§ Lords amendment: No 1, in page 2, line 11, at end insert "but before doing so shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable"
§ Read a Second time.
7.13 pm§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (b), at end insert
`including those listed in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to this Act'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to consider the consequential amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in Schedule 1, page 3, line 30, at end add—
`(8) Bodies to be consulted under section 1(4) above shall include—
- Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals
- Committee of Directors of Polytechnics
- National Union of Students
- Advisory Board for the Research Councils
- Association of County Councils
- Advisory Centre for Education
- Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education
- Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services
- Association of Graduate Recruiters
- Association of Metropolitan Authorities
- Association of Principals of Colleges
- Confederation of British Industry
- Council of Local Education Authorities
- Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
- Department of Employment
- Department of Education for Northern Ireland
- Education Grants Advisory Service
- Further Education Unit
- Economic and Social Research Council
- The Institute of Careers Officers
- Universities Funding Council
- Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
- National Council for Vocational Qualifications
- Scottish Education Department
- Science and Engineering Research Council
- Secondary Heads Association
- Trades Union Congress
- Scottish Trades Union Congress
- Welsh Education Office
- Council for National Academic Awards
- Forum for Access Studies.'.
§ Mr. StrawThe amendments raise a short point, and, in view of the lack of time to debate other major issues, I shall be brief.
In the other place, the Government accepted that there should be consultation on what additional courses should be eligible for student loans. That acceptance is encapsulated in amendment No. 1, but it is not specific about who should be consulted. We have tabled two amendments so that the Secretary of State and the House may have a chance to lay down who should be consulted. Amendment (c) lists all the major national bodies which, so far as we can see, have an interest and should be consulted. I should be glad to hear from the Secretary of 1262 State that he accepts that organisations of that national stature and importance should be consulted, among others, if, as I anticipate, Lords amendment No. 1 is included in the Bill.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)I can be equally brief. The amendment amplifies an undertaking given by the Government in the other place. In Committee we debated at some length whether the student loans scheme could apply to part-time students. As the House knows, they have none of the advantages of a grant system and are not proposed for inclusion in the loans system. My colleagues and I advocated that extension and suggested that it would be proper to use them in the first pilot scheme for loans, if there were to be loans, rather than full-time students. Such an extension should be the subject of proper consultation.
Some of us are worried, having listened to the earlier debate, that even after consultation the Government may not listen. We live in hope, however. It is better that all those with an interest are the subject of consultation and we are specific about who should be consulted. I hope that the Government will respond generously and will say not just that they accept Lords amendment No. 1, as we heard from the Government spokesman in the Lords, but that they are willing to be specific that all the bodies listed and any others with an interest will be consulted about any extension or variation in the number or nature of institutions which will be beneficiaries of the proposed scheme.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson)Lords amendment No. 1 was tabled in the other House by Baroness David, but it was a Government amendment offered to her by Lord Caithness as she had taken the lead in urging the need for it and I pay tribute to her. The amendment qualifies the power in clause 1(4) to amend schedule 1, which is a list of eligible courses, by requiring the Secretary of State to consult before using the power. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Government intend loans to be available for all higher education courses below postgraduate level so long as the student is following the course full time and meets the residence requirements. Accordingly, schedule 1 lists as eligible all types of course at higher education level except postgraduate study. We do not expect to need to revise schedule 1 frequently because it is already comprehensive but, as is generally accepted, we must be able to keep it up to date without resorting to both Houses of Parliament for fresh primary legislation.
Amendments (b) and (c) would insert a requirement into the Bill that the consultation by the Secretary of State before amending schedule 1 should be undertaken with certain specific bodies. It would make consultation with those bodies a statutory requirement, which we are not prepared to accept. To be productive, consultation must be manageable. There is a wide range of interests potentially concerned in these matters and the Secretary of State must be able to decide whose views to seek in a particular case. That will depend on the particular change contemplated at the time. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will be attentive to representations from all quarters, but it would be wasteful and unnecessary to have a long prescribed list for every change to schedule 2. 1263 There are further common-sense considerations. What would happen if a body in the schedule changed its name or went out of existence? Would we have to post letters to an organisation which no longer existed? What would happen if there was a new body which it was sensible to consult about a particular proposal? Those arguments show that it would be absurd to fix a list in the Bill. The Government are serious about consultation. We consult and listen. I recommend the rejection of the two amendments to the Lords amendment.
§ Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§
Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
(5A) The power to make orders under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
No. 3, in page 2, line 14, leave out from "make" to "subject" in line 16 and insert
regulations under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which, subject to subsection (7) below and paragraph (1A) of that Schedule, shall beNo. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament and those regulations shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.(8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.(10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5, in paragraph (7),, leave out 'first'.
§ Mr. MacGregorThese amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of the orders and regulations made under the powers of the Bill. The bulk of these are Government amendments which discharge commitments made in another place in response to comments made in this House.
1264 Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the power to amend schedule 1, which lists types of course for which loans are available. Clause 1(4) provides power to amend schedule 1 by order. This House and the other place expressed concern about the conferring of power to amend primary legislation. We have responded to it through the requirement to consult imposed by amendment No. 1. We do not expect frequent revision of schedule 1. It is already comprehensive, but we must be able to keep it up to date.
Amendment No. 2 applies the affirmative resolution to the order amending schedule 1. We have heeded the concern that the negative procedure originally proposed gives insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment.
Opposition amendment 2(a) has exactly the same effect as Lords amendment No. 1, which we have just agreed —that the Government are required to consult before amending schedule 1—and is therefore superfluous. I invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lords amendment No. 4 applies the affirmative resolution to the first use of the regulation-making power to establish the scheme. Regulations made later for further development of the scheme will be subject to negative resolution. The amendment covers the main aspects of the scheme and it is important that I emphasise them. They are the conditions of eligibility, except the list of eligible types of course in schedule 1, which are made in clause 1; the terms of the loan made in accordance with schedule 1(1); and the involvement of higher education institutions in securing access to loans for students.
I hope that amendment No. 4 meets the concerns expressed by hon. Members on Report. We reflected on that debate, which is why I was happy to accept the amendment in another place. I had hoped that it would meet the concerns of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who spoke in favour of the amendment on Report, but I see from Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 that he has ignored the arguments and returned to his old position. The Opposition amendment would make all orders and regulations always subject to the affirmative procedure. It is right to provide flexibility to develop the scheme once it is established through regulations, subject to the negative procedure. That was our original intention even for the first use of the regulation-making power.
§ Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 has not been selected.
§ Mr. SpeakerI was about to say that, but I thought that the Secretary of State was coming to the end of his preliminary remarks.
§ Mr. MacGregorYou are right, Mr. Speaker. I failed to observe that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 was not selected. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) for drawing that to my attention. However, I imagine that he would wish me to make my remarks about amendment No. 5 and amendment (a) to it, which has been selected, because this is probably the most material part of this debate.
On Lords amendment No. 5 we have agreed that regulations first made to establish the scheme should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have placed that requirement in the Bill by means of Lords amendment 1265 No. 4. That means that, when the regulations are made for the first time, they will be debated by both Houses and approval of both Houses will be required before they come into force. That meets one of the key points in Lords amendment No. 5, but the amendment goes further because it seeks to allow either House to propose amendments to regulations.
As the House knows, Parliament cannot normally amend under either positive or negative procedure—it can only approve or reject. If either House makes its objections clear, the Government can withdraw the regulations. Otherwise, under the affirmative procedure, either House can vote against them.
On the main issue of principle, the effect of the normal affirmative procedure and that proposed by the amendment could be similar in certain circumstances. For example, under the amendment, the House could vote to amend and under the affirmative procedure it could vote to reject. The Secretary of State would then have to take away the draft regulations and return with fresh regulations to seek approval once again.
Lords amendment No. 5 introduces serious practical complications, and that is why I shall urge the House to reject it. The first complication is that one House might propose an amendment conflicting with one proposed by the other House. What would happen in that case, and which view would take precedence? The amendment provides no mechanism for resolving such questions.
Secondly, the amendment would add undesirable delay to the making of the first regulations by imposing a 40-day period after the draft regulations are laid before Parliament, during which time either House can approve amendments. If an amendment were passed during that period, fresh regulations would have to be presented and a further 40-day period would apply. That process could continue indefinitely. I have already made it clear that it is desirable to have the loan scheme in place at the earliest practical moment so that students can take advantage of it. Undesirable delay should not be agreed to.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 would keep this cumbersome arrangement in place for all future regulations as well as for the first set, and would apply the affirmative resolution to them as well. For the reasons that I have given, I would not wish to see this unnecessary and wasteful process of amendment applied to future regulations. The Government accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but we invite the House to disagree with the Lords on amendment No. 5 and to reject Opposition amendment (a).
§ Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East)We had much debate in Committee on the need for the affirmative resolution procedure on the regulations. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were advanced there. It is worth underlining that that matter is especially important when debating a Bill such as this, which contains so little detail about the administration of the scheme. Much is being left to regulations and that makes it all the more important that the House and the other place should have a meaningful opportunity to shape those regulations.
