Education (Student Loans) Bill (Allocation of Time)

HC Deb 04 April 1990 vol 170 cc1219-60 4.39 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education (Student Loans) Bill: Lords Amendments 1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order. 2.—(l) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above— (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended; (b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment; (c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
3. (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment. (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments 3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill. 4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings. 5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion— (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair; (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
2. (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
3. (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental 6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons. (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed. 7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee. (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion. 8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I will begin by setting out why I believe that it is right to ensure orderly and sensible debate on the Lords amendments. First, as several hon. Members pointed out yesterday, this is a comparatively short Bill. Secondly, it has had lengthy and thoroughly comprehensive discussion in both Houses. All the issues before us today have been exhaustively debated and we now have to take decisions. Thirdly, the great majority of the amendments are either those in which the Government have responded positively to points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as in the other place, which I hope will be acceptable to the House for that reason, or technical amendments. We are therefore demonstrating that the Government have responded to debates and we have reached the wrap-up stage. I am sure that the motion is realistic and practical for the proper dispatch of business and that it will commend itself to all my hon. Friends and to most Opposition Members, if they are honest, because it does not impress anyone to delay returning to our constituencies for the recess by arguing pointlessly through the night on minute technical details.

I will elaborate on that. We have given the Bill substantial attention. This House and another place have together devoted some 90 hours to debate a Bill of four clauses and two schedules. That total includes about 40 hours in Standing Committee. More than 360 amendments have been tabled, half in this House and half in another place. More than 120 amendments were tabled in the Standing Committee, which then considered about 80 of them.

Those statistics totally refute any suggestion that the Government deliberately kept the Bill short in an attempt to prevent discussion on the finer points of the scheme. There has been every opportunity to explore all the principles, objectives and details of the scheme, down to the finer points of administration. There has been more discussion about detailed administration on the Bill and the scheme than on many other measures going through the House.

At the same time, there is recognition now that the format of the Bill has the great merit of flexibility of operation hereafter. It is understood that, as with the student grants maintenance scheme, from time to time there is obviously a need to change the details. We have said that we may wish to review the scheme, and from that review we may wish to change some of the details. Clearly, it makes sense to do that through secondary legislation rather than primary legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

Does the Secretary of State agree that there would be less debate and fewer amendments if the Government had been much clearer and more detailed in the first place about what they were proposing? Is not one of the reasons why a short Bill has taken a relatively long time the fact that the Government have said so little about so much?

Mr. MacGregor

Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have deliberately tried to be helpful to both Houses in responding to all queries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that. We have been getting on with the detailed preparation of the Student Loans Company and at each stage we have reported to the House on the arrangements. We have therefore been clear with the House. The debates have been very thorough and have covered all points. The Bill has gone through reasonably quickly because it is a short Bill on a single scheme, but there has certainly not been any shortage of discusson in the process.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

Will my right hon. Friend devote some time to the fact that this is only the fifth time in the history of our nation that a guillotine has been applied to Lords amendments? It is a very new process which only started in the parliamentary Session before last. Will my right hon. Friend justify how it is constitutionally right to predetermine how long we take to discuss amendments raised in the second Chamber of a bicameral system?

Mr. MacGregor

I was trying to explain why I think that the motion is right in relation to the Bill before us, and I believe that I have support of the great majority of my hon. Friends.

There have been a number of changes to the Bill a s it has progressed through both Houses. That bears witness to the value of parliamentary scrutiny. The changes fall into three categories. The first relates to technical amendments which were tabled in another place and, by and large have followed from further consideration of the details of the Bill in the light of debates in both Houses. The second category relates to changes of a detailed nature in response to points made by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members and includes all those relating to parliamentary procedure as well as to clarification of points such as the balance between grant and loan. The third category relates to a few points of substance. I cite, in particular, changes made—not always on the face of the Bill, because that was not necessary—in relation to increases in access funds and the disabled. Those amendments were in response to points made frequently in debate. Both issues have been thoroughly debated in both Houses and in Standing Committee. All the arguments have been held, all the issues have been debated, and we have accepted some additional points. That is all that has happened.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

As the measure went through the House of Commons at a fairly leisurely pace, and there was ample opportunity to discuss it in Committee and on the Floor of the House, why were none of the amendments dealt with initially? Why have they all been made in another place, apart from a couple of technical amendments which were adopted in Committee?

Mr. MacGregor

It is because the Government were listening very carefully. In a number of debates in the House, we made it clear that we were listening and considering what to do. In the light of that consideration, some of the same points were made in another place and we decided to table certain amendments. I assure the House that the debates in this House as well as those in another place persuaded us of the value of those amendments.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

rose—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

rose—

Mr. MacGregor

I am keen to get on so that we can get down to debating the amendments, but I will give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Am I right in believing that my right hon. Friend accepted the amendments allowing access funds for the disabled?

Mr. MacGregor

We have increased the access funds by a further £10 million—I shall return to that later—and we have made some amendments to assist the disabled in repayment of loans. We have also made some proposals which do not have to be on the face of the Bill but to which I referred in answer to a parliamentary question.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

Perhaps the Secretary of State has given way to me because of my natural Scottish reserve and reticence, but in the context of the balance between grant and loan, will he spell out in detail the implications of that balance for Scottish students who undertake the four-year honours course, which is the most common course in Scotland?

Mr. MacGregor

The hon. Lady knows that that matter has been debated in the House. She and I had exchanges on it during Question Time. We have made it clear that we intend to extend the time for repayment of loans of five years' duration or more, but not those of four years. I made that clear in answer to a parliamentary question in the House.

I pay tribute to the sterling work done in Committee and in another place. Hon. Members on the Standing Committee devoted a lengthy period to the most careful analysis of the Bill. My hon. Friends played a particularly noteworthy part in achieving changes of substance. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was a persistent advocate of the need for an increase in the access funds. We listened carefully to his argument and others and I hope that he will be pleased with our response. I also pay tribute to the Government spokesmen in another place, the Earl of Caithness and Baroness Blatch—we have before us the fruits of their labours.

Although we are approaching the final stages of the Bill, it is important that we do not engage in pointless repetition. The motion, if passed, will help to ensure that the scheme is ready for the beginning of the next academic year. We shall need to place regulations before Parliament soon, and additionsl preparatory work will be needed before the scheme is fully operational. Students will benefit considerably from the additional resources made available through top-up loans, and many students would not welcome being denied a loan as a result of filibustering. It is therefore right that we deal with the Lords amendments in a businesslike and proper fashion, without pointlessly spending much time throughout the night on technical details.

I have no doubt that the motion will give hon. Members the opportunity to raise wider issues, but I will briefly record one or two points about the Bill. The objectives of the Bill are to facilitate the expansion of higher education, in particular by providing more money to students while they are studying and, over time, to lighten the burdens of student support and maintenance support on taxpayers and parents.

The Anderson committee envisaged an eventual expansion of the higher education system to about 175,000 students, but in 1990–91 we expect that there will be more than 450,000 mandatory award holders and more than 1 million students in total. We are committed to continuing that expansion. The cost to the taxpayer of supporting students' living expenses has risen from £236 million in 1962 to £623 million this year at current prices, without taking account of inflation.

Loans will relieve the burden on parents and taxpayers and will give students access to more money. They will be able to use part of the high income that they can expect as graduates to borrow from the taxpayer and to repay the loan when their income rises. The loan will be at a zero real rate of interest, which is much more favourable than commercial borrowing terms or the loan schemes operating in most overseas countries.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the guillotine motion, but the Secretary of State is making a Third Reading speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

The motion lends itself to relatively wide debate.

Mr. MacGregor

I have already dealt with the guillotine. No doubt the speeches of other hon. Members will go rather wider than the motion. It is right briefly to place on record some of the key points.

The loan scheme will be more favourable than those in operation in most overseas countries. Moreover, graduates whose incomes, for any reason, are low, will be able to defer repayments. Deferments will be available to those on incomes below 85 per cent. of the national average. If the scheme were in operation, graduates could defer if they were earning less than £11,500. Deferment answers arguments that the scheme penalises those who choose a lower-paid occupation and women who choose to bring up a family. The deferment arrangements mean that they are not penalised. Top-up loans will more than compensate most students for any loss of benefit. We estimate that the benefits received by student claimants would have averaged £315 in 1990–91. That is more than outweighed by the loan.

We recognise that there will be circumstances in which further help is needed, and there will be three access funds, currently worth £25 million in total. To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), we have added a further £10 million to provide discretionary support to students where it is needed to enable them to join or to remain on courses. The funds will be administered by the students' own educational institutions, which are best placed to assess their students' circumstances.

Differences in accommodation costs—this is an important point that I should like to make clear, not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, who asked about it—were taken into account in the distribution of the access funds to the Universities Funding Council and to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The Government wish the councils to have regard to the same factor in making allocations to their institutions. This autumn, students will have access to a 25 per cent. increase in resources compared with current grant if we pass the amendments and the Bill is given Royal Assent.

The grant will be uprated in the autumn and loans will make available £178 million in addition to grant. We estimate that students in scope of loans would have been able to claim only £68 million in 1990–91. The net increase to students' budgets from the autumn should be £135 million. That is a mark of the scheme's generosity. Under the scheme, there will be progressive reduction in the real value of the parental contribution. When the scheme reaches maturity, parents in comparable circumstances will eventually pay little more than half the present contribution. The scheme offers parents a real benefit. That is why it is important to get on with the Lords amendments and to pass the Bill. The loan will not be means-tested. It will therefore be a valuable resource to the 40 per cent. of students whose parents do not make the full assessed parental contribution.

Mr. Simon Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You must consider whether the Secretary of State is still in order—

Mr. Alan Amos (Hexham)

This has nothing to do with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes

I am asking Mr. Deputy Speaker to consider this point. The motion is to guillotine or to timetable debate. It therefore precludes debates on a range of issues being taken separately. If they were taken separately, the points that the Secretary of State is now making could be made in those debates. This is a timetable motion. It surely cannot be right, instead of the House having the opportunity to debate the 17 Lords amendments, for the Government to use the guillotine and the limited time that they have made available to make their case, which they ought to make point by point in each of the debates. That is an abuse because it is substituting a timetable for proper ordered debate of different issues. It surely matters not whether it is the Secretary of State or the newest Bank Bencher who uses that procedure.

