onto the course got a bursary, so they've all got the bursary, as I


understand the situation. I am pretty sure I am right on that, but


the point I was making about the courses being different was not only


that it was more intensive and work on the job, it was also longer. The


average course length at the universities for nursing, midwives


and allied health professionals is 39 weeks a year, much longer than


the average student course, so it is a different course, they have no


opportunity, or little opportunity, to do any extracurricular work


because of the nature of the job. Yet while they are working on wards,


as I have said, they work as the team. Now, in essence what the


Government are insisting, and I think this is the first time for


decades they are actually insisting that the nurses pay for working in


the health service. They are paying their ?9,000 a year to work as


unpaid nurses and I think that is actually scandalous. Absolutely


scandalous! Because even before the new system came in, if we go back 50


years, you were accepted on a nursing course, you went to the


hospitals, you were trained there, it was a mixture of rocks in the


hospital and also working on the wards as well, that is how it


traditionally went, but the nurses did not have to pay to actually


perform those tasks and I do think it is outrageous that this


Government is insisting that the nurses should actually pay for their


own training. Now, the Government's justification for this change is to


increase the number of nurses being trained. That is something that we


all welcome, we all want the number of nurses to be increased, it would


help in so many ways. I mean, virtually every hospital now


survives by using agency nurses, paying far, far more in hourly pay


them the NHS staff nurses get paid and we could save billions of pounds


if we had sufficient nurses to staff our NHS and our after-care service,


so what I am arguing actually makes financial sense, but the point the


Government are making is that they are prepared, if nurses pay for


their own education and this is perhaps the point that the noble


Lord was making, if they paid, they would lift the cap. So the


universities could train as many students as they wanted and that is


something I hope works. I want the system to work, but then become to


the problem, it is easy enough for the universities to expand their


lectures, to provide their library facilities, but the difficulty comes


when the health service has gone to provide their mentors, the Chuter is


to provide the practical oversight of the students when they are


working on the wards and in clinical situations, and there is no


provision as I can see by the Government to provide extra money to


hospital trusts to actually perform that critical part. At least half


the part of the cost of nursing. So I believe that this proposal, which


I want to work, I think it is highly risky. I think when you look at the


fact that we are dependent on nurses from the European Union and if you


look at the latest figures, you find that there has been a 90% for in the


registration of nurses from the European Union countries by December


of last year, a 90% drop. It is an ominous sign and then we have the


figures from the Government and they showed that the number of applicants


was down by 23%. I accept the Government point these were


applicants, they were not people who had actually been accepted on the


course, but what worries me is that if this follows through and if the


Government does not get students prepared to roll at universities, we


are going to find we are making no inroads at all into this shortage of


24,000 nurses. And I believe that the government


approach is a high risk approach, when you have such a large shortage


there must be other ways of dealing with it. Why can't they just, for a


number of years, lift the cap on universities and say, train as many


as you possibly can. Why don't we even say, if the government are not


prepared to go that way, why don't they say, look, nursing students who


actually then go on and spent a number of years working in the NHS,


low paid as it is, that we should say to them, we will write off your


Jewish and fees? That -- we wouldn't write off your tuition fees. I do


not believe we can risk the government proposal. I believe it is


high risk and that is why I feel it should have been debated and is


being debated in this time and I think it is interesting and


important that we have a full debate on this issue. The question is that


this motion be agreed to. I declare my interests as I am on the register


and I believe that this afternoon I am the only registered nurse in the


house. Nursing is the largest profession in the UK, and some half


a million people are only professional register. It is vital


that the international shortage of nurses and allied health professions


is recognised and that more investment is given to meet the


demand for health care the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord


Windermere, that the need to spend more on health and social care in


the United Kingdom is essential but not necessarily with your solution.


