'There shall be a Scottish sub-committee of the University Funding Council appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland which shall have the duty of advising the University Funding Council on the discharge of its remit under section 110 of this Act as it applies to Scotland and in formulating the said advice the sub-committee shall have regard to the distinct traditions and academic structure of the Scottish universities, the need to co-operate with other institutions of tertiary education and the requirements of secondary education in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Norman Hogg.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.286
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following : New clause 39
—Scottish Universities Funding Council—`—(1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Scottish Universities Funding Council. to he funded by a grant made by the Secretary of State.(2) The Council shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State, of whom one shall be so appointed as chairman.(3) Not less than six and not more than nine of the members shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State—
and in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters.
- (a) to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education; and
- (b) to be currently engaged in the provision of higher education;(4) The Council shall be responsible, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, for administering funds made available to the Council by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section.(5) Those activities are—
- (a) the provision of education and the undertaking of research by universities; and
- (b) the provision of facilities and the carrying on of other activities by universities in connection with education and research.(6) The Council shall have power to make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, to the governing body of any university in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section.(7) The Council shall also have power—
- (a) to keep under review activities eligible for funding under this section; and
- (b) to undertake such other activities as the Council consider it necessary or expedient to undertake for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of their functions under the preceeding provisions of this section.(8) The governing body of any university shall give the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the exercise of any of their functions under this section.(9) In this section "governing body" means, in relation to a university, the executive governing body which has responsibility for the management and administration of its revenue and property and the conduct of its affairs, and "university" means a university in Scotland.'.Amendment No. 40, in clause 110, page 106, line 23, at end insert`and "university" means a university in England and Wales'. Amendment No. 41, in clause 112, page 107, line 40, leave out 'either of'.Amendment No. 42, in page 107, line 43, at end insert—`(aa) in the case of functions conferred or imposed on the Scottish Universities Funding Council, as functions under section (Scottish Universities Funding Council) of this Act;'.Amendment No. 43, in page 108, line 1, leave out 'either of'.
Amendment No. 44, in page 108, line 14, leave out 'neither of'.
Amendment No. 45, in page 108, line 14, after 'shall', insert 'not'.
Amendment No. 46, in page 108, line 16, leave out 'either' and insert 'a'.
287 Amendment No. 47, in page 108, line 20, leave out 'either of'.
Amendment No. 48, in page 108, line 24, after 'Universities Funding Council', insert 'Scottish Universities Funding Council'.
Amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 176, line 40, at end insert'the Scottish Universities Funding Council'.Amendment No. 51, in page 178, line 10, at end insert'any member of the Scottish Universities Funding Council in receipt of remuneration'.Amendment No. 52, in page 178, line 28, at end insert'the Scottish Universities Funding Council'.Amendment No. 49, in clause 186, page 161, line 16, leave out '110'.
§ Mr. Hogg
It is always deemed appropriate for the Scots to give advice on education to the Department of Education and Science. I would not make that point myself, because I realise that tonight we are discussing the Education Reform Bill which has massive implications for English and Welsh education, were it not for the fact that at the same time the Department of Education and Science has responsibility for universities, and that includes the universities in Scotland.
The Bill contains no provision for a Scottish subcommittee of the proposed Universities Funding Council, yet the White Paper, "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" presented to the House in April 1987 promised just that.
On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Scotland declared that the proposed Universities Funding Council should have a Scottish committee. He said that it would play an important part in planning higher education in Scotland and advise the UFC on the implications of the Scottish education system for the needs of the Scottish universities. He envisaged it taking an overview of the needs of the Scottish university sector and providing a new focus for looking at Scottish needs.
The new clause corrects the oversight which led to the omission of that provision from the Bill. It establishes within the Bill the requirement for such a committee, which will advise the UFC on its remit as far as it deals with Scotland, having special regard to the distinct traditions and academic structure of Scottish universities.
Traditionally, Scottish universities take a broad approach. Students enter at 17 a faculty where they can study a variety of subjects. Generally, those are four-year courses which contrast with the situation in England where courses take three years and are more specialised.
The new clause emphasises the need to heed the requirement of secondary education in Scotland. Again, I should mention the broad nature of teaching in schools. Pupils take five or six highers over one year for entry to Scottish universities. Those universities are geared, especially in the first year, to deal with Scottish pupils. It is a flexible system, and Scottish pupils do not tend to go to English universities.
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. Hogg
The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he says that.
Because of the distinctive nature of Scottish education, the report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory 288 Council on the "Future strategy of higher education in Scotland" recommended the establishment of an overarching bodyresponsible for academic planning and the co-ordination of provision across the university and non-university sectors in Scotland.The Government have ignored STEAC's report in that respect.
However, the Croham report, in its review of the University Grants Committee, was asked by the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider STEAC's recommendations and to review whether a devolved Scottish funding body would have adequate access to a United Kingdom-based peer review system. Croham had no doubt that an adequate peer review system would operate and recommended that at the very least the University Grants Committee should have a Scottish committeeon the assumption that a separate Scottish planning and funding body is not established".It was that absolute minimum solution that the Scottish Secretary of State accepted one year ago, ignoring the wider advice of STEAC and the full implications of Crohnam. Yet we find that even that minimum solution is not to have legislative standing. That does not inspire us with confidence. How permanent will it be? What is its remit? Does it have any teeth? All those questions and more remain unanswered without legislation to make the position explicit. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
More than ever there is a need for a Scottish committee with real power and a real understanding of the unique nature of the Scottish education system. The UGC has often been charged with a lack of understanding of the Scottish university scene with allocating individual funding and few, in the light of recent developments, could dispute such a view.