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is it on the same point?

Mr. Pawsey

Yes. Do you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the interventions made in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underline the necessity for the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As I said earlier, the motion lends itself to relatively wide debate. I note that the Secretary of State is referring regularly to the Lords amendments with which the House will deal later. It seems to me that he is giving the background to the Lords amendments. How long the House takes on the motion is a matter not for the Chair but for the House.

Mr. MacGregor

I am anxious to get on, which is why I have not referred to matters such as housing benefit, as I suspect that other hon. Members will. I want as much time as possible to be given to the Lords amendments. The point that I am making, succinctly and briefly, is that it is important to deal with the Lords amendments as quickly as possible so that we can progress and so that the benefits of the scheme can be available to students.

It has frequently been argued that loans will inhibit entry into higher education. We have had long debates on that, but it is clear that, in general, countries with long-established loan schemes have a higher proportion of their young people in higher education than we do. Nor is there any sign that loans have deterred people from less prosperous backgrounds or from ethnic minorities from entering higher education.

We have carefully considered all the alternatives to the scheme presented to us, but I believe that they do not bear scrutiny. Providing additional resources as grant rather than a loan is simply not an option. Expenditure would continue to rise as the number of students increased, whereas the Government scheme reduces public expenditure in the medium term as repayments mount up.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have forborne rising previously but, with respect, this is an abuse of the procedures of the House. I once attempted to make a similar speech to the Secretary of State which had nothing whatever to do with a guillotine but everything to do with the substance of the Bill concerned and was rightly called to order. I suggest that the Secretary of State's speech is wholly out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have already dealt with that point. I can add nothing further.

Mr. MacGregor

I shall make one last point, and I am entirely following your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I have set out elsewhere the arguments against repaying loans through an additional national insurance contribution or through some form of graduate tax. I note how—including during debates in the other place—the advocacy of those options has faded away. We have given the scheme and the Bill thorough examination and the Government have accepted a considerable number of the Lords amendments. That is because, in the light of the discussions in this House and the other place, it has been right to do so. I have already explained that the amendments are either in response to points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House or technical amendments. Later, we shall debate two subjects on which I shall make it clear that we should not accept the Lords amendments. I emphasise that the majority are in response to points that have already been made.

The debates in this House, the other place and outside have shown that there is more widespread acceptance of the principle that the beneficiaries of higher education should make a financial contribution towards it. Those are the words of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. We are simply putting in place a scheme of loans to supplement maintenance grants which most other similar countries already have. Both our levels of student maintenance support and the terms and conditions of the loans are more generous than theirs. The Bill will benefit from the changes that we are proposing to accept as a result of parliamentary debates. Now it is necessary to get on so that we can put the scheme in place in good time to enable students to get the 25 per cent. increase in resources that we are making available. That is why I commend the motion to the House.

5 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

This guillotine motion is wholly without merit or justification. There has been no filibustering on the Bill. The motion is a simple abuse of power by an authoritarian and once all-powerful Government who are now in an advanced state of disorder and decay. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State spent 15 of the 20 minutes of his speech wholly outwith the terms of the motion, reading from a press notice about the alleged advantages of the loans scheme. He knows that the motion is unworthy of him and his office. Although the motion is an act of power, it conveys no strength, but rather the weakness of a Government who are afraid of argument and are trying to deny, even to themselves, the consequences of what they wish to force through.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills ( Mr. Shepherd) rightly and courageously said that, until two years ago, there had never been a precedent in the history of this House for any Government to seek to guillotine a Bill in the Commons during consideration of Lords amendments. The record of this Government, even with a majority of 100 over every party combined, is the record of a Government who are unwilling to listen and almost incapable of listening to arguments with which they do not agree.

The only other Government with a similar majority—the Labour Government of 1945–51—introduced only three guillotines. The Conservative Government of 1951–64 managed just 15 and the Labour Government of 1974–79, who had a majority of just one and at one stage had no majority, managed 11 guillotines. This Government in less than two years have managed to guillotine 12 Bills. There has been no necessity for almost any of those guillotines.

Mr. Pawsey

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw

No. I shall give way in a moment.

As is well known, last Wednesday the Opposition were told through the usual channels that the Bill would be guillotined. That announcement would have coincided with the last day of consideration of amendments and Third Reading in the other place, so in a cynical and squalid manoeuvre typical of the Government, that guillotine motion was withdrawn in order to lure their Lordships into the belief that the Government would at last play by the rules. As the Bill has now passed its stages in the Lords, the motion is being reintroduced in this House at the shortest possible notice to the Chamber.

The motion gives us three hours to debate the guillotine and no more than two and three quarter hours to debate 15 of the 17 amendments passed by their Lordships. We have no time to debate the most critical amendments of all, those on housing benefit. I earnestly hope, as do all Opposition Members and, I dare say, many Tory Members, that, in the light of representations and as no privilege arises because the expenditure has already been authorised by the money resolution, Mr. Speaker will agree also to allow debate on those amendments. Even taking only the 15 amendments, the time allocated for debate amounts to no more than 10 minutes per amendment. The Secretary of State made the audacious claim that to allow this debate to continue unguillotined would lead to what he described as pointless repetition. Some of the serious and significant issues raised by their Lordships, some of which have never been debated in the House, deserve rather more than 10 minutes of discussion.

There is the issue of whether there should be consultation and who should be consulted on the new courses to be made the subject of the loans scheme. There is the major issue of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. There is the issue of the new powers taken for this authoritarian Government to force university and college administrations against their will to co-operate with the measure without adequate compensation. There are amendments on disabled students which may have all-party support, but which certainly deserve proper consideration.

There are amendments on the marketing and canvassing of loans to students or potential students under 18 and on the disclosure and sale of information belonging to the Student Loans Company. That raises the question of the circumstances in which the Student Loans Company could be privatised, as the Under-Secretary of State has promised will happen, and whether that privatisation could take place with the sale of the information that the Student Loan Company has.

The House has never discussed two key issues: the new controls over the institutions and loans to under-18s. Yet the Secretary of State treats the House with such contempt that he is willing to allow us only 10 minutes' discussion per amendment.

On 20 October 1989, The Times Educational Supplement reported a vision of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) about the Bill. Incidentally, he is the campaign organiser of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He said: We are potentially into another poll tax scenario in which our MPs welcome the principle of loans without waking up until it is too late to the practical repercussions". Most Conservative Members are not so much asleep as in a trance. They are transfixed and rendered incapable by the desperate prospect of defeat that inexorably comes closer every day. One word should awaken them from their trance, although whether it will I do not know. One word should make every Conservative Member with an ounce of self-interest and survival refuse to back this guillotine motion. One word should be sufficient warning to send them running, and that word is Baker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Straw."] It is Baker. This Bill has the curse of Baker upon it. [Laughter.] I am glad to see that Conservative Members laugh before the gallows.

The man who created teacher shortages on a scale never before seen, the man who collapsed teacher morale on a scale never before seen, the man who rendered Conservative education policies less popular than ever before and the man who invented the poll tax and then cut and ran is the same man who invented the loans scheme and then cut and ran. The mess that he leaves on this is no less than the mess that he left on the poll tax.

Mr. Pawsey

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for straying from the point and getting involved in a wide-ranging debate. What is he doing now, if it is not that? It is extraordinary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am applying the same rules to both Front Benches.

Mr. Straw

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest possible respect, I say that that is not the case, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was discussing education and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is discussing everything under the sun.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It would be better for the House if hon. Members left those points to me and if we got on with the debate.

Mr. Straw

The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) should listen for once and take my advice. I am seeking to explain why it is in the interest of Conservative Members as well as of the Opposition to vote against the motion.

In this week's Sunday Times, there was a lengthy and well-informed article about how the Conservative party managed to sink ever deeper into the mire on the issue of the poll tax. It spoke about the authors of the loans scheme, the guillotine motion and the poll tax. A ministerial colleague of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), was quoted as saying: Baker was clever enough to see the problems but ambitious enough to overlook them.

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are rightly allowing a wide-ranging debate on this matter, but when an hon. Member starts to debate the community charge he is well out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is regularly mentioning the motion and is in order.

Mr. Straw

Not only was the right hon. Member for Mole Valley clever enough to see the problems of the poll tax but he was clever enough to see the problems of the student loans scheme. In both cases he was ambitious enough to overlook those problems, knowing that he would not be around when they came home to roost. They have been left to the hapless and luckless present Secretary of State for Education and Science. More fool him for picking up the challenge.

Let us look at what the Secretary of State claimed in his speech for the loans scheme. He said that it was designed to "relieve the burden" on taxpayers. It will cost the Exchequer £750 million in the first three years and £2,000 million over the next 20 years. Because the money will disappear into a black hole of administration, default and deferral, the scheme will cost most students dear. Far from helping poorer people to gain access to higher education, the scheme will be an indiscriminate subsidy to the middle classes who need it least. the arguments about access are … bogus."—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 422.] Those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). Those who need it most will be denied the greatest amount through the immediate loss of housing benefit, worth up to £400 or £500 in some cases, and by an immediate cut in the real value of the grant.

A scheme designed by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley to be run by the banks is now in administrative chaos. I shall quote from a piece of ancient history: Baker wins bank loans for students". The right hon. Member for Mole Valley persuaded an ever compliant Sunday Telegraph to write that just nine months ago. He did not win bank loans, because his hyperbole had no substance. The curse was working and the banks cut and ran, ready to risk the fizz and fury of the Prime Minister to protect their market share.

Conservative Members should think again before voting for the motion, because they will be voting for the early introduction of a new nationalised corporation. Such was the desperation of the Government when faced with the collapse of Baker's scheme that they had to set up a new nationalised corporation to run it.

Like the poll tax, the loans scheme is morally offensive. It takes money from those who need it and gives money to those who do not want it, and it wastes millions in administration. It is born of that unique combination of arrogance and incompetence, the hallmark of the Government. Walk carefully, do not wake the envy of the happy gods. Shun hubris", wrote C. S. Lewis. This modern Conservative Government have walked carelessly and dealt carelessly with the lives of others. Through that arrogance, pride and haughty spirit, they have made careless decisions on the poll tax. on schools, on the Health Service and on student loans. They will pay for their hubris by nemesis, by crushing defeat, and the Education (Students Loans) Bill will play a major part in that defeat.