There needs to be at least three pathways to becoming a registered


nurse. We have supported as a profession the introduction of an


associate nurse wrote, which issued enable people to be paid while


learning and working and proceed ultimately if they so wish to train


for the register through a sophisticated apprenticeship style


right. We have the pilots in progress at the moment. The second


important developments in NHS's recent five-year plan is in


principle support for a graduate entry route similar to teach first


to be known as nurse first, this is likely to be piloted in mental


health and learning disability branches this autumn and would


provide an alternative route into nursing. And the third-rate which


the majority of students follow -- the third route, his a three-year


university programme with clinical placements both within the NHS and


other health care providers and the emphasis on hospital placements is


not nearly as important at the moment as the need to ensure that


students have experience in community settings and care homes,


many of which are in the independent sector. Because that is where a lot


of people are cared for now, as well as at home. I therefore believe that


rather than reinstate the bursary where we know that a lot of people


applied to go to university because the bursary was there and we had a


very high dropout in year one, and I was a day when that was happening so


I speak from experience, or someone who completed the course but never


had any intention of clinical nursing but wanted to go into a car


or perhaps become common air stewardess, neither of which I think


is a bad thing, but they have used the bursary structure to get the


degree as an entry into those programmes rather than an intention


to necessarily spend a lifetime of caregiving. So I think it would be


preferable to invest in the three methods of education leading to


registration, but seriously consider giving a bursary for the third year


of training when I would agree with the noble Lord most students give a


huge amount to the NHS in that third year. And often really pretty


indistinguishable in the final six months from a registered nurse. I


also fully support the concept that we ought to consider forgiveable


student loans following a period of employment in NHS on qualifying,


rather like that which is required -- that is granted to some nurses


and medics sponsored by the forces during the education provision. The


other thing that I want to draw the house's attention to is that there


are half a million nurses in this country, in the four countries that


make up the United Kingdom and we have invested very little in return


to nursing programmes and encouraging them back to work and


that might be the fastest route to get some or registered nurses back


into practice. Finally I want to support the concept that you just


addressed, that public sector salaries have been significantly


tightened in the last few years and there's a definite case that initial


starting salaries in the NHS for and allied health professionals should


be increased to recognise that they will be expected to repay the two


bones as from 2020. -- repay their student loans from 2020. As a woman


I get very upset at the idea that many nurses will not have to pay


back the student loan because they do not care very much. That is not


the right approach. I urge any future governments to invest further


in health and social care in order to be train to retain and recruit


health care professionals. Currently, the ratio of women to men


in nursing is named: one and has remained unchanged for many years.