The universities of Aberdeen and Dundee are to shed at least 330 academic posts. Dundee is to lose its modern languages department to Exeter and Lancaster, and its geology department is to be lost to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Those two universities, together with Stirling, are fighting for their lives, while the long-term future of the rest of the eight is far from certain. [Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what the Under-Secretary is saying; perhaps he will intervene later.
Such cuts penalise the Scottish universities. Inadequate funding leads to the loss of highly regarded staff, and, increasingly, to the loss of whole departments. It ignores the need of Scottish universities to provide a broad framework for their students. The loss of departments undermines that, and moves universities away from the multi-discipline approach that they have always enjoyed. It also ignores the extent to which Scottish universities are an essential part of the towns to which they belong. Their loss is their towns' loss, to a much greater extent than in England, where many universities are more campus-based. That was certainly my experience when I lived in Aberdeen, where there was a distinct "town and gown" relationship, and it is the case in more than one Scottish university.
It is little wonder that senior members of the Scottish universities are calling for separate funding. The new rector of Aberdeen university—a very particular post in the Scottish universities—is Mr. Willis Pickhard, a distinguished educationist and editor of The Times 289 Educational Supplement in Scotland. A couple of weeks ago, he described Scottish university education as working ina straitjacket cut to English specifications".That sentiment has been echoed by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who I see in his place this evening. At a conference in Dundee of the Association of University Teachers—perhaps he will recall the occasion, and I hope that I quote him correctly—the right hon. Gentleman said:I have become increasingly persuaded in recent months that Scottish considerations have been overlooked by the UGC".For that reason, a Scottish Committee of the UFC is essential. But it must be said that this is just the beginning : more and more of us in Scotland believe that a devolved Scottish assembly will eventually plan for the whole of Scottish education.
§ Mr. Pawsey
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that there are a number of important clauses to come in this hatch, notably new clauses 30 and 31, which refer to discipline in schools. You will further be aware, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been highlighted both by the Professional Association of Teachers and, indeed, by the Daily Express. Is there any possibility of our reaching those new clauses before the guillotine at 10 pm?
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can deal with this. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that that will depend on the rate of progress on this group of amendments and the next group. To allow further points of order will only waste time and I think that it is unhelpful.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot help him. I have already said all that I am able to say on the subject.
§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (Kincardine and Deeside)
It is useful to have this new clause before us, as it provides the opportunity for a debate on further education in Scotland, which is highly regarded in that country and about which there is deep concern. I am certain that tonight's debate will he constructive and useful.
In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) referred to me, and I am glad to say that he quoted me entirely correctly. He quoted a view about which I have become more convinced and felt more strongly over recent months.
There are differences between universities in Scotland and those south of the border. They are differences of history, convention and a host of other factors that I wish to mention. My main point was made in the Croham committee report in its review of university grants. The committee recommended a Scottish committee of the University Grants Committee.
Paragraph 8.19 of the Croham report states:It is clear to us from the STEAC report"—to which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth referred— 290however that, more than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Scottish universities do operate in a distinctive environment and serve Scottish needs, and that this needs explicit recognition.That was the recommendation of a Committee set up by the Government. New clause 10 tries to achieve that explicit recognition. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and I are both worried about whether the recognition that exists so far is sufficiently explicit.
As I have said, Scottish universities differ from those in England and Wales to a great extent. A far higher proportion of Scottish universities are older, multidiscipline universities. That means that we have a far wider range of faculties and departments, but we also have far less scope for categorising universities, as now seems to be the fashion, into teaching and research.
A far higher proportion of Scottish universities have medical schools. Those medical schools are among the most expensive areas of university expenditure. The university medical school]n Aberdeen is large in comparison to the whole of the university and its needs must be met. The tragedy is that it acts as a drain on the rest of the university because it is recognised as a good medical school and its needs are expensive. I believe that the Croham report recognised that point explicitly.
There is also a different school system in Scotland. Young people leave school earlier and enter university earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom. They spend longer at university than students elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The normal time in Scotland is four years. There is also a different teacher training structure in Scotland and a different proportion of postgraduate students. I believe that that factor was not taken into account in the University Grants Committee assessment that has been carried out over the past year or so into postgraduate work.
Another enormously important difference is that we are proud of our educational standards and educational history in Scotland. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and was acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Minister. One of our strengths in the face of some of the modern traditions is that our education is broadly based. It has been traditionally broadly based because of the nature arid history of our universities. We give students attending university in Scotland a range of choice. They enter a faculty rather than a department. Instead of creating a straitjacket for the student throughout university life, a student can more easily change from one subject to another or receive a broad range of education that is much more suited to modern living than the form of education perhaps provided elsewhere. I would be reluctant to give up the kind of flexibility and opportunity to change that exist in the Scottish university system.