The Lords amendments represent a Government concession made under acute pressure. They conceded to the arguments that we advanced in Committee, in the House and in the other place and that is welcome. 1266 However, they have not gone nearly far enough towards providing proper opportunities for democratic involvement and public input into Parliament's deliberations on the formulation of regulations that shape the way in which the scheme is to operate.
The affirmative resolution procedure should operate for each set of regulations and not merely for those introduced in the first year. The Government's proposal falls considerably short of the concession that Lady Young and her Conservative and Cross-Bench sponsors believed that they had won in the other place. In reply to Lady Young, Lord Caithness said:
We accept the principles behind the amendment of my noble Friend Lady Young."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 1990; Vol. 516, c. 1322.]Lady Young had made it clear that those amendments were intended to cover three areas. Those were: the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans, which were subject to no parliamentary scrutiny under the Bill as drafted; the making of any orders to amend in the first year the list of courses for which loans will be payable; and the financial regulations and other details that were already under the negative resolution procedure.Despite the apparent concession by Lord Caithness, on the basis of which those amendments were withdrawn, his amendment brought forward on Report in the Lords covered only the second and third areas. It did not cover the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans. Therefore, it was deficient in that respect.
The other Lords amendments result from the narrow and welcome victory secured in the other place by Earl Russell.
§ Mr. JacksonBy a majority of one.
§ Mr. SmithThat was a narrow majority but it was nevertheless a majority.
The amendments succeeded in inserting an ingenious procedure that has been used in the past. It would effectively give both Houses the opportunity to do that which the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 5 December said that he thought that the House itself had the power to do. He said then that it would be open to the House to amend the regulations, but subsequently recognised his error.
The ingenious procedure proposed by Earl Russell would enable both Houses to amend the regulations by requiring the drafts to be submitted for a 40-day period, within which either House could pass a motion commenting on the terms of the regulations. If any motion were passed that would require the regulations to be amended, the Secretary of State would be required to withdraw the regulations and re-lay them. The procedure is a simple but effective way to scrutinise the detail of regulations without necessarily going as far as rejecting them in principle. There is considerable merit in that ingenious procedure and we think that it should apply not only to the first regulations but to all subsequent regulations. That is why amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 proposes the deletion of the word "first".
The Opposition and many people outside the House regard the Bill as an affront to democracy, and the improvements that the Lords have succeeded in extracting from the Government would undoubtedly reinsert a small but welcome democratic opportunity for input from both 1267 Houses and from the general public and interested parties. Therefore, we commend amendment (a) to the House. We welcome the Government's concession and ask hon. Members to vote to improve it so that we can improve democracy and remedy one defect in a very defective Bill.
§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)If I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science correctly, he asked us to disagree with Lords amendment No. 5. That is a pity, because, although the Bill is extremely short, it gives enormous power to the Secretary of State and transforms the whole system of student financing. I have the greatest possible trust in my right hon. Friend as an individual. He is an extremely good Secretary of State and an honourable and sound man. I do not say that to flatter him because he knows that I do not go in for the flattering of Ministers. However, when passing legislation one must consider carefully that my right hon. Friend will not be Secretary of State for ever. I hope that he will go on to higher things; he merits them and I am sure that he will earn them in due course.
No Secretary of State should take to himself powers that he is not happy for others to have. That is why I have opposed several proposals during the past 10 years. There has been an unhappy tendency for Secretaries of State to take to themselves overriding powers and, in so doing, to tilt the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature.
It is important for Parliament to have a say in this matter. If regulations are to be brought forward, they should be ones that can be fully debated in every possible sense and changed, and there should be ample time to do so. Although it is difficult for the layman to understand, amendment No. 5, which was passed in another place, is an extremely ingenious way of constraining the power of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. I know that my right hon. Friend has tried hard to meet the wishes and listen to the doubts of those who are doubtful about the Bill, so it is a pity that he should ask the House of Commons to reverse an amendment passed in another place with strong all-party support. Conservative peers were very much to the fore in the debate and in the Lobby. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about this, even at such a late stage.
The Bill transforms the system of student finance. There are people outside this place, not just students but vice-chancellors and others, who are concerned about it. Only this morning I received a letter from a vice-chancellor who felt that what the House of Lords had done had gone a long way to remove his fears and anxieties, although he still retained some. It would be most unfortunate if we rejected what the other place has done, bearing in mind the objective expertise there