-- is 9-1. We're spending significant time and money on


recruiting female engineers, perhaps we should do similarly to encourage


more men into the allied health professions than nursing. I do


expect that this will only be possible if there is fair


remuneration for nursing work in funding for continued professional


development as currently happens in medicine. I believe the issues I


have outlined would be a more strategic approach to the challenges


we face than the straightforward introduction bursaries in the first


two years of university programmes leading to registration. I realised


that members opposite anxious to get away to campaign for the reader in


the forthcoming election. But 20 years ago as a junior minister


responsible for health, I was asked to sponsor something called Project


2000 and the move that all nurses should be graduates. I thought it


was a rather silly idea. I could see and there might be a case for having


some health professionals who had degrees, but getting rid of what was


the old State registered nurse system seems to me to be a huge


mistake. The chief nurse was a particularly formidable person at my


Secretary of State did not agree with me. And I have to say that over


the last 20 years I think those people who argued that we did


actually needs people who would do perhaps the less, and not the less


important, actually some of the most important but more menial tasks, the


ending of bedpans and spending time with patients, the general care that


was so much a part of the health service, that he did not have too


have a university degree in order to achieve that. And I very much hope


that the government will think about that again. Baroness Watkins is


almost got the invoice you saying about creating, and I do not mean


that in a red sense, I mean she has almost got there in tens of offering


a path forward that might address this problem but I do not believe


that everyone needs to be graduates and the reason that I interrupted


the noble Lord to ask him how many of the people who applied to become


nurses actually ended up doing a degree and ended up as nurses is


because I knew the answer to my own question, which is that it is a


small proportion. What the government, and I thought his speech


contained a number of very important points, with which I agree, we are


going to train more nurses as a result of leaving the European


Union, that is clearly important. We are going to train more nurses


because of the demands upon the health service. But it seems to me


that what the government is proposing in these regulations,


which is to remove the cap and to provide the funding for a scheme of


loans, will provide for that and is addressing the problem. Now whether


the government are prepared to consider baroness Watkinss and Noble


suggestion that there may be a case at a stage in versus careers when


they have served the health service for a longer period for forgiving


the loans, that is another question. And certainly in the economic


affairs committee when we looked at the representations that we had


lunch in London I am not surprised, I would not be surprised if that


actually does not represent a better deal for the taxpayer than


continuing with the repayment where people are on not substantial


salaries. I very much hope, while I think that the noble Lord has


identified some real issues, I very much hope that people are not


actually going to vote for this motion which would actually says is


backwards and not provide for the opportunity which it provides for


more nurses to be trained and brought into our health service, and


I hope also that the government will consider whether it is absolutely


necessary for people to have university degrees in order to be


able to perform message at ease in our health service. My lord in the


absence of a voice in the opposition benches let me briefly intervened. I


shall declare interest as a visiting professor at Kings College in London


which does work through Guy 's and St Thomas 's. Lord Clarke was right


about the importance of nurses, and also the importance of the lack of a


supply, suitable supply of nurses in the old regime. We know from


baroness Watkins, a very constructive intervention, but I


would like to see to Lord Clarke, nurses should not be worried about a


model of fees and loans with graduate repayment. We went through


all of these concerns when we shifted mainstream education into


fees and loans in the first year there was a decline in applications,


but is an assisted and is understood that they were not paying upfront,


it was a repayment scheme where they would only pay back if they started


any more than 21,000 per year and through PAYE, in other words the


so-called debt was nothing like a bank overdraft credit card debt, it


was repayment through the income tax system if you are earning enough to


pay. That tackled the concerns and since then we have seen an


increasing number of students applying for university. And the


second point I would like to make follows an from the excellent


intervention from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. The reason we are


short of nurses is successive governments have been rationing the


number of nurses. Successive governments have been rationing the


numbers of nurses because nursing places have been financed out of now


-- public expenditure in the way to control public expenditure was to


control masses. That is why back in 2004-2005 we were funding 25


thousand nurses the year and that has been under steady decline to


around 17,000 now. There is no prospect of any government if we


look at that evidence as to what has happened in the past decade, of


having more nurse places under the old system. A crucial part of these


reforms is to remove the cap on places so we will have more nurse


places under the new system. So what this new system does is it actually


delivers more cash to cover their living costs for nurses during the


nursing education. It delivers more money parent nurse for universities


providing nurse education through the fees and loans system. And it


removes the cap and provides the NHS with more trained nurses in total.


That is a construct of reform for the NHS, it is progress on tackling


the long-standing problems -- in which Lord Clarke drew attention to


and it is why have to say this motion is misconceived. This is a


terrible time for the government to undertake a highly risky revision of


the funding of student nurses. We are already short of nurses as Lord


Clarke has told us and of course midwives as well and the imminent


Brexit has already made that worse with as we have heard in 80% drop in


the number of applications from EEA nurses. In addition to that we're


losing nurses due overwork and poor morale.


The Government focused on implementation rather than looking


carefully at alternative ways of funding nurse training to ensure


fairness and a stable increase supply of nurses. The excellent


speech by the noble lady Baroness Morgan Kings clearly demonstrates


that there are many different ways of doing that and I am not convinced


that the Government has taken all those proposals into account. It


really ought to stop in its tracks at the moment and look at all those


alternatives before going ahead with this regulation. We are still


waiting for information about how or whether the practice placements will


be funded wherever that is, whether in the NHS or the care services. As


we have heard, nurses have to do 2300 hours in a clinical placement.


This requires considerable resorts input from the hospitals or care


placements. Hospitals most of which are already in deficit and without


proper resources there is no way the system can accommodate 10,000 extra


student nurses even if as we all hope the Government is right and


universities to offer that many additional places. I do understand


where the noble Lord Willets is coming from and clearly the tuition


fees and loan system has not put off students in most university courses.


But nurses are different from other students, so be it is not a given


that they would respond like students on other courses to the


need to take out loans and pay fees. They are more predominantly from


lower socio economical groups and they have a higher proportions of


mature students with family commitments. They spent nearly half


their course times in hospital placements and have a high number of


contact how was that other students and that makes it more difficult for


them to get a part-time job to fund their living expenses as other


students can do. Because they are not highly paid, it has been


calculating that the vast majority of them will not have paid off their


student loans over 30 years so that they will be written off. It is a


fact. Some also have other student loans from other courses that they


have previously undertaken, so this strategy of the Government will not


necessarily save much money. It will shift the dirt off the books which I


suppose was the objective. I do hope the Government have been hasty.


Instead of removing the bursaries we need a thoroughgoing investigation


into the factors affecting nurse recruitment and retention, because


the latter is a very portable factor. It is no use filling up the


bucket if there is a hole in the bottom and in this case there is.