Those are the differences. We are all aware of them and we acknowledge them. However, we must pay more than lip-service to them. I am sometimes worried about whether people do more than pay that lip-service to them. One has only to consider what happened recently at Aberdeen university and the treatment that it received from the University Grants Committee. I shall not go into the wider issues, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), knows my views and I shall not repeat them yet again tonight.
291 The geology school at Aberdeen received a good rating from the University Grants Committee in its assessment. However, the Oxburgh committee on earth sciences suggested dismantling that geology department. That would make no sense at all for a university on the edge of the North sea. On one hand there was recognition, and on the other hand there was no recognition at all.
My other specific example concerns the university of Dundee, where again a double standard was applied. Dundee dental school has a very good teaching record. The review working party suggested that dental schools should draw their students from a 50-mile radius of the dental school. That committee appears to have overlooked the fact that 30 per cent. of that radius is in the North sea. That kind of nonsense makes many people in Scotland very cynical about some of the decisions from the UGC and others.
So what should we do? There is nothing in the Bill that shows that we are going to do anything about it. We have received a commitment from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that they will set up a Scottish committee. That is a good thing. The Croham committee recommended it, and I support it. My real worry is whether the Scottish committee will work in a reactive and advisory role, or whether it will have an initiating role.
Before I decide how I will vote tonight, I want to know my hon. Friend's view. If he sees the committee in a reactive, advisory, rather neutral, and perhaps negative role, I am unlikely to be persuaded to vote against the new clause. If, however, my hon. Friend can assure me that the committee will have an initiating, positive and constructive role, in the light of what I have said, I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that I support that and believe it to be absolutely necessary.
I believe strongly in the community of universities throughout the United Kingdom and that that is in the best interests of academic learning and research. Many people in Scottish universities also believe in that. However, unless in some way we ensure that the Scottish dimension, which I have mentioned particularly tonight, and which I believe is presently being ignored, is positively, properly and constructively taken into account in the new funding arrangements, my credulity will be stretched.
Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow, Govan)
I agree with virtually every word that was said by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It is deplorable that such an important debate should be under the time constraints of a guillotine.
I support new clause 10, but it would only put into the Bill what the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 1 April 1987. Most hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, consider that that is a completely inadequate response to the particular needs of Scottish universities. For those of us who want to go much further, the trouble has been new clause 39, on which I wish to speak. The problem has been to get new clause 39 within the money resolution of the Bill. It is only because the money resolution was extended yesterday that new clause 39 is in order. That is a wholly unsatisfactory way of dealing with such an important consideration.
292 New clause 39 goes further and, with the consequential amendments, would set up a separate universities funding council for Scotland. Again, I understand that for technical procedural reasons in connection with the guillotine, it may not be possible to have a separate division on new clause 39. I hope that that is not so. If it is, it is deplorable that Scottish Members will be unable to express their strongly held views on the future of Scottish universities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) referred to the fact that the background to this problem goes back to the recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council committee that reported in December 1985. Paragraph 8.29 of that report said:We are convinced of the need to establish in Scotland, at the earliest opportunity, an appropriate mechanism for the planning and co-ordination of higher education provision across the university and non-university sectors and for the formulation of advice in respect of both sectors to the Government.I agree. STEAC did not make a specific recommendation at that time because it wanted certain assurances about a satisfactory, United Kingdom-based pay review system for teaching and research in Scottish universities. It had reservations about funding.
In particular, it wanted assurances about adequate research council funding. The subsequent Croham report said that those assurances could easily be given and that there was no reason why, if it were subject to the Secretary of State for Scotland instead of the Department of Education and Science, there should not be for Scotland what STEAC described as an over-arching body to take account of both university and non-university higher education.
On 1 April 1987, the Secretary of State for Education and Science simply announced that it would be a subcommittee of the Universities Funding Council. It would have no executive powers, it would be purely advisory and it would be subject to guidance from the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is inadequate. Even if new clause 10 were to be written into the Bill, that is a completely inadequate response to the needs of Scottish universities. We object to the way in which the Universities Funding Council is to be established. We regret that it is to be subject to undue ministerial influence.
In his statement in April 1987, the Secretary of State said that Scottish universities were not in favour of being separated from the rest of the universities in the United Kingdom. Insofar as that represents the views of the Scottish universities, I consider that it is deplorable and a great mistake. However, the Croham report pointed out in paragraph 8.17 that at the very least, seven out of eight of the Scottish universities wanted a planning body to look at the Scottish higher education sector as a whole.
The Bill contains no such provision. It will not be provided either, by the sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. The only satisfactory solution for Scottish universities is that they should be dealt with together with the rest of the education sector in Scotland and that they should be responsible to the Scottish Office and to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Another difficulty is to get the STEAC recommendations written into the Bill by means of a new clause. My new clause 39 would be a step towards the only 293 satisfactory solution for dealing with Scottish universities. It would be properly responsive to Scottish needs on the basis of the STEAC recommendations.
So even my clause—and I admit it right away—is a second best, for these technical procedural reasons. But at least it would establish the Scottish universities separate from the UFC and enable us to have a system of funding that would properly take account of Scottish circumstances. It would enable us to respond to the particular problems of Aberdeen and other universities that are suffering very badly under the UGC system at the moment and are likely to suffer even more under the UFC system provided for in the Bill.