I once thought that the instincts for survival of the Conservative party went before all. If Conservative Members vote for the guillotine, it will prove not only that they will lose but that they want to lose and have lost the capacity and will to survive. I oppose the motion.

5.15 pm

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

We have listened to a somewhat unusual speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), suited more to the Palladium than to the House of Commons. We have heard the ritual moans about time and the ritual synthetic anger and references to an anti-democratic guillotine. I remind the Opposition that the guillotine record stays with them and that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introduced five in a day. He gave a new meaning to the expression "a bunch of fives". If there was a cup for successful guillotining, it would be held by the Opposition. They would have it firmly bolted to their mantelpiece, because they are the experts in guillotines. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, the great democrat, was at that time the great dictator, the arbiter of parliamentary time.

The debate and the time that it takes will be the real measures of the Opposition's concern. The quicker we start to debate the substance of the Lords amendments, the more time there will be for constructive discussion. It occurs to me, as I am sure it has occurred to my hon. Friends, that we have listened to all the Opposition arguments. We listened to them on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading and we know just how feeble those arguments are. We know that the Opposition's case is discredited and I am certain that they will therefore seek to run the guillotine motion for the full three hours.

The justification for the measure is to be found in the need to attract more students in advanced education and to generate the new money that makes that possible. No hon. Member doubts that there must be a limit to the number of students that the taxpayer can support on the present grant-only basis. It is not possible to soak the taxpayer for every single penny. The loan is £420 and it is interest-free. It is not repayable until the student leaves university, commences employment and earns 85 per cent. of the national average wage. There will be no negative dowry, because we all know perfectly well that, if a woman chooses to start a family, she does not start to repay the loan until she starts to earn.

It has been argued inside and outside the House that high taxpayer support is necessary to guarantee a high level of admissions to advanced education. Since 1979, the value of the grant has steadily reduced, but despite that reduction, the number of students has increased by 200,000. Therefore, there is no case to answer that a reduction in grant equals a reduction in student numbers. Those 200,000 extra students help to underline two specific points: first, the success of my right hon. Friend's policies on advanced education, and secondly, the fact that we have had success with our general education policies. There is no point in seeking to increase access to higher education unless the appropriate number of young people come from schools to take advantage of it and clearly that is the case in the United Kingdom. We have been successful in raising the standard and quality of state education.

I do not believe, as Opposition Members have said, that top-up loans will discourage those from blue-collar backgrounds from going into advanced education. Such people currently account for about 61 per cent. of the population, but they account for 21 per cent. of admissions to universities and 24 per cent. to polytechnics. Therefore, it seems that the present grant-only system has not been a conspicuous success for youngsters from blue-collar homes. They are the same young people who are prepared to borrow, and at commercial rates of interest, to finance a second-hand car and purchase video equipment, and will certainly borrow to facilitate their education, which, in turn, will assist them to attain a better standard of income once they have gained their degree. Those Opposition Members who say that they will not actually patronise young people. Young people going to university seem to have more common sense than some Opposition Members who argue that point.

I do not know what will happen when Mr. Speaker rules on the question put to him by the hon. Member for Blackburn, but I should like to briefly touch on the subject of social security benefits, because they are relevant to the matter under discussion. The estimated value of social security benefits likely to be claimed by each eligible student in 1991 is about £300, but the top-up loan is £420. Therefore, there is a substantial increase in the resources being made available to students.

I see little virtue to the taxpayers in student loans and social security benefits being made available at one and the same time and to one and the same beneficiary. Most of those in receipt of social security benefits do not have the benefit of receiving a grant from their local authority to continue their studies. Students seem to be in a different category from most other claimants or recipients of social security. I am firmly convinced, as I am sure are my hon. Friends, that the Government's proposals will result in the great mass of students receiving more support in the form of a loan than they could have claimed in benefit.

I acknowledge immediately that some students will be worse off as a result of the changes. In their case, the level of benefit that they were receiving may have been higher than the £420 interest-free top-up loan, but—and this is a big but—such students will be able to turn to the access funds for help. Students currently claiming benefit receive about £68 million a year. The value of loans is £200 million a year. Therefore, it is clear that there is a substantial increase in the amount of resources being directed at students.

It is fair to remind the House of a point that was well made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, that next year resources for students will be increased by 25 per cent.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Is it not likely that many of those in receipt of housing benefit will probably live in the sort of area where holiday work can be found and, therefore, they will not encounter difficulties in supplementing their income?

Mr. Pawsey

My hon. Friend makes a genuinely important point, which I can reinforce by saying that my five sons who went through college all earned money during the vacation. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has told me that she went through university without the benefit of a grant and had to rely on loans on which she paid a commercial rate. Clearly, interest-free loans would represent a substantial benefit.

Mr. Harry Barnes

Is that why the hon. Gentleman refused to pay his parental contribution for the five children whom he sent through college? I believe that that was what he told us in Committee. Obviously, the legislation is directed to help children who are in the same plight as his children were, but it is of no benefit to people from working-class backgrounds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. In dealing with that point, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will bear it in mind that we are discussing the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Pawsey

I am obliged to you for reminding me of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall, in due course, and in the friendliest way, take the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) outside and put him right about the points that he made. I have already mentioned the various benefits for young people from blue-collar homes. My five sons all received a parental contribution, but I did not make it up to the appropriate amount. My sons had to obtain work in order to get through college.

In debate after debate in the Chamber, I have called for the access fund to be substantially increased from the original figure of £15 million. I unreservedly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the substantial increase that he has announced. The House will be aware that the Government have increased the size of the access fund, designed to assist students who face financial difficulties, by £10 million. That is deeply appreciated, not just by Conservative Members, but right across the House. It will be of substantial benefit and assistance to many students. The total value of access funds stands at £25 million in place of the original figure of £15 million.

The three prongs of student support—loans, grants and access funds—will more than make up for any loss of benefit. Social security benefits are targeted where loans are not. Benefit targeting is not always effective, if only because the student's family circumstances are not taken into account and those parents well able to pay more towards their children's upkeep at college are not asked to do so. That comes back to the point made for me by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. The benefit system does not represent a good, reasonable or effective use of scarce resources or good value for taxpayers' money.

Some students live in accommodation provided by the institution. The rent currently charged reflects an element for the rates and, as those rates have been abolished and the community charge introduced, those students should receive a rent reduction equivalent to the saving made by the institution. Students should not be required to pay the 20 per cent. part community charge and maintain a contribution to the old rates system. In short, students should not be required to pay twice. The same applies to private landlords and I certainly hope that they will take that aspect on board. It will be grossly unfair and unjust if landlords do not reduce their rents by the amount of rates previously charged.

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the lodging allowances board, which determines nurses' lodging allowances, has decided to reduce those allowances by the amount of the rates element? That is a good precedent.

Mr. Pawsey

I am delighted—

Mr. Simon Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must ask you what on earth the speech being made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) or the interventions in it have to do with the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have already reminded the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) once of that. I am finding it difficult to relate his remarks to the allocation of time motion or to the Lords amendments.

Mr. Pawsey

You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I now bring my remarks to a close.

I want to see the Bill on the statute book because I believe that it will benefit students, parents and taxpayers—a trinity of opinion which, if not holy, is certainly important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Simon Hughes.

Mr. Pawsey

What is the hon. Gentleman going to talk about?

5.31 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am going to speak to the guillotine motion—

Mr. Pawsey

That will make a change.

Mr. Hughes

This motion adds a dangerous practice to a dangerous policy and I appeal to Conservative Members to be very careful about voting for the guillotine.

The Bill has had great difficulty even getting to this stage—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson)

Nonsense.

Mr. Hughes

It is not nonsense; I am about to give the House the evidence for my proposition.

On Second Reading in this House the Bill had a Government majority of 81. Some Conservative Members voted against it and others abstained. At one stage in Committee the Government has a majority of only one. Then we six Divisions on Report and the Government majority was never more than 73. In the Division on one of the amendments that my party moved, the Government's majority fell to 43.

On Third Reading, only 100 hon. Members supported the Bill. The majority was only 51—

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes

Not for a moment.

No guillotine motion curtailed debate on the Bill in Committee, although there was one delay—caused by the ending of the involvement of the banks, which suddenly disappeared in the middle of the Committee stage. The Chairman then accepted a motion for the Adjournment of the Committee because the basis on which the Government planned the scheme had suddenly been aborted by the banks deciding not to play ball.

Then the Bill went to another place, where there was much discussion about it. So bad did their Lordships find the Bill that they contemplated the almost unprecedented move of moving a motion to adjourn consideration before Second Reading because there was not enough of a Bill to debate. In the event, they took the almost equally unprecedented step of proposing a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. That is rarely done by their Lordships, who usually give Bills sent from this place an automatic Second Reading on the understandable assumption that, as an unelected Chamber, they should not question the principle of a piece of legislation. However, the reasoned amendment was tabled because there was so little in the Bill to question. The Bill was a hollow Bill—a sham.

In subsequent debates in another place, Members of the House of Lords on all sides—Government, Opposition and Cross Benchers—expressed their opposition to the Bill. Some of the most eminent and respected academics in the land opposed it. As a result, the Government suffered defeats on at least three substantial areas of policy. They were defeated on housing benefit. The other place decided that students should be entitled to it, not disqualified from it. The Government were defeated on the treatment of disabled students, on an all-party motion. And they were defeated on an amendment moved by my noble Friend Earl Russell, on the important constitutional principle that Parliament should not only automatically debate the secondary legislation—given that there is nothing in the primary legislation—but should also be able to amend it.

The great demerit of the Bill is that because the Bill itself contains no details—they will come only later—they cannot be amended by Parliament. We concede at our constitutional peril the precedent of making laws without being able to amend them.

Last week, when proceedings were about to finish in another place, the Government suggested that they would table a guillotine motion but then did not do so. The Leader of the House made it clear in answer to business questions that whether there would be a guillotine depended on what happened in the other place on Thursday last week. There were no further Government defeats that day, so nothing happened which might have affected the Government's decision.