Retention of Judith nurses to the end of their causes poor and


retention of nurses and midwives beyond the first two years after


qualification is also poor. So not for the first time do I asked the


minister whether he will ensure that data is collected in a consistent


way so that we can identify those settings that are good at keeping


their students, their nurses and their midwives and those that are


not. We can then learn from best practice and spread it. The impact


of the Government's plans on admissions, student numbers and


quality and on the stability of the qualified workforce is yet unclear


and the Government has not said how it intends to monitor this impact on


the workforce. Without a solid evidence base, this policy should


not go ahead. Therefore I support the regret motion and call on the


Government to think again. When I was granted a topical question on


this subject for which I am very much appreciated, when I was granted


that topical question, the noble Lord chose to characterise my


opposition to the Government's damaging proposals as a side I did


not support the policy of student loans. Wench to judgments were first


introduced by the Labour government, both studying for health professions


were excluded. As tuition fees rose, successive governments maintained


that exclusion and we don't need to ask why, because Lord Clarke and


other speakers in this debate have made it clear that students building


a career in those professions are quite unlike the wider student


population. The most revealing statistic on that is that 41% of


them in those categories are over 25 compared to 80% of the total student


population, that sets them apart -- 18%. They are unable to support


themselves as other students can do during their studies because of the


hours required of students in the health professions. None of this was


taken into account by the Government, a government anxious to


make savings and despite having those facts, they have declined to


alter the cause they have set on. The nursing workforce already has


severe shortages, of 225000 and and we know fewer nurses from the EU are


coming to work and by 2020, nearly half the workforce will be eligible


for retirement. What does the Government do, it ends the


established practice of providing nursing students with bursaries and


tells them to take out loans that will leave them with debts of at


least ?50,000. I heard what the noble Lord said. But it is


nonetheless the fact that those seeking to study for nursing,


midwifery and allied professions on the basis they would have had a


personally, that is a shock but it is not the case. -- bursary. This is


a sudden shock brought about by the Government and it will have a


Dutchman told effect on those wanting to study. When ever we need


the NHS we like to think it is there for us but we are anxious when loved


ones need to spend time in hospital and we require adequate nurses for


that treatment. I have to say the Government is failing the NHS and a


further example was provided to date when councils opinion in response to


my noble friend Lord Hunt stated that the Government is acting


illegally by not compelling NHS England to treat the required 92% of


patients within 18 weeks. Lord Hunt has submitted a motion which appears


on page four and I think that highlights the fact that the


Government are cavalier in the way in which they are allowing patients


to be treated. The latest applications for nursing courses


last year started in September, they are down by some 23% and the latest


data available for March shows that that decline is continuing and


although there is still a ratio of 2-1 applicants to training places,


the fall in applicants could compromise the quality of


candidates. More over it could deter prospective students when they


understand the applications of the student loan system. The general


secretary of the Royal College of Nursing said, the nursing workforce


is in crisis and as fewer nurses graduate, it will exacerbate an


unsustainable situation. The outlook is bleak. Those are her words. The


National Health Service peer-reviewed body said the removal


of bursaries could also have a disruptive impact on the supply or


quality of supply and the removal of the bursary could have an unsettling


effect on the number and quality of applicants training. Why is it the


Government is certain it has a monopoly on wisdom? We should also


ask the question as to why they are doing it? The Government has said


firstly it will add 10,000 nurses up to 2020, but far from a courage in


-- encouraging additional placements, cutting bursaries will


discourage many because of the fear of debt and the House of Commons


Public Accounts Committee said in its report that the changes could


have a negative effect an impact on both the overall number of


applicants and on certain groups such as mature students or those


with children. A student numbers are not there, higher institutions will


be worse off because of the decline. The Government's proposal also


stated it will ensure sustainable funding for universities but has yet


there is no indication of an increase in funding. A study by


London economics found that higher education institutions will be worse


off by around 50 million per cohort. Half of this will be as a result of


a decline in student numbers and there is able danger that some


universities may decide to stop running some health-related courses


if they are deemed unsustainable. The Government have also said


scrapping NHS bursaries will save the Treasury money but there will be


no cost savings because most nurses will not earn enough to repay the


loan and the decline in numbers entering nursing will increase


agency nursing staffing costs. London economics estimated that with


increased agency costs, there will be more than an additional ?100


million cost by trusts per cohort, wiping out any potential savings.