If we are not able, for technical reasons, to vote on new clause 39 as well as on new clause 10, I shall consider that absolutely outrageous and an offence to Scottish opinion in the House.
§ Mr. Bill Walker
I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I consider to be a very important matter. It is important to us Scots that every Member of the House should understand very clearly the differences between our universities and universities south of the border, and the differences in the preparation of our schoolchildren for our universities. There is a feeling within Scotland—it would be quite wrong if my hon. Friends on the Front Bench were not aware of this—that somehow this has not been understood or appreciated.
It is important that we Scots put our case properly and effectively. It is important to recognise that we wish to retain the historical background to our schools and universities. We wish to continue with the system that allows our children to have different opportunities from those available south of the border.
I interrupted the speech made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) when he said that Scottish children did not go to universities south of the border, or words to that effect. Of course that is not true; many Scottish children go to such universities.
§ Mr. Walker
If I have in any way misinterpreted what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise, but I want to make it quite clear that many children from Scotland take the opportunity to attend universities south of the border, and that we wish this to continue. We do not desire any interruption to that, and it should not be confused with the fact that we wish to retain in Scotland our separate way of doing things. I am sure that there is no difference of opinion anywhere on that.
The other important point is that it be understood south of the border that we have specialist schools, such as the dental school at Dundee, that have a reputation that certainly' we on Tayside are very proud of. I was astonished when I read that the dental hospital in Dundee was one of the establishments that it had been decided to axe, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is clear that no one could have attempted to study in depth what has been achieved over a long period by that dental school.
I am not opposed to change or to rationalising the nation's resources. I want to see the nation's resources rationalised to the benefit of the whole nation. If we Scots appear to be making a very special, narrow Scottish case, I want my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to understand that that is not the position at all. We are not debating the Scottish matter in a narrow, purely Scottish sense. We are 294 talking about a system of education that has evolved over a long period and has its unique differences. Unless these unique differences are understood sympathetically, one ought not to be surprised if from time to time one comes up with the wrong answers.
I imagine that it is because of this that Opposition Members have tabled the amendments, because they believe that this aspect of the Scottish dimension is not being taken care of.
If my hon. Friend can assure me that the Scottish committee of the Universities Funding Council is going to be capable of giving the very proper, specialist advice that is necessary for our universities, I shall certainly be tempted to take a different view from the one that I hold at the moment. I do not mean by that that my views are hostile, because they are not. I just want an assurance from the Front Bench that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to continue to ensure that the very special Scottish dimension within our universities and our schools will be taken properly and fully into account in any future policy on funding.
§ Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to speak as a cochairman of the defence committee of the university of Aberdeen, along with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am also the elected rector of the university of Dundee. Therefore, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am especially concerned about those two universities, although the general principle of the Scottish universities and the separate identity of Scottish university education is of fundamental importance.
The behaviour of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who presumes to have responsibility for Scottish universities, has been less than inspiring during the past half-hour. He seems to think that the opportunity granted by his monstrous Bill to debate the future of Scottish universities is some kind of Scottish hijack of his Bill, rather than our only opportunity to express how strongly we feel about the disgraceful way in which our universities are treated by a Minister who has demonstrated that he neither knows nor cares about the separate and distinctive character of Scottish university education. We must show him that on this issue we have the support of all political parties in Scotland, which agree that the Government's attitude is unacceptable and deeply resented by the Scottish people.
I give examples from the two universities with which I am most closely associated. The university of Aberdeen has faced severe cuts throughout the duration of this Administration. In the first round it was cut by 24 per cent., which meant that it had to shed 172 staff—one quarter of its total staff. It is now being cut by a further 13 per cent. and is required to shed another 245 staff arid to close at least four departments and possibly as many as seven. How a university can be expected to cope with such draconian behaviour and the slippery exchanges that we have to put up with from the chairman of the University Grants Committee, who clearly speaks with forked tongue when he is representing his views to the university of Aberdeen, leaves people utterly demoralised as to what is expected of them.
295 The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside mentioned the department of geology. It is worth elaborating that the university was invited by the UGC to bid for additional funding for the department of geology. Aberdeen is the offshore oil capital of Europe and the administrative centre for offshore exploration and development. The department of geology has responded to that situation over the years and developed relevant courses. The Scottish sub-committee of the University Grants Committee recommended that the department should not only continue in full, but that it should be considered for expansion. The main body of the UGC not only did not accept that; it came up with a proposal recommending its virtual closure.
Frankly, new clause 10 would not go anything like far enough to protect the interests of the Scottish universities. I very much hope that it will be possible to have a separate vote on new clause 39 because it is much closer to the core of what the Scottish universities need. If the Scottish universities did not know that they needed such a body a few years ago, the conduct of the Government and the UGC has convinced them now that that is definitely the right way forward.
The university of Dundee, of which I have the honour to be rector, faced a 20 per cent. cut in the first round. It is now facing a further 17 per cent. cut, in spite of the fact that it is a small university. I do not think that you, Mr. Speaker, will fail to grasp that the smaller the university, the harder it is to impose cuts—hard as it is to do so in all universities.