We can therefore only conclude that the reason why there was no announcement of a guillotine in last week's business statement, and the reason for a business statement only yesterday announcing the guillotine, was that the Government wanted to hide from their Lordships the fact that, for only the fifth time in the history of the British constitution, debate on amendments made by the second Chamber was to be guillotined. Had the Government been honest, they would have let their Lordships know that fact. Their Lordships would not have been very pleased and might have caused some difficulty before giving assent to the Bill last Thursday.

The Bill therefore returns to us with a proposal that debate on it should be limited. There are only 17 Lords amendments: 12 of them are Government amendments, one is an all-party amendment, one is a Labour amendment and one is a Liberal Democrat amendment. Two amendments have been disallowed, and if they continue to be so disallowed there will be only 15 left for debate—a maximum of 24 Divisions. Is that really justification for the Government to announce a guillotine, when there is still time before Easter for fuller discussion?

I did not hear one sentence in the speeches of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who chairs the Conservative Back-Bench education committee, advancing an argument justifying the guillotining of the Bill. We are therefore left in the following position. First, we are told that we cannot debate the view—there is a great deal of consensus on it—that students who have no money should be eligible for funds to pay for the housing that they need when studying. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the time comes you will agree to allow us to debate that matter, for the reasons that other hon. Members have already given—we have already voted the money for the implementation of the Bill and its consequential amendments. If the Bill and the money resolution on it do not provide the money, I understand that social security legislation would be able to do so instead.

Given the opposition to the Bill, it is clear that, if this place or the other place were fairly representative of the British people, the Bill would never have got this far. If the Government ignore the limited task of revising legislation that is performed by the unelected second House and do not respect their Lordships' arguments, the case for having a second House at all is seriously weakened. I do not support an unelected second House—it is an anomaly and we should have got rid of it a long time ago—but, I support a two-Chamber Parliament, with both Chambers having a reciprocal role and neither abusing the processes or role of the other.

The trouble is that, as this Parliament has gone on, and as the Government have continued in power—I say this with some sadness—an increasing succession of good people, among whom I include the current Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for the Environment, have one by one gradually given in to the authoritarian pressures imposed on them from elsewhere. I do not know whether, in this case, it is the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip or someone else, but there is no justification for Ministers to come, in equanimity and fairness, to this House to argue for a guillotine in these circumstances. There is no precedent that is justified or paralleled. There is no need for it. It is a gross discourtesy both to the issue and to the seriousness with which the other place tried to address these important matters. The guillotine is an exceptional procedure and it is exceptionally bad, and on constitutional grounds this sort of guillotine should be resisted at all costs.

This legislation contains matters of great substance and, some of us believe, of substantial risk to higher education. I listened to all the argument both in the Committee and outside, and I am not at all persuaded that the Bill does not threaten access to higher education for many people. If we threaten higher education, we threaten our future as a society. If at the same time we couple a threat to our future education with a threat to the constitutional procedures under which we discuss legislation in the democratically elected Parliament of this land, we are doing a double disservice not just to the students of today and tomorrow, but to all our people.

I sincerely hope that we shall have no more of that and that there will be enough hon. Members of principle, on the Conservative as well as the Opposition Benches, to show the Government today that, whatever we think of the Bill, to treat Parliament in this manner is unacceptable, and that we shall vote the guillotine out.

5.42 pm

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

I have managed to catch your kindly eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a couple of occasions when we have debated guillotine motions. The way in which the Government now recklessly decide to guillotine almost anything that moves is of concern both to Members of Parliament and to those outside. We base our authority in this House on showing that there is consent for what is done. It therefore behoves us to argue, to reason and to win on that basis.

The history of this place shows that we have been extremely cautious about the use of guillotines. Indeed, it is a comparatively recent development. The Irish troubles necessitated the getting of business through the House and therefore the introduction of the guillotine. Governments were extraordinarily cautious of curtailing debate, because it is on the basis of debate that we assess that people outside will wear the legislation that follows. As two of my hon. Friends said in a similar debate last week, consent in connection with the poll tax should cause us to pause. Did we really assess that the people would wear that tax, regressive and unacceptable as it now appears to many of us?

As I said last week, between 1945 and 1951 there was perhaps the most radical programme in the history of this nation. I also said that I had had difficulty in identifying the use of the guillotine. However, with the help of the House authorities, I can now say that there were three guillotines. The years from 1951 to 1974 were politically contentious, and the battle moved backwards and forwards across the Chamber between Labour and Conservative. There was a total of 15 guillotines during that time. During the lamentable period from 1974 to 1979, there were only 11 guillotines, five of them on one day—as has been regularly pointed out and also acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the former Leader of the Opposition. However, a Government with a majority of nil, which is why I think that it was almost improper to use the guillotine, used it only 11 times during those years.

I shall not deal with the earlier years of this Government, but during the parliamentary Session 1988–89 they indulged in 14 guillotine motions on 10 Bills. That shows the level of what is happening. Among those guillotines was one on the poll tax legislation. I have written on the back of my cheque book—I regret to say—that this is only the fifth guillotine motion on Lords amendments in the history of Britain. Do we really think that is highly appropriate? Who searched out this new method of truncating debate?

I thought that it must be a socialist measure because the Labour party is not well disposed towards free speech, but not a bit of it—it is a Conservative measure. I seems that our party has taken the view that the House of Lords is redundant and that we do not have to discuss their part in our procedures. We simply pay allegiance and say the correct words. Only two years ago, for the first time in the history of our nation, we truncated debate on Lords amendments. We do not have Indiana Jones who can dash to our rescue—instead, we have Guillotine Jones in the Whips Office who truncates anything that moves if it appears that we want to understand the reasons for the legislation.

We cannot prejudge the issues. I do not necessarily know how other people weigh them. Only by listening to their views can I arrive at a decision. Guillotine Jones has assessed the House pretty well. We want to go home, do we not? That is our principal duty. We want to be home by 10 o'clock. If there is one thing that the guillotine does, it is to ensure that we know when the vote will be called. I have said time and again that it is not in the interests of the party or of the Government to go for the guillotine because in the end we shall not signify as clearly as we should that the legislative measures have the consent of the population, based on reasoned argument. That is the assurance that we are seeking.

I plead with the Government to be cautious about the use of the guillotine. The scorn that we show for the process of free speech and debate in this Chamber will be seen as hubris and will come back on us. That is why I am speaking as clearly and as loudly as I can, as I did last Wednesday. The Secretary of State has given barely a reason for the guillotine. His speech referred to the merits of the legislation, if it is passed. I have to tell him that I have no doubt that the legislation will be passed. Our majority is one of the largest ever enjoyed by a British Government.

We do not doubt that the Government will have their way, but they will not even go to the politeness of saying that the debate can run on the reasoned amendments from another place. There is no big deal in that. In essence, we are being told that the merits of the debate in another place are not worth more than six hours. That is how we weigh up their Lordships. After all, they are only there through an accident of birth or by appointment and are not worth very much. They have become awkward in recent years—

Mr. Jackson

I know how passionately my hon. Friend feels about this, and I respect that—we are all concerned about the issues—but if my hon. Friend is saying that the Government have no regard for the House of Lords, perhaps he could tell us how many of the amendments passed in another place the Government have accepted.

Mr. Shepherd

I understand that my hon. Friend is a member of All Souls, but I do not have to go to All Souls to know that that is a non-question and irrelevant to my point. The reckless pursuit of inhibition of free speech and debate on the floor of the House is not in our interests and we should be extraordinarily cautious in the use of guillotines.

5.48 pm

Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have made an overwhelming case against the motion. I do not know whether anyone on the Government Front Bench is treating those speeches in a derisory manner. The spokesman for All Souls apparently is—he should pay a little more attention to parliamentary procedures. Anyone who listened to those three speeches would have concluded that a powerful case had been made against the Government's motion.

Whenever we have a motion of this kind, reference is made to the guillotine motions that I introduced when I was Leader of the House. At least when I was Leader of the House I always took the precaution of moving the motion myself—I did not run away and leave somebody else to do it, as is becoming more and more the habit of the present Leader of the House. A week or two ago, when he failed to move a similar motion, saying that he was in Chile, the Patronage Secretary was brought along to do the job instead, but that was not satisfactory either.

We have had no apology today from those who run the business of the House for the Government. The Secretary of State is not responsible for the business of the House. The Government are so ready to introduce guillotine motions in the exceptional circumstances that have been described that they do not even trouble to ensure that the Leader of the House puts his case to the House of Commons. That alone is a disgrace.

There is no comparison whatever between this motion and the guillotines that I introduced. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, at that time it was a narrow House of Commons—only a few votes divided one side from the other—so without a guillotine in certain circumstances the Government would not have been able to get through any legislation at all, which would have been a frustration of parliamentary processes and utterly intolerable.

Some Conservative Members, including the spokesman for the Select Committee on Procedure, believe—it was almost implicit in what the Secretary of State said today—that we should have guillotine motions regularly and that this is a better way of getting the business through because we need not worry about time. Whenever I have spoken for or against guillotine motions, I have never favoured that view—for the reason that I have given before and which I repeat today. It is a matter of profound importance for the salvation, safety and future of the House of Commons as a great democratic assembly that the guillotine should be used only in rare circumstances. When it is resorted to, it should be argued for carefully before the House of Commons. That is the only circumstance in which I ever introduced a guillotine, and the only circumstance in which anyone who believes in parliamentary government should be prepared to do so.

The present Government, however, have thrown aside all those protections and precautions, and all consideration of the way in which parliamentary business should be carried out. More regularly than ever before in parliamentary history, either just before a Bill goes to the Lords or when it returns from there, the Government introduce a guillotine motion to curtail debate on the fag end of a Bill, at the very time when it should be the business of the House to consider what has been said in the House, in the other place and outside. The whole purpose of our procedure for Bills is that we take account of what is said outside.

The Secretary of State showed no consideration of those matters when he introduced the motion. He referred to the "wrapping-up stage"—a novel phrase in our parliamentary history. I should be glad if he would point out anybody else who has referred to our consideration of Lords amendments as the "wrapping-up stage". According to the normal procedures of Parliament, there is no wrapping-up stage. There should be proper procedures whereby we have time to debate such questions, especially questions which are of great importance to many of our constituents and which, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey properly emphasised, were bitterly debated in the other place where the Government could not command any great majority. I should have thought that all those arguments would also have appealed to the House of Commons.