These proposal should not be preceded with at least until the gum


has published the results of the second stage of its consultation. It


has been delayed and will not see it now until the other side of the


election and that is unsatisfactory and it is confirmation of what is no


more than a leap into the dark. That is no way to treat the career


development of some of our most wonderful public servants. These


changes are high risk at the time as the NHS is ill-equipped to cope with


some risk. Can I just end with a comment in response to the


dismissive jibe by Lord Forsyth. I say to him, yes, we are keen to get


on came in and that is what we will do to encourage the people to elect


a government that will properly fund and value the NHS and its staff.


Bring it on. Can I first thank all noble Lords who have contributed to


this debate. Also to congratulate the noble Lord Clarke on his


prescience in scheduling this debate several weeks ago. He clearly has


admirers in the Leader of the Opposition's office.


While the noble Lord may have been prescient and influential, I fear on


this issue he and the Labour Party and Lib Dems are wrong. They are


wrong because the new system we are introducing for student nurses


matches that experienced by other undergraduate students, a system


that has been a primary driver of a bigger scansion of higher education


and improve participation among the disadvantage and wrong because of


the impact of Brexit. I thought the Labour Party was in favour of


leaving the EU although having heard the policy, but is anyone's guess


but I can reassure the House that this Government not only understands


the difficult choices that need to be made to ensure our NHS has the


resources it needs to thrive, but it will be a... I would like to join


other noble Lords in paying tribute to the work that more than 2.5


million people working in the NHS do every day often in challenging


conditions. They represent values to which we all aspire, service,


hardware, can passion and dine inspiration. They cannot be a person


in this country who cannot give them thanks for their expertise and


commitment. This Government is taking action to support that


workforce so that it can deliver excellent patient care through


flexible working, good leadership and Eucharist raptures. As part of


these changes from August 2017, new full-time students studying nursing,


midwifery will have access to the standard student support system for


tuition fee loans and maintenance loans. These reforms will enable


more money to go into front-line services around ?1 billion a year to


be reinvested in the NHS. In addition they help secure the


future supply of nurses and health care professionals. First by


removing the cap that has been identified by my noble friend is


being a feature of the current system so that more applicants can


gain a place in the universities will be able to deliver up to 10,000


additional training places. The changes also enable a typical


provision of 25% increase in living costs a port for health care


students and it puts universities in a stronger financial and competitive


position so they are able to invest sustainably for the long-term. The


noble lady baroness Watkins in her excellent and well-informed speech


also pointed out that it removes a perverse incentive of the current


system where it is the sole degree that is subsidised in that way and


that brings with it a number of benefits as well, including I should


say addressing the issue identified by the noble lady around retention


on courses of people who are fully committed to taking part in a


nursing career. Successive governments and reforms to student


finance have seen methods put in place the reforms should finance.


This is in more people than ever to benefit from university education


and has spread firmly costs throughout society at large that the


taxpayer and the individual to benefit themselves from the degree


course. As a consequence as advantage people are now 43% more


likely to go into university than in 2009. And for the last application


cycle the entry rate for 18-year-olds from disadvantaged


backgrounds is at a record high, and 18.5% in 2016 compared with 13.6% in


the last year of the Labour government in 2009. That is what we


mean by country of the -- country that works for everyone. It is


because of these positive effects that moves towards a low a system


have been supported by parties across the house. They were to just


a Labour government, extended by a conservative model democrat


government and taken on by this Conservative government. Turning to


applications financing the midwifery courses the latest data published by


UCAS shows a 22% fall in the number of applicants to nursing and


midwifery courses in England impaired to the same point in the


2016 application cycle. As my noble friend pointed out, in previous


cases when fees have been introduced application numbers have gone down


but rebranded in future years. The same UCAS data also shows that since


January there have been over 3000 additional applicants for nursing


and midwifery places, taking the current total to over 40,000


applicants for around 23,000 places in England. The chair of the Council


of deans for help -- for health has commented on the situation saying


that it is to be expected that there would be fewer applications in the


first year following the changes but we would expect this to pick up in


future years. The chief nursing officer Jane Cummings has said that


despite the drop the level applications received suggest that


at a national level we are still on track to meet this target in England


although we need to monitor this very carefully. We are also


introducing a number of opportunities to support future


applicants, including additional routes to become a graduate nurse.