The attitude adopted towards the dental hospital has astonished and appalled anybody and everybody who has any knowledge of it. We are talking about a dental hospital that is less than 20 years old. Without necessarily revealing my age, may I say that it was built after I graduated from that university. It has a record of attracting more research funding that any other dental school. It is also the cheapest per student of any in Scotland to operate, but it is being recommended for closure.
I think you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why people in Scotland realise increasingly that the Government are launching a vicious assault on the entire university system. The University Grants Committee is predominantly English and I do not quarrel with that as it is an inevitable fact concerning the population of the United Kingdom, but it will look after its own. That is exactly what is happening. Scotland is seen to be expendable by those who neither know nor care about or understand our position.
I do not wish to be too emotional, but it is worth reminding the House that four of these universities predate the Act of Union. I believe that the effrontery of the Government in attacking universities some of which were in operation when England had only two universities is particularly disgraceful. Indeed, there was a time when the city of Aberdeen had two universities and the whole of England had only two. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State and his cronies resent this fact, and that explains why they show such savage hostility to the Scottish university system.
The logic behind the related policies that the Government are pursuing in education, for example in relation to university grants, is an attack upon the integrity 296 and distinctiveness of the Scottish university system for which we are absolutely determined to fight. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible to vote on new clause 39. I believe very strongly that the new clause would create the sort of organisation whereby Scottish universities would at least know that decisions about their future would be taken by Scots, accountable to Scottish people, in Scotland, by people who knew and understood what the Scottish university system was about. So long as those decisions are taken in the UGC by people who do not know or care, we shall have no confidence in the future of our universities or the Government's approach to them.
§ Mr. Rowe
Having lived for 12 years in Scotland and having spend seven of them teaching at a Scottish university—[Interruption.]—I may perhaps be allowed to intervene briefly in a debate that seems to be becoming a sad example of Scottish chauvinism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]— defeating an important argument. The point is that for hon. Members opposite to assault the Secretary of State verbally on the basis of a lack of interest in or knowledge of the system is to do no benefit to the cause of Scottish universities, or indeed the course of this debate.
The Scottish universities indeed occupy an unusual position in the education system that is quite different from that occupied by English universities. Scottish universities take many of their students when they are a year younger than students at English universities. Therefore, any decisions that are taken affecting the Scottish university system must have very clear and different effects on the school system there. Therefore, it is important to have a system of controlling the funds that go to Scottish universities to take account of that factor; and it should be seen and recognised by those working in the Scottish university system.
The reason that I am particularly concerned that there should not be an absurdly separatist and chauvinistic assault on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is because I believe that there is a kind of schizophrenia running through the Scottish university system. They are extremely proud, and rightly so, of the very large number of students that they attract from south of the border. They are also proud of the very high standards, for example within their medical schools.
But it has to be said that a consequence of that success is that Edinburgh, for example, is the most over-doctored city in the United Kingdom. If we are considering the distribution of public money in the National Health Service on either side of the border, we have to take into account that insular performance.
I believe strongly that one of the great difficulties which we suffered from when I worked in the Scottish Office was that there was the ineradicable belief in London that the journey from London to Edinburgh was twice as long as the journey from Edinburgh to London, so that it was much easier for people to discuss Scottish affairs in London than in Edinburgh. Because that is the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can give an assurance that the arrangements under which the money for universities will be distributed in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole take full account of real differences in the system. I do not believe that it is reasonable or helpful to the Scottish case to assault my right hon. Friend on the basis of an ignorance which he does not possess.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
It is tragic that we have only one hour to debate this vital subject. It is clear from the large number of members of all parties from Scotland who are rising how seriously they treat the subject.
Much emphasis has been placed on the traditions of Scottish universities and the fact that we have a broad-based education system, flexibility within the faculties and so on. We have consumer choice, and graduates who emerge from Scottish universities have benefited from a wide education. It would be wrong to leave the Secretary of State with the impression that we are fighting only for the traditions of our universities, vital though they may be. It might be well to remind the House of some of the innovations by Scottish universities to show that they are rising to the challenge of modern society not only in Scotland but in the wider world.
For example, we think of Strathclyde university where people without formal educational qualifications from the deprived peripheral estates of Glasgow are encouraged to attend classes and are benefiting from them. We think, for example, of how the department of geology at Aberdeen university has responded to the developments of the oil industry in north-east Scotland. We think, for example, of how the department of tropical medicine within the faculty of veterinary medicine at Glasgow university has developed tropical medicine to a great extent and has contributed much to many of the developing nations. It has taken on the overall responsibility of trying to assist nations throughout the world. Therefore, it would be foolish of the Secretary of State to think that we are arguing solely for the traditions of Scottish universities.
Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) I believe that new clause 39 would be much more effective. New clause 10 reflects in some ways the commitments given earlier by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but verbal commitments in themselves are not enough. While new clause 10 will insert a written commitment into the Bill, new clause 39 would spell out much more effectively the powers which are being sought by those who are genuinely concerned about the future of education in Scotland. Our universities desperately need their own funding committee and their own voice to safeguard their traditions and to ensue that their future is secure for all our people.
§ Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, South)
I do not want to intimidate you, Mr. Speaker, with the sheaf of notes in my hand. I think that enough has been said to establish the special and unique position of Scottish universities. I have a constituency interest, and the words spoken from all sides of the House about the special position of Aberdeen university should establish beyond doubt the need for a Scottish funding committee. Like my right hon. Friend the Member, for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) I take the maximalist approach and support new clause 39.
In 1981, Aberdeen university suffered a crisis when it faced funding cuts of 24 per cent. with a loss of 250 jobs. The university never recovered from that, but in 1986 it faced further cuts imposed by the UGC and a further 250 jobs are now at stake.
For the past three or four days I have watched Conservative Members gloat—I use that word advisedly—at the problems created in Dundee by the unfortunate withdrawal of Ford, although I hope that that is not the final position. As a direct result of Government action 298 —or inaction—my constituency has been faced with the loss of 500 jobs from Aberdeen university in the past couple of years, yet Conservative Members have the effrontery to gloat instead of getting up off their backsides and doing what they can to help matters in Dundee. That is appalling; it is hypocritical.
The expression "Scottish chauvinism" has been used. People in Aberdeen are worried not only about the future of education but about the very existence of the university in future, so savage have been the cuts over the past six years. The university is gearing itself up for its 500th anniversary. When the university was a mere stripling of 220, the Act of Union, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), was passed. That Act specifically guaranteed the future of the Scottish universities, including Aberdeen, "for ever". That was the phrase used.
As a direct consequence of the Government's approach to higher education and their failure to adopt a coherent and consistent strategy, that future is put at risk. My constituents and I fear for the 500th anniversary. Will we still have a university in 1997?
As I said, I support the maximalist approach, and I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to give us the opportunity to vote on new clause 39 if it is at all possible.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson)
This has been a brisk and useful debate, and I am happy to join the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in paying tribute to the strength and quality of Scottish education and particularly Scottish higher education, which I have seen for myself. The Scots run our professions; they used to run the Empire, and Scottish—
§ Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that this is a one-hour debate on a subject of vital importance to Scotland, especially to hon. Members with constituency interests, are we seriously expected to believe that the Minister is proposing to wind up the debate at 9.46 pm?
§ Mr. Speaker
The Minister stood up. I do not know how long he will take. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Opposition Front Bench to respond.
§ Mr. Jackson
I was certainly hoping to leave some time for other speeches to be made, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
I was paying tribute to the strength of Scottish higher education and to the considerable influence that Scottish intellectual traditions have in the Government. I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in recognising the distinctive characteristics and traditions of Scottish higher education — notably the four-year degree course to which he referred.
§ Mr. Jackson
I must press on, because we are operating against a guillotine motion.
What is the Government's approach to higher education in Scotland? We start from the principle that higher education in Britain is national rather than 299 territorial or regional. That is not just the view of the Government; it was the view of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which spoke of an appropriate mechanism being required to reflect the special characteristics of Scottish universities. That is precisely what we are providing in the Bill. Furthermore, it is the view of the large majority of Scottish universities and Scottish academics, who wish to see themselves as part of the British, European and world main stream. That is why they take the view that they should remain within a national system of funding.
I must say, I am very surprised that the Labour party should be taking this line. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) reminded us all that when the Labour party was proposing devolution for Scotland, it did not at that stage propose the separate funding council that it now suggests.
§ Mr. Jackson
I will not give way, because I am hoping to leave time for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
If there is to be a national approach and a national planning framework for higher education, the same principles of public funding must apply to all institutions in the system. There must be the same unit of resource for teaching and the same standards of research evaluation. That is the approach of the University Grants Committee. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) used extraordinarily exaggerated language when talking about the UGC and its distinguished chairman. The UGC applies the same criteria to the rating of all universities. The result has been that three of the eight Scottish universities have above average rating and that is an impressive fact. It is for the UGC to decide whether any special factors should be applied. It does, of course, apply special factors.
Some reference was made to particular institutions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Gordon. The current debate about university autonomy and the arm's-length relationship between the Government and institutions has emphasised the importance of respecting that principle and the sensitivity of it. The Government do not wish to intervene, and cannot do so, in the relationship between the UGC and individual universities.
We are anxious not to over-prescribe as to the structures of the Universities Funding Council and the procedures that it will be following. However, having said all that, and having emphasised a national policy and the implications of that, it is also important to recognise the characteristics and ethos of Scottish universities and of the universities in Wales and Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North set those out powerfully. It is on that basis that the Croham committee recommended — the Government accepted the recommendation — that there should be three territorial committees for the Universities Funding Council and a 300 medical committee. The Education Reform Bill implements that commitment, which is our commitment to Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North asked a relevant question about how effective the territorial committees will be. The answer is quite straightforward. It will depend on them. The Government's intention, along with the Croham committee, is that the funding council will not be a representative body. Therefore, we are not talking about a representative from Scotland or from any other branch of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Branch?"] I was referring to particular academic interests being represented. The funding council is not a representative body, nor is it a lobbying body. Its functions will be to advise Government and to manage the university system on the basis of the large amounts of public funds provided for it.