The Government are curtailing debate on a matter of great importance to masses of people throughout Britain and the Leader of the House does not even have the courage to move the motion himself.

As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills rightly said, if the Government had listened on the poll tax they might not be in such a scrape now. The Government never listen except when the Prime Minister is caterwauling in Ministers' ears, saying that they must get the business through. The Government have introduced a series of measures which will injure the education of the British people. The Under-Secretary of State knows well that in practically every decent university, and especially at Oxford, what he and his Department have done is regarded with contempt—and the Government will be all the more regarded with contempt because of their rejection of the proper processes of parliamentary discussion in introducing the measure.

I hope that the House of Commons will reassert itself. A vote against the motion would not destroy the Government, but it might teach them a necessary lesson—too late for them to learn from, but good for the House of Commons none the less.

5.56 pm

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

There is no justification whatever for the motion, to which I shall stick strictly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has recited the figures of the number of guillotines, which used to be few and far between. I well remember when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House and his invariable courtesy, and there was no guillotine on our lengthy and contentious debates on devolution.

We are about to debate—if we ever get to them—the Lords amendments to this important Bill. Why a guillotine? Why would any hon. Member filibuster on those? On 3 April my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—a temporary Member of the House—said: In view of the widespread filibustering on Report, the guillotine will be widely welcomed."—[Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1069.] There was no filibustering on Report. We have all tried to debate these matters sensibly and thoughtfully, so why this measure? There is a belief on the Front Bench, or the temporary Front Bench, that any opposition is the result of treachery or deceit. Those of us who have endeavoured over the past two or three months to persuade the Government to change their mind on some matters, as we have persuaded the other place to do, are now being told that debate will be curtailed and the guillotine will fall.

That is the certain course to disaster. The House, which I love and have served for 25 years, is based on debate and discussion, disagreement and agreement. I have learnt a great deal in the House from listening to Opposition Members. I would not say that I have acquired wisdom, but I have learnt a great deal, and I hope that I have imparted something. The moment we start stopping that, which is what the process is all about, we shall destroy the heart and soul of the House of Commons and the heart and soul of British democracy.

I loathe the Bill and I loathe the motion. I shall vote against all of it. I wish that I had the eloquence to express to the House how angry I feel that my party should have the temerity, arrogance and stupidity to try to force such measures through.

Mr. MacGregor

Does not my hon. Friend accept, as I made clear in my opening speech, that we listened carefully to the debates on the Bill in the House? We have accepted a number of amendments which have been put forward because they are in response to points made in debate.

Mr. Rhodes James

I can only ask my right hon. Friend, then why move the guillotine?

5.59 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

Some Conservative Members seem to think that it is a great wheeze to keep pointing out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that he introduced five guillotine motions in one day, as if that meant that the guillotine motion before us, or any recent guillotine, was justified rather than something that needs to be argued for on its merits. Even if there was merit in putting forward five guillotines in one day, that would not justify the guillotine motion on this Bill.

By this time we could have been well into the debate on the first set of amendments; we might even have passed them. Instead, we will spend probably three hours on the guillotine debate and will have only a limited period in which to discuss the amendments themselves. When we allow for a Division at 10.40 pm, about 15 minutes later the car parking area will look like the start of a motor race as hon. Members rush away. Those who want to dash away after exercising their vote at the behest of the Whips should be allowed to leave, and other hon. Members who wish to consider an important measure, on which there is great feeling on both sides of the House, should be given a further opportunity to pursue the amendments which have come to us from another place, as well as the additional amendments which have been tabled.

We should be allowed to consider the measure properly. The quality of debate on the amendments might have some impact on the future of the legislation. We do not just debate specific items at different stages but put out markers for the future. As a result of debate, there might be greater understanding in future.

We have six hours to cover the timetable debate and the consideration of the amendments. Some hon. Members have pointed out eloquently that the timetable motion is procedurally and constitutionally corrupt and should not be before us. We have seven batches of important amendments to discuss. In most cases there are amendments to amendments. It is not a case of the Government supporting certain proposals, that being the end of it, and we can all disappear. The amendments tabled by various hon. Members should also be discussed.

In the seven batches of amendments, 15 of the 17 Lords amendments, and nine of the 16 amendments to Lords amendments have been selected for debate. In theory, we could have eight Divisions on amendments and on the timetable motion. Therefore, we could spend two hours going through the Division Lobbies, which would cut further into the time possible for debate.

The measure is significant and important. We should have time to discuss the consultation procedure, the parliamentary procedure for dealing with regulations and the grant regulations themselves. The Bill is an enabling measure. It cannot be argued that, because it is only a four-page Bill, with few clauses, it can be trundled through quickly. Because it has such vast implications, we should discuss it in great detail and should try to dig out all that is involved in it.

The Bill has implications for students with disabilities and consumer credit for minors. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has tabled an amendment on data protection. I have often heard him speak on the subject, in which he has great expertise. I would be happy to listen to him on this occasion. I believe that he would make a significant contribution on the disclosure of information which will be available to the student loan organisation. However, that amendment is the final one in the seventh batch, and the chances of getting to it are remote.

We should not be discussing a timetable motion. Instead we should have had the opportunity to consider matters in detail, as was done in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading and in the other place. The Government claim that the amendments which they have tabled arose because of the quality of debate in the House and in the other place. I doubt whether it was the quality of the discussion which caused the Government to put forward amendments. I believe it was because of politics and the fact that there was a rebellion in certain ranks within the Conservative party. Detailed consideration of all the amendments on the Amendment Paper led to considerable improvements in the Bill.

The measure has fantastic significance for the future of higher education and for a growing number of people with great potential who should be given the opportunity to participate in higher education. I refer to people from a working-class background, women who have been discriminated against, members of ethnic minorities who need encouragement to become involved in the system, and late developers who need a second opportunity to move into higher education, Not only is it their loss, but it is an even greater loss to society if they cannot take advantage of higher education because of the implications of the Bill.

6.8 pm

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

I noted that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke for nine minutes. Like him, I agree that we must restrict our remarks to the guillotine motion, so I shall endeavour not to speak any longer than he did. Nor shall I follow the comments of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) or my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the general principle of guillotine motions as they apply in Parliament. There are deep issues involved. Certainly I do not intend to address those now. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent is the expert, because during his time as Leader of the House he guillotined the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Health Services Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. I remind the House that he also guillotined an education Bill.

I shall not pursue that point because common sense enables me to support the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said that the Bill is straightforward. At the same time, I accept that the Bill is controversial and that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whom I respect, hold differing views on it. Nevertheless, we all understand what it is about, so I do not agree with those who argue that there must be a lengthy debate, going on for ever and ever. Most of us understand the issues, which is why I am happy to support my right hon. Friend's opening remarks.

I can support also my right hon. Friend's statement that the Government have made a positive response to the representations by Members of another place and by right hon. and hon. Members of this House. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reminded the House that no guillotine or curtailment of debate was exercised in Committee, on which I served, and that the debate there was very wide-ranging. That supports the Government's case.

Mr. Jackson

The Government were particularly appreciative of the points that my hon. Friend made repeatedly in Committee about the need to increase the access fund, to which we also responded.

Mr. Thompson

My hon. Friend gives me a chance to shorten my speech still further, because I intended to welcome the response made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and to my own strong representations.

It is good news for students, not least those at the university of East Anglia in Norwich, in my area, that the access fund for higher education has been doubled, from £10 million to £20 million, making the total funds available £25 million. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep that sum under review as the scheme progresses, for the benefit of students. After all, we are all interested in providing students with extra benefits and with the furtherance of good higher education.

Mr. Pawsey

Will my hon. Friend comment on the possibility that in his own constituency, for example, landlords will continue to include the rates element in the rents that they charge students? I know that he condemns that practice, and I shall be grateful if he will give the House the benefit of his views.

Mr. Thompson

I entirely support my hon. Friend's argument that landlords should reflect the changes brought about by the new local government finance arrangements, of which we are all aware. In the Norwich Eastern Evening News, a group of landlords stated that they would honour their obligation to reflect that change. I do not know whether all landlords in Norwich and elsewhere will do the same, but I hope that they will.

I promised that I would be even briefer than the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, so I shall move on quickly. I welcome also the increase in the disabled students' allowance, for which many of my hon. Friends campaigned in Committee, and the disregard of disability-related benefits when assessing income for deferment.

Even more important than the concept of student loans is the value and level of the total student grant—although I do not have time to discuss that in detail this evening. The good news about the new scheme is that it makes more money available. In the present political climate, it is not always possible to emphasise the positive aspects of legislation, but that improvement should not go unremarked.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The Government often trot out the line that so much more money is being made available, but will the hon. Gentleman be honest enough to admit where that money is coming from? The answer is that it is being borrowed and must be paid back. It is not the result of great munificence on the part of the Government.

Mr. Thompson

I am happy to agree with the argument that the student loans scheme is a student loans scheme. There is no way that I can deny what is already in the title of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is good at taking up time, but I want to make progress.

There has been much argument about access to higher education, a subject on which I have addressed sixth form students in Norwich. Concern is felt about whether the Bill will increase or decrease access to higher education, particularly among young people from lower income groups. I would go so far as to say that, if access decreases as a direct consequence of the scheme, we would all be deeply concerned. I take the view—although I cannot yet prove that it is correct—that the Bill will help to increase access. Figures in a parliamentary answer that I received reveal that the number of applications for university places in the current year has increased.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of applications has increased by 20 per cent. over the previous year?

Mr. Thompson

I am delighted that my hon. Friend reminds me of the precise percentage increase, which makes my point even more effectively.

I have always rejected the argument that access to higher education will be negatively affected by the scheme's introduction.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

What will the hon. Gentleman be willing to do if it is proved in the near future that the number of students enrolling for higher education is falling? Also, does he acknowledge that current applications have been made under the existing grants system?

Mr. Thompson

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point, because I know from my own meetings with sixth formers that they are fully aware of the scheme. Not all of them currently support it, but they know of it.