Based on all the information available, health education England


is confident that they will still fill the required number of training


places for the NHS in England. Turning to the issues raised around


Brexit, future rate is first and support after the UK leaves the EU


will need to be considered as part of the wider discussions as to the


UK's Croatian ship with the EU, however the government has confirmed


that courses starting in 2017-2018 or before will continue to be


eligible for funding for the course. Regarding numbers of non-UK nurses,


it is correct that the nursing and midwifery Council senior reduction


in the number of legislation applications nurses in the European


Union. At the moment it is unclear whether the drop is debatable to the


introduction of more robust language testing the NMC rather than a result


of the decision for the UK to leave the EU. The drop in applications is


balanced by a reduction in headphones to professional two


meaning that while monthly fundraisers continue the number of


EU born nurses is by the same. Indeed there are slightly more


nurses from the EU working in NHS trusts and three series that there


were in June 20 16. And I ask if you would comment on the fact that the


figure you have quoted will be significantly skewed by the


immigration and skills charge which comes into being, where for every


overseas person of a type two Visa the NHS will have to be ?1000? Does


he not think that will have an effect on nursing figures? I will


not speculate on the impact of that effect, but what I can say is that


despite the scare stories that the numbers will be affected the axe


them or EU -based nurses in the last year and that is the point I wish to


get across. The real issue at stake is whether the number of staff in


NHS is increasing to meet the growing demands on it and hear the


government has a strong record. Over the last year the NHS has seen


record numbers of staff working within it. The most recent monthly


workforce statistics show that since May 2010 there are now over 33,000


more professionally qualified full-time equivalent staff in NHS


trusts and clinical commissioning groups, including over 4000 more


nurses. Health education England's return to practice campaigns have


resulted in 2000 nurses ready to enter employment at over 9000 nurses


back on the front lines since 2014. There has been a 15% increase in


nurse training places is 2015 plus introduction of up to 1000 new


apprenticeships and increasing of nursing associate roles. The kind of


non-graduate nurse symbols that my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed


out are a crucial part of the mix and these form part of a plan to


provide an additional 40,000 domestic were trained nurses for the


NHS. These new and additional routes into nursing professions will allow


thousands of people from all backgrounds to pursue careers in the


health care sectors and critically low NHS employers to grow their own


workforce. My Lords, I will end as I began. I believe this motion is


misguided. The extension of the one -based system to nursing and


midwifery training is a natural development of reforms that have


received cross-party support, successfully expanded higher


education and dramatically improve the participation of disadvantaged


groups and provided a further dissolution of the course of funding


higher education. Despite the pessimism of some the decision by


the British people to leave the EU which this party respects has not


had a material impact on the workforce. Furthermore, paid in part


by the resort is freed up by the changes to student finance, this


government has put in place a series of programmes that have successfully


increased the number of staff in NHS provide more training places than


ever. Allowing us to better grow our own workforce among UK residents.


The true source of regret is that the opposition has used this


opportunity to run scare stories about the impact of sensible funding


changes we have made and the impact of leaving the EU on the NHS


workforce. I urge all members of this house to vote against the


motion. My Lords and Members and very carefully to the noble Lord,


the Minister, I wanted to be persuaded. I am not persuaded. I


believe that the government had taken a big risk, gambled before in


2011, 12 and 13, it may not be known but they were just seen above nurses


in training because they thought we had sufficient. And as a result in


those three years there were several thousand nurses short trained


because the government got the figures wrong. I believe they got


the figures wrong again, I think it is a big big risk that we don't need


to take, it is unfair on the nurses career but most of all it is unfair


to the potential patients in the National Health Service. I want to


test the opinion of the house. The question is that this motion be


agreed to. As many say content. To the contrary not content. Clear the


bar. The question is that this motion be


agreed to. As many to that opinion will say content. Content. The


contrary, not condemned. Not content. Content will go to the


right by the phone, but content to the left.


The question is that this motion be agreed to.


My Lords, they have voted. Content is 121, not content is 159, so they


not content is have it. My Lords, I think it best if we


adjourn until 5:15pm to enable the chamber to be adjusted for the


ceremony that now follows. Thank you. The question is that the House


do now adjourn until 5:15pm. As many of that opinion say content. The not


content is.


Download Subtitles