My Lords, I am grateful to those Members of your Lordships’ House who have participated in this short debate. It has raised a number of issues we will need to reflect on. I am comforted by many of the points made by the Minister when he responded, but I still think there are one or two issues. The problem lies with Clause 106, maybe inadvertently. Maybe we can be reassured by the words already given, but perhaps we can come back to that. If subsections (1) to (6) all said “must” not “may”, the issue would disappear because an unequivocal duty would be placed on the two bodies to work together. The fact that they say “may” but subsection (2) has “must, if required” is the problem. In other words, we would have to wait until it was clear, possibly from the publication of an annual report for the preceding year, that the two bodies were not working as efficiently and complaints were arising from that before the Secretary of State could exercise Clause 106(2) and issue a “must” instruction.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 January 2017.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Higher Education and Research Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
777 c1995 Session
2016-17Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-02-01 15:42:21 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-11/17011184000066
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-11/17011184000066
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-11/17011184000066