As it is the Government's declared policy to increase the numbers in higher education, not only would I be concerned if they were to fall, but so would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Jackson

The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are continuing to monitor the position. Figures are collected and analysed, and we shall be aware of trends. In the full publicity of this House, I make a private bet with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that in five years' time the proportion of students from working-class backgrounds will have increased substantially.

Mr. Thompson

I shall discuss later with my hon. Friend the nature of our wager, but I am not anxious to make too many bets. Nevertheless, I agree with his general point. Not enough emphasis has been placed on two of the scheme's positive aspects. One is the removal of the parental contribution, which will benefit many families. The other is that it is altogether a better scheme for students. Common sense dictates that there will be enough time for a debate. I know that I have exceeded the time that I allotted myself, but there have been several interventions.

Mr. Harry Barnes

rose—

Mr. Thompson

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, provided he does not mind if my speech continues a little longer.

Mr. Barnes

The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 10 minutes, whereas my own contribution lasted for nine minutes. The hon. Gentleman has therefore spoken for longer than I did, if not better.

Mr. Thompson

The hon. Gentleman is right. My only excuse is that I have given way to some excellent interventions.

I support the remarks of the Minister. Apart from the wider debate about guillotine motions—I have sympathy with some of the remarks that have been made about that—common sense determines that we shall have enough time to debate the Bill.

6.20 pm

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

It was a privilege to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), whose comments were fundamental to the artificial debate that we are having on the timetable motion. We are contriving to ignore a major reality for young people, which is their entitlement to student grants and, above all, to housing benefit. That hon. Gentleman encapsulated everything that I wanted to say, and I wish simply to endorse the anger that he reflected, albeit in a restrained way.

The Goverment are showing contempt for the House from which the amendments have come, and that could result in problems for us. They are also showing contempt for Members of this House because an issue that is of root importance to students in the north of Ireland will not be debated because of the lack of time.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

Fifteen.

Mr. Mallon

The fact remains that the timetable motion shows contempt for the other place and, as I have explained, for Members of this House. That will greatly affect our ability to discuss matters vital to youngsters in the north of Ireland, youngsters who up to now have had faith in our democratic processes.

When we try to explain to them our inability to discuss issues crucial to their further education and say that we were prevented from doing that because of an archaic rule, they are bound to feel that we consider such procedures to be more important than the future of their education. To explain that away requires a degree of eloquence far exceeding that of any Member.

Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all these issues were debated on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading and that constraints of time will concentrate the minds of speakers in tonight's debate?

Mr. Mallon

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about constraints of time concentrating speakers' minds, but when on crucial issues such as these we resort to the artificiality of the guillotine, we are damaging our democratic processes and insulting the young people whose futures we should be debating.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) referred to the debates in Committee. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be aware that, because of the procedures of the House, only one minority party was allocated a place at that stage, and that place was occupied by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). That meant that the SDLP, the Welsh National party, the Ulster Unionists and the SDP were excluded. The House will appreciate why we are vexed at the fact that we shall not have time to debate many issues that concern us, especially as we participated fully at all other stages, when we were able to do so.

Mr. Mallon

The hon. Lady is right, and our only good fortune was that we were admirably represented in Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

As we consider what has happened recently in London and in other British cities, we realise that democracy is a very tender plant indeed which must be nurtured and cosseted. That is equally true of the future of our young people. The guillotine on this issue makes me angry. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Cambridge said more eloquently than I could what I wanted to say. Not only are we showing complete indifference to our position as legislators, but we are showing gross indifference to the young people of the nation and their future educational status.

6.25 pm

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

I am anxious, before deciding how to vote on the allocation of time motion, to raise certain issues. But first I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the court of Brunel university, which is in my constituency.

The University Funding Council wants Brunel to expand its intake of students by 10 per cent. That means that students, because there is not sufficient accommodation on campus, can come to Brunel only if they can find and afford accommodation off campus. In practice, that means accommodation somewhere in Uxbridge, Southall or Ealing.

Brunel needs 400 more units of student accommodation. That need is at present being considered by the university, which hopes to build some of them. But those units can be provided only if the cost of borrowing is spread over the existing student accommodation. That would make it as expensive as off-campus accommodation. If Brunel were to build, say, 600 additional units, the cost of doing that at current interest rates would put those units above that of off-campus accommodation.

The cost of off-campus accommodation at Brunel and at other London universities is higher than in any other part of the country. I therefore question whether the amount of the maximum loan facility to be made available to students in London will be sufficient. I had hoped for an opportunity to debate that in relation to Government amendment No. 7. I do not know whether there will be time for that debate if the guillotine motion is approved.

It is a tough guillotine motion. It does not specify a period for the House to debate each amendment, so I have no alternative but to ask the Minister some questions before deciding how to vote on the matter. I say that because the cost of on-compus accommodation at Brunel is, on average, £25 a week. The cost of off-campus accommodation is about £37.50 a week, or £12.50 more.

The Minister will appreciate that, over a 30-week academic year, a student living off campus must find an additional £400 a year, plus the cost of travelling to and from university. We should be given time tonight to debate whether the access funds will be sufficient to allow the university to provide additional financial assistance for students living off campus.

The Minister said that the access funds would be substantially increased. I am pleased about that, and I congratulate the Government on securing that additional funding from the Treasury. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest on the important question that I have raised. It affects London universities in particular and those which, like Brunel, have many students living off campus. I hope that the Minister will comment on the extent to which the funding council will be able to allocate funds to the university to help students in that position.

Mr. Jackson

I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have substantially increased the size of the access fund and have made it clear to the funding council that, when they distribute funds to institutions, the Government expect relative housing costs to be a major factor in the formulae which determine distribution. The institutions will take housing costs into account when they make allocations to students in need. I have no doubt that Brunel, which, as my hon. Friend says, is situated in a relatively high-cost area, will benefit from those arrangements.

Mr. Shersby

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will the universities decide how to dispose of the funds allocated to them by the funding council?

Mr. Jackson

It will be entirely a matter for the universities.

Mr. Shersby

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall not detain the House any further. I wanted the opportunity to raise those important points on behalf of a university which is situated just outside Greater London.

6.30 pm

Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central)

It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was not here earlier, when the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), spoke about the guillotine. They did so eloquently and, certainly for someone of my experience, provided a clear insight into what the Government are attempting to do through the motion.

The guillotine was clearly planned at least last week by the Government but was withdrawn, in what can be described only as a cynical manoeuvre, to avoid alerting the other place, which was still considering the amendments until Thursday of last week. That further compounded the Government's disarray on the Bill, which is best illustrated by the pull-out of the banks and the confusion surrounding that, which continues to surround how the Student Loans Company will operate. The confusion was further compounded in Committee in the other place last week when the Government were forced to table a new amendment to the Bill. That arose because it became apparent that the offer of loans to people under the age of 18 could render the Student Loans Company liable to criminal proceedings under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I see that you are now in your place, Mr. Speaker. The subject of the Consumer Credit Act and minors under the age of 18 was never raised in the Chamber nor in Committee. Yet the Government are now attempting to steamroller the Bill on to the statute book without further discussion of that important matter. We have to ask why the Government find a guillotine necessary. The Minister and subsequent Conservative Members who spoke on the motion have failed to justify the need for a guillotine.

For a guillotine to be used on a flimsy four-clause Bill shows that the Government are running scared of their Back Benchers. On the various occasions when the legislation has been discussed in the Chamber, some Conservative Back Benchers have voiced their opposition to the Bill in various ways. It seems to me that the Government are attempting to deny those Back Benchers a further opportunity to air their opposition. That is a shabby tactic, but it is quite in character with the way in which the Government have carried through the Bill. They refused to accept amendments in Committee. They refused to listen to the arguments of Opposition Members in Committee.

Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have had no intention significantly to modify their proposals, despite the strength of opinion held by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the education community. Powerful evidence was presented to hon. Members in Committee, but the Government consistently refused to listen to that opinion. They have ignored the effect that the Bill will have on access and on the costs to students. Those two items are inextricably linked and the Government have refused to recognise that.

Mr. Beggs

Much reference has been made to the 30-week term and housing benefit. Is it not a fact that few landlords will allocate accommodation to students if they receive rent for only 30 weeks?

Mr. Watson

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because it brings me back to a subject that I raised in Committee—rents paid by students in the city of Edinburgh. Edinburgh's rents are possibly the second highest in the United Kingdom outside London—with the possible exception of Aberdeen. I quoted a case in Edinburgh that showed clearly that the result of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 was that many landlords had decided that students were no longer suitable tenants and were getting rid of them at every opportunity. Landlords were choosing to change houses available for rent and to sell them.

I was unconvinced by the hon. Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who repeated arguments made in Committee about the poll tax. The poll tax has been in existence in Scotland for the past year and during that period landlords have consistently refused to withdraw the rates element of rents demanded of tenants, who now have to pay poll tax independently. The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that he is sure that landlords in Norwich will not do that. Certainly the information that I am receiving from other parts of the United Kingdom proves that that is not the case elsewhere, and that is a further worry to students who are likely to be denied accommodation or, if they are not denied it, asked to pay significantly more.

I regret that we do not have the opportunity to discuss housing benefit because it is an important aspect of the Bill. The withdrawal of benefits to students fundamentally hits at the argument that the Government have advanced that the Bill will increase resources to students and take away some of the weight on parents' shoulders. In theory, parents will not be required to make a contribution, or such a large contribution, but in fact, parents who can afford it will be asked by their student sons and daughters to bail them out during vacations when they cannot find employement or are unable to claim housing benefit, unemployment benefit or income support.

It is unfair of the Government to ignore the fact that that will affect precisely the students whom they claim that they want to attract into education—working-class students, whose numbers at universities in the United Kingdom dropped between 1979 and 1988 from 22.5 per cent. to 19.9 per cent. at the same time as the value of the grant was decreasing. I cannot understand why the Government will not take on board the fact that the reason why the number of students from that socio-economic background decreased during that period.