I am trying to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside that it will be for the territorial committees to do their own job, to argue their own case and to be successful and effective. That will be in the context of a Government vision of how the funding councils should work, which is that they should be powerful, pro-active and dynamic bodies. I am sure that the Scots will not be among the least powerful, least proactive or least dynamic elements in the new funding council.
§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the two hon. Members representing the city of Dundee, whose university is one of those worst affected by UGC cuts in recent years. Is it right that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who have no constituency interest in the university, should be called when I have not been called?
§ Mr. Galloway
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can you permit this mockery and insult to Scottish education and to Scotland? We have been given one hour to discuss matters of vital importance to the Scottish education community. That time has been taken up by hon. Members with no interest, either constituency or otherwise, and we have been insulted by the Minister rising to wind up the debate with 16 minutes to go out of 60. It is a mockery and an insult to Scotland and I ask you to rule against it and give us more time.
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am bound by the motion passed earlier this afternoon on the distribution of time.
§ Mr. Norman Hogg
It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond quickly so that one of my Back-Bench colleagues can be called to make a point about a university in his constituency.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I do not feel sufficiently reassured to advise my hon. Friends to withdraw their new clause. I shall be asking them to vote in support of what we are proposing. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will be able to join us. They both made speeches that were broadly supportive of our case and I was 301 impressed by their arguments. I hope they will follow up what they said in the Lobby; that would be the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.
I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), which was tonight's mistake. He said that he had been in Scotland for 24 years. The only conclusion that I could draw from that was that he at least gathered some respect for our education but did not learn a great deal about us. What he alleged that we were saying about the Secretary of State was not true. I have heard no one insult or, as the hon. Gentleman strangely said, assault him.
I very much approve of new clause 39, which is stronger than our proposal, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said. However, it was the Labour party that tabled both new clauses. I hope that in future she and her hon. Friends, who belong to a party whose name I have forgotten, will feel able to put their names to our new clause.
§ Mr. McAllion
The Minister showed complacency and a complete lack of understanding of Scottish universities and the academics and others who work in them. He said that, in 1979, they showed no awareness of the need for devolution of control over Scottish universities to Scotland, but in 1979 they had no way of knowing how the Government would perform over these past three years. They ken now.
The case for the independence of Scottish universities is clearly made by the example of Dundee university and the way in which it has been treated over the past two or three years by the University Grants Committee. In a letter that accompanied the academic plan that the university returned to the UGC, its principal spelt out clearly that the university faced substantial financial problems arising directly from the changes introduced by the Government.
Those changes included finance being given in accordance with research ratings which took no account of departmental size. The UGC admitted that it was openly hostile to the idea of small academic departments, which it regards as vulnerable. That was a severe blow to a university the size of Dundee, with its tradition of providing a broad subject choice to its students.
The UGC has insisted since 1986 on Dundee university cutting student numbers and closing departments such as those of geology and modern languages which, we are told, are to be exported to other universities in Scotland. In all, the university is set to lose five departments.
Now, the committee is threatening Dundee with closure of its dental school, which anyone who knows anything about the subject knows is the best in Scotland. Someone, somewhere, took the decision that Scotland should have two, rather than three, dental schools on the basis of a vulgar idea of population statistics. That someone took no account of the fact that Dundee dental college serves the whole north-east of Scotland and has within its radius a population of about a million people, who look to that school for excellence.
At stake is the independence of Scottish universities, which has been put at risk by the powers given to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Anyone with the interests of those universities at heart should vote for new clauses 39 and 10, in that order.
§ Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)
The Minister's reply showed crass ignorance of Scottish 302 university education. That same ignorant view from London makes the academic community in Scotland want a Scottish universities funding committee. If we do not get that, we fear that the view from London will prevail and that Scottish education will lose out. For that reason, we shall support the new clause.