The Government have consistently failed to make it clear how the offer of loans to students from such a background will encourage them into higher education in much larger numbers—not just larger numbers—than previously. That is why it is particularly unfortunate that amendment No. 8, which was carried in the other place and which reinstated the payment of housing benefit to students, is not being allowed to be presented this evening. That certainly lets the Government off the hook, but it shows that when the Bill was put under scrutiny in the other place they made a decision based on common sense, and the amendment was carried by a majority of almost two to one.

Throughout its various stages, the Bill has been shown to be universally unpopular and unwanted, except by the Government and those Conservative Back Benchers who have been whipped into the Lobby. As has been demonstrated this evening, the Government do not have enough confidence in the Bill to submit it to full scrutiny or to submit the amendments carried in the other place to adequate debate.

The Government's tactics in introducing the guillotine motion and the sleight of hand with which they did so, bring them no credit whatever. Neither does any aspect of the Education (Student Loans) Bill bring the Government any credit.

6.38 pm

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)

I respect the opinions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), both of whom are distinguished in the House for their independence of mind and the integrity of their views. Normally I find myself very much in agreement with their view on the way in which the business of the House is conducted—or misconducted, as is sometimes the case. However, I feel that there could be a reason for implementing the guillotine, because of the time and the brouhaha expended on the subject of a relatively small change in the way in which the over-privileged are already funded by the under-privileged.

That has already received a great deal of time in the House and in the other place. There is nothing so nauseating as the sight of the privileged pursuing even more privileges. It is the middle classes who resent the Bill. The fact is that 80 per cent. of students come from the middle classes. They are attempting to protect and to some extent extend the great privileges that they already enjoy. Partly on account of birth and partly on account of the financial background of their families, they are able to benefit from a university education.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to my personal experience. I come from what is partronisingly called a blue-collar family. I paid all the costs, apart from tuition, of my college and university education. There was no housing benefit or social security benefit in those days. Furthermore, when I began teaching I was expected to pay back the cost of my education by teaching for a number of years. If I had not done so, I should have been expected to pay back the cost of my training. That was accepted. However, society has reached the point at which it is resented if the state does not pay for various things. I do not share that view.

The great majority of people who make a success of their lives have not had a university education. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the entrepreneurial class—the poor bloody infantry who support the rest of our society—do not go through to the age of 22, or more, as wards of the state who are paid for by their fellow citizens. Those people look askance at the way in which Members of Parliament devote so much of their time to protecting the privileges of those who already have it so good. For that reason, the Government are right to curtail the time that we should spend on debating the issue.

My quarrel with the Bill is that it does not go far enough. There is no reason why those who will enjoy the better things of life, by virtue of their birth, attributes and intellect, should expect yet more of those whose lot it is to leave school at 16, without resentment, and work their way through life, pulling themselves up by their own elbow grease and boot straps. The less time we spend on debating these privileges and the sooner the full cost of higher education is met by those who benefit from it, the better.

The entrepreneurs on whom the wealth and progress of our society depends ask for no privileges from this House. All they ask for is to be allowed to keep as large a proportion of their resources as they can, so that they can be ploughed back into promoting their own self-interest and progress. That is what we should work for. Those who, by birth and intellect, are already endowed with privileges that many people lack should not come to the House, or to the other place, with their begging bowls and ask for yet more assistance from those who work to provide it.

6.43 pm

Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East)

During the last two hours we have heard contorted and specious arguments in support of the motion. For most of the time, we have heard no arguments at all. There was a Second Reading speech by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). As for the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), at last she came clean as to where the Conservative party was heading in its funding of higher education—towards a system based not on ability to benefit but on ability to pay.

Those who spoke in favour of the motion gave no good reason why this miserable specimen of a Bill should be timetabled. The only argument which might have carried any real conviction—that hon. Members want to make the quickest possible exit from this place for the Easter recess—has not been repeated since the Secretary of State for Education and Science alluded to it. I suspect that when Conservative Members are greeted by their constituents' anger about the poll tax, mortgage interest rates and rent, they will wish that they had stayed here for Easter.

When one considers the allocation of time motion for consideration of the Bill, one wonders whether there is a little-known standing order which provides that anything to do with student loans must be dealt with as near as possible to weekends and public holidays. It is more than a matter of curious coincidence that our first debate on the student loans proposal, almost a year after the White Paper was published, was on a Friday, that the statement about the withdrawal of the banks from the scheme was held back until the last day before the Christmas Adjournment, that the Report stage was on a Thursday and that today is the last full day of business before the Easter recess.

It is all the more bizarre that, having relied on such recreational carrots to drag the Bill along thus far, the Government should decide that they need the big stick of the guillotine as well. As my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) have said, the guillotine cannot be defended. The Bill had not been timetabled previously; there was no filibustering at any of the earlier stages; the Lords amendments cover issues not previously debated here, such as compelling higher education institutions to help to administer the scheme, and the implications in relation to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The guillotine was introduced at the last possible moment. The Bill was withdrawn from last week's business in a shabby and cynical maneouvre, thus misleading the other place as to the Government's intentions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, a guillotine motion should be used only in rare circumstances and it should be argued for carefully. We have heard no such careful argument in favour of the motion today.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I support all that the hon. Gentleman says and I do not wish to distract him from it. However, to confirm what he said and to deal with a point—just in case the record does not reveal it—raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the time that this House has had to debate the Bill since the Second Reading amounts to 10 hours, which was the time spent on Report and Third Reading, and that we have gone from Second Reading to Third Reading in just over two months. It is only just over a month since the Bill was sent to the Lords and returned to us. There has been no delay. The House has not spent an inordinate time debating any of the provisions in this important Bill.

Mr. Smith

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have just seen the bulldozer in operation, and it is unjustifiable. Any impartial observer is left with no other impression than that of a Government running scared. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said yesterday, this is not so much a matter of business management as of crisis management.

What is the purpose of the guillotine? What is the great volume of business that the Government claim justifies its imposition? There are just 17 Lords amendments. Two of them have been ruled out of order on grounds of privilege, three are minor Government drafting changes, 10 are changes initiated or supported by the Government and just two of them reflect Government defeats in the other place—on draft regulations and on repayment terms for disabled students. It is as pathetic as it is insulting that the Government should stoop to the use of the guillotine to bulldoze this measure through. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, in a speech as persuasive as it was passionate, the guillotine is a disgrace to the Conservative party just as it is a disgrace to the House.

The Government cannot claim in their defence that our amendments are capricious, trivial or wrecking when we have sought to defend and improve upon the changes made in another place. These are changes to ensure meaningful consultation—something totally absent from the Government's approach; changes to enable Parliament properly to consider the regulations by which the scheme will operate; changes to reimburse institutions for their enforced participation in the administration of the scheme; changes to ensure that the loan does not become more than half of maintenance without primary legislation; changes to safeguard the position of students with disabilities; and changes to protect those under 18 and to safeguard against the disclosure of information by the Student Loans Company.

Had we had the chance—we hope still to have it—we would have argued strongly for the reinstatement of housing and other social security benefits, the withdrawal of which will cause much hardship and represent the removal of basic rights of citizenship to which everyone is entitled.

These are not unreasonable changes. They undoubtedly reflect the consensus of the general public, education institutions and students. If hon. Members on the Government Benches had the opportunity to vote freely according to their judgment, I have no doubt that the amendments would be carried here, too. I draw the attention of the House to the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) yesterday, when he told the Leader of the House that some of us care deeply about the future of higher education, and that he cannot guillotine that".—[Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1068.]

We heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge today a testament to the conviction that he expressed yesterday in his moving and dignified speech in defence of the best traditions of the House and against a Government who are abusing them and thereby abusing democracy. The hon. Gentleman's voice should be heard today and hon. Members should follow his advice in the Division Lobby.

A wise Government would listen, take notice and act in accordance with the overwhelming majority opinion on these issues—but then a wise Government, with the best interests of higher education and the country at heart, would not have introduced the student loans scheme or the Bill in the first place. The Bill remains, as it started, a triumph of narrow ideology over common sense and the common interest. The scheme that it would introduce is an expensive administrative nightmare, damaging both to students' welfare and to the national interest, closing avenues of opportunity at the very time when Britain should be opening them up.

Mr. Pawsey

rose—

Mr. Smith

No, I cannot give way now.

This guillotine motion, like the Bill that it timetables, could have been brought forward only by a Government deaf to public opinion through arrogance, and arrogant because they do not care. As the Bill is pushed lamely towards the statute book, it bears its makers' mark in its ill-considered provisions which have been a shambles from start to finish.

Like the poll tax, the cost and unfairness and the deep unpopularity of student loans will return to haunt the Prime Minister, who insisted that the Bill should proceed. The Opposition's commitment to grant will be one more reason why we shall be elected to office, when we will repeal this damaging scheme, just as we urge the House to reject this draconian and unnecessary guillotine today.

In a phrase which can be taken only as the deepest insult to democracy in this Parliament, the Secretary of State in opening the debate referred to tonight's proceedings as the "wrapping up" stage. I will tell him what is being wrapped up—the Government and their insufferable arrogance are being wrapped up. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against this unnecessary, draconian and insulting motion.

6.54 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson)

All hon. Members will share my admiration of the hyperbolic style of my good friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I shall be brief in winding up this debate—although perhaps I may not use such an expression after what has been said about the phrase "wrapping up"—and, in the interests of enabling us to get on with the debate, I will speak only to the guillotine motion. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to forgive me if, because of this, I do not respond on this occasion to some of the points which have been made but which are outside the scope of the guillotine motion. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to some of my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members who allowed me to intervene in their speeches, thus enabling me, I hope, to clarify some issues.

It is common ground in the House that it would be rather nice not to have to use the guillotine. I respect and rather admire, and indeed am sometimes a little terrified by, the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but we all know that as long as we have the right—unusual in comparison with other Parliaments—to speak for as long as we like, the guillotine will be one of the awkward facts of parliamentary life.

What I have to say now does not apply to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), but let me remind Opposition Members of Oscar Wilde's remark that hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue. It implies that, while expressions of hypocrisy are to be desired from time to time as reinforcements of virtue, we should not overdo it. As has been observed, Governments of both parties have used the guillotine and doubtless Governments of both parties will do so in future, should there be an occasion when there is a Government of another party. Meanwhile, let us remember that the Bill to which this guillotine relates is only a four-clause Bill. Let me remind the House also that it has undergone no fewer than 90 hours of debate in both Houses.

It is interesting to compare this with the other legislation with which I have been involved, the Education Reform Act. Before it was enacted, it was a 235-clause Bill which took up 216 hours in both Houses. I calculate that today's Bill has had no fewer than 22 hours of discussion per clause, compared with 1.3 hours of discussion per clause of the Education Reform Bill. In my opinion, our debate was of high quality. Hon. Members on both sides agreed that the House of Commons Committee stage led to a genuinely constructive and civilised exchange of views, and I pay tribute to Opposition Members, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and to my colleagues for that.

Debates in the other place are by definition always of a constructive and civilised character. That is no doubt one reason why the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments. Since there has been a suggestion from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Cambridge that the Government are in some way disregarding the other place, let me give some indication of the substance of those amendments.

We have agreed to consultation before amending schedule 1; we have agreed to amendments to schedule 1 by the affirmative resolution procedure; we have agreed to the affirmative resolution procedure for the first student loan regulations; we have agreed to amendments in relation to disabled students, for a 50:50 ratio for loan and grant, and to extend protection of information in the hands of the Student Loans Company. So there is no doubt that the Bill has been well and extensively debated and has also been amended in important points of detail.

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) adduced two arguments against the guillotine: that the points still to be debated are points of great substance, and that if we go on with the guillotine we shall have only 10 minutes for each amendment. I will finish my remarks now to enable us to debate those amendments because that will enable the House to see for itself whether those assertions are true. It is my belief that we will all agree that the amendments that we now have to consider are not particularly important. Most of them are rather minor and we can safely deal with the important ones in the time we have available to us.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 212.

Division No. 159]	[7.00 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Curry, David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Allason, Rupert	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Amess, David	Day, Stephen
Amos, Alan	Devlin, Tim
Arbuthnot, James	Dicks, Terry
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Dorrell, Stephen
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Aspinwall, Jack	Dunn, Bob
Atkinson, David	Dykes, Hugh
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Eggar, Tim
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Baldry, Tony	Evennett, David
Batiste, Spencer	Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Fallon, Michael
Bellingham, Henry	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bendall, Vivian	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Benyon, W.	Fishburn, John Dudley
Bevan, David Gilroy	Fookes, Dame Janet
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Forman, Nigel
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Body, Sir Richard	Forth, Eric
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fox, Sir Marcus
Boswell, Tim	Freeman, Roger
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	French, Douglas
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Fry, Peter
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Gale, Roger
Bowis, John	Gardiner, George
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gill, Christopher
Brazier, Julian	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Bright, Graham	Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Goodlad, Alastair
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Buck, Sir Antony	Gow, Ian
Budgen, Nicholas	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Burns, Simon	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Burt, Alistair	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Butcher, John	Gregory, Conal
Butler, Chris	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Butterfill, John	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Grist, Ian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Ground, Patrick
Carrington, Matthew	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Carttiss, Michael	Hague, William
Cash, William	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Chapman, Sydney	Hampson, Dr Keith
Chope, Christopher	Hanley, Jeremy
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Hannam, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Harris, David
Conway, Derek	Hawkins, Christopher
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Hayes, Jerry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cope, Rt Hon John	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)
Couchman, James	Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Cran, James	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Hill, James	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hind, Kenneth	Page, Richard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Paice, James
Holt, Richard	Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Hordern, Sir Peter	Patnick, Irvine
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Patten, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Pawsey, James
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Portillo, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Price, Sir David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Hunter, Andrew	Redwood, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Irvine, Michael	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Irving, Sir Charles	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Jack, Michael	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Jackson, Robert	Roe, Mrs Marion
Janman, Tim	Rost, Peter
Jessel, Toby	Rowe, Andrew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Ryder, Richard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Sackville, Hon Tom
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Key, Robert	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Shaw, David (Dover)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Knapman, Roger	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Shersby, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Sims, Roger
Knowles, Michael	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knox, David	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Lang, Ian	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Lawrence, Ivan	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Squire, Robin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Steen, Anthony
Lilley, Peter	Stern, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Stevens, Lewis
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
McCrindle, Robert	Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stokes, Sir John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Maclean, David	Sumberg, David
McLoughlin, Patrick	Summerson, Hugo
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Tapsell, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Major, Rt Hon John	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Malins, Humfrey	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mans, Keith	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Marland, Paul	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Marlow, Tony	Thornton, Malcolm
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Thurnham, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Maude, Hon Francis	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Tracey, Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Tredinnick, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Trippier, David
Mellor, David	Trotter, Neville
Miller, Sir Hal	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mills, Iain	Viggers, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, Sir David	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Walden, George
Moore, Rt Hon John	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Morrison, Sir Charles	Waller, Gary
Moss, Malcolm	Ward, John
Mudd, David	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Neale, Gerrard	Warren, Kenneth
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Watts, John
Nicholls, Patrick	Wells, Bowen
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Whitney, Ray
Norris, Steve	Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Wilshire, David	Younger, Rt Hon George
Winterton, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wood, Timothy	Mr. Tony Durant and
Woodcock, Dr. Mike	Mr. David Lightbown.
Yeo, Tim

NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Foulkes, George
Allen, Graham	Fraser, John
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Fyfe, Maria
Armstrong, Hilary	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Battle, John	Gordon, Mildred
Beckett, Margaret	Gould, Bryan
Beggs, Roy	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Beith, A. J.	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Bell, Stuart	Grocott, Bruce
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Hardy, Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Haynes, Frank
Bermingham, Gerald	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Bidwell, Sydney	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Blunkett, David	Henderson, Doug
Boateng, Paul	Hinchliffe, David
Boyes, Roland	Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Bradley, Keith	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Home Robertson, John
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Hood, Jimmy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Howells, Geraint
Buchan, Norman	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Buckley, George J.	Hoyle, Doug
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Callaghan, Jim	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Illsley, Eric
Canavan, Dennis	Ingram, Adam
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Janner, Greville
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Johnston, Sir Russell
Clay, Bob	Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Clelland, David	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cohen, Harry	Kennedy, Charles
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Kilfedder, James
Corbett, Robin	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Corbyn, Jeremy	Kirkwood, Archy
Cousins, Jim	Lambie, David
Crowther, Stan	Lamond, James
Cryer, Bob	Leighton, Ron
Cummings, John	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Lewis, Terry
Darling, Alistair	Litherland, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Livingstone, Ken
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Livsey, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Dewar, Donald	Loyden, Eddie
Dixon, Don	McAllion, John
Dobson, Frank	McAvoy, Thomas
Doran, Frank	McCartney, Ian
Dunnachie, Jimmy	McGrady, Eddie
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	McLeish, Henry
Eadie, Alexander	Maclennan, Robert
Eastham, Ken	McNamara, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Madden, Max
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Mallon, Seamus
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Fatchett, Derek	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Faulds, Andrew	Martlew, Eric
Fearn, Ronald	Maxton, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Meacher, Michael
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Meale, Alan
Fisher, Mark	Michael, Alun
Flynn, Paul	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Foster, Derek	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Moonie, Dr Lewis	Skinner, Dennis
Morgan, Rhodri	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Morley, Elliot	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mowlam, Marjorie	Snape, Peter
Mullin, Chris	Spearing, Nigel
Murphy, Paul	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Nellist, Dave	Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, William	Stott, Roger
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Strang, Gavin
Patchett, Terry	Straw, Jack
Pendry, Tom	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pike, Peter L.	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Prescott, John	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Primarolo, Dawn	Turner, Dennis
Quin, Ms Joyce	Vaz, Keith
Radice, Giles	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Randall, Stuart	Walley, Joan
Redmond, Martin	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Wareing, Robert N.
Rhodes James, Robert	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Richardson, Jo	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Robertson, George	Wigley, Dafydd
Robinson, Geoffrey	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Rooker, Jeff	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wilson, Brian
Ross, William (Londonderry E)	Winnick, David
Rowlands, Ted	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ruddock, Joan	Worthington, Tony
Salmond, Alex	Wray, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Sheerman, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Tellers for the Noes:
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Mr. Allen McKay and
Short, Clare	Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education (Student Loans) Bill: Lords Amendments 1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order. 2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above— (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended; (b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment; (c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made 1258 by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
3. (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment. (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments 3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill. 4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings. 5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion— (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair; (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
2. (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
3. (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental 6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons. (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed. 7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee. (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion. 8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Mr. Speaker

I undertook earlier, at the request of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to look again at my decision that Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are not covered by the money resolution in respect of the Bill.

The resolution in question authorises payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the forthcoming Education (Student Loans) Act. Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 would require payments to be made under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986: in the case of Lords amendment No. 8 to all loan-taking students, whether or not they are currently eligible for housing benefit; and in the case of Lords amendment No. 10 to postgraduate students even if they are not loan takers.

I am satisfied that both Lords amendments would have been out of order if it had been sought to move them in this House and that my decision that it was necessary to invoke Standing Order No. 76 in respect of those Lords amendments is correct.

Mr. Straw

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the time that you have taken to reconsider the matter, although, naturally, Opposition Members regret that they will not have a chance to vote on the substantive issue of the denial of housing benefit to students. This matter will now return to the other place with a message from this place. Will it be possible for their Lordships to amend Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 and, if they agree, to table an acceptable amendment on which the House could voice an opinion?

Mr. Speaker

Their Lordships would certainly have to consider any message from this place. It would then be up to them what they did about it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members, in the interim, will the Government consider a second money resolution that would take account of the implications of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986, which also could be sent to the other place for consideration?

Mr. Speaker

It is too late to do that in respect of Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10, but it is always for the Government to consider whether they should introduce further money resolutions.

Mr. Simon Hughes

On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the Minister twice made the factual statement—you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair at the time—that the Government had accepted 17 Lords amendments. From the papers before us, that appears to be incorrect. It appears that the Secretary of State will move three motions disagreeing with the Lords amendments. On the face of it, the Government have not accepted three of the Lords amendments. It is important that a misleading impression is not given, because Hansard will have recorded the Secretary of State as saying that the Government have accepted 17 Lords amendments.

Mr. Speaker

Until the House gets on to the amendments, it will not know whether the Government disagree with them. I think that we had better get on with them.