§ Question put. That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 265.305
|Division No. 226]||[10 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Allen, Graham||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Fisher, Mark|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Flannery, Martin|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Flynn, Paul|
|Ashton, Joe||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Foster, Derek|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Foulkes, George|
|Barron, Kevin||Fraser, John|
|Beckett, Margaret||Fyfe, Maria|
|Bell, Stuart||Galbraith, Sam|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Galloway, George|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Blair, Tony||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Boyes, Roland||Gordon, Mildred|
|Bradley, Keith||Gould, Bryan|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Graham, Thomas|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Buchan, Norman||Grocott, Bruce|
|Callaghan, Jirn||Haynes, Frank|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Henderson, Doug|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hinchliffe, David|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Holland, Stuart|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Horne Robertson, John|
|Clay, Bob||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Clelland, David||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Howells, Geraint|
|Cohen, Harry||Hoyle, Doug|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Corbett, Robin||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Cousins, Jim||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Cox, Tom||Illsley, Eric|
|Crowther, Stan||Janner, Greville|
|Cryer, Bob||John, Brynmor|
|Cummings, John||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Dalyell, Tam||Kennedy, Charles|
|Darling, Alistair||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Davis, Terry (B'harn Hodge H'I)||Lestor, Joan (Eccles)|
|Dewar, Donald||Lewis, Terry|
|Dixon, Don||Livingstone, Ken|
|Dobson, Frank||Livsey, Richard|
|Doran, Frank||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Douglas, Dick||McAllion, John|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||McCartney, Ian|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||Macdonald, Calum A.|
|Eadie, Alexander||McFall, John|
|Eastharn, Ken||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||McKelvey, William|
|Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)||McLeish, Henry|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)||McTaggart, Bob|
|Fatchett, Derek||McWilliam, John|
|Faulds, Andrew||Madden, Max|
|Fearn, Ronald||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Marek, Dr John||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Sheerman, Barry|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Maxton, John||Short, Clare|
|Meacher, Michael||Skinner, Dennis|
|Michael, Alun||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Snape, Peter|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Soley, Clive|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Stott, Roger|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Strang, Gavin|
|Mullin, Chris||Straw, Jack|
|Murphy, Paul||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Nellist, Dave||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis|
|O'Brien, William||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Turner, Dennis|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Vaz, Keith|
|Patchett, Terry||Wall, Pat|
|Pendry, Torn||Wallace, James|
|Pike, Peter L.||Walley, Joan|
|Powell, Ray (Ogmore)||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Quin, Ms Joyce||Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)|
|Radice, Giles||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Randall, Stuart||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Redmond, Martin||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Reid, Dr John||Wilson, Brian|
|Richardson, Jo||Winnick, David|
|Robertson, George||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Robinson, Geoffrey||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Rooker, Jeff||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Rowlands, Ted||Mr. Adam Ingram and|
|Ruddock, Joan||Mr. Allen Adams.|
|Adley, Robert||Bright, Graham|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Brittan, Rt Hon Leon|
|Alexander, Richard||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)|
|Allason, Rupert||Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)|
|Amess, David||Buck, Sir Antony|
|Amos, Alan||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Arbuthnot, James||Burns, Simon|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Burt, Alistair|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Butcher, John|
|Ashby, David||Butler, Chris|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Butterfill, John|
|Atkins, Robert||Carlisle, John, (Luton N)|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Carrington, Matthew|
|Baldry, Tony||Carttiss, Michael|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Cash, William|
|Batiste, Spencer||Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Chapman, Sydney|
|Bellingham, Henry||Chope, Christopher|
|Bendall, Vivian||Churchill, Mr|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Benyon, W.||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Colvin, Michael|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Cope, John|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Cormack, Patrick|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Couchman, James|
|Bottomley, Peter||Cran, James|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)|
|Bowis, John||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes||Day, Stephen|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Devlin, Tim|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Brazier, Julian||Dicks, Terry|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Dover, Den||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Dunn, Bob||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Eggar, Tim||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Mellor, David|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Miller, Hal|
|Evennett, David||Mills, Iain|
|Fallon, Michael||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Farr, Sir John||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Favell, Tony||Mitchell, David (Hants NW)|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Moate, Roger|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Forman, Nigel||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Forth, Eric||Morris, M (N'hampton S)|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Morrison, Hon P (Chester)|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Moss, Malcolm|
|Franks, Cecil||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|French, Douglas||Neale, Gerrard|
|Fry, Peter||Nelson, Anthony|
|Gale, Roger||Neubert, Michael|
|Gardiner, George||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Gill, Christopher||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Page, Richard|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Patnick, Irvine|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Patten, John (Oxford W)|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Pawsey, James|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Grist, Ian||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Portillo, Michael|
|Holt, Richard||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Howard, Michael||Price, Sir David|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Redwood, John|
|Hunter, Andrew||Renton, Tim|
|Irvine, Michael||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Jack, Michael||Riddick, Graham|
|Jackson, Robert||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Janman, Tim||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Kilfedder, James||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Knapman, Roger||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Rost, Peter|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Knowles, Michael||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Knox, David||Ryder, Richard|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Lang, Ian||Sainsbury, Hon Tim|
|Latham, Michael||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Scott, Nicholas|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Lightbown, David||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Lilley, Peter||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Shersby, Michael|
|Lord, Michael||Sims, Roger|
|Lyell, Sir Nicholas||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Macfarlane, Sir Neil||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Speed, Keith|
|MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)||Speller, Tony|
|Maclean, David||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Steen, Anthony|
|Madel, David||Stern, Michael|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Malins, Humfrey||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Mans, Keith||Stokes, John|
|Maples, John||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Marland, Paul||Sumberg, David|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Walters, Dennis|
|Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Thorne, Neil||Watts, John|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Wheeler, John|
|Thurnham, Peter||Whitney, Ray|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Tracey, Richard||Wilkinson, John|
|Tredinnick, David||Wilshire, David|
|Trippier, David||Wolfson, Mark|
|Trotter, Neville||Wood, Timothy|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Woodcock, Mike|
|Vaughan, Sir Gerard||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Walden, George||Mr. Tony Durant and|
|Walker, Bill (T'side North)||Mr. Stephen Dorrell.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.
§ Mr. Millan
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard from the previous debate that there was a strong feeling on the Opposition Benches that a Division should be allowed on new clause 39. Do I take it that it is not possible to have a Division on new clause 39 as a direct result of the guillotine motion? If that is the case, Opposition Members consider that to be outrageous.
§ Mr. Speaker
Sadly, I have to confirm that that is so. We would have had to go quite a long way down the Amendment Paper to reach new clause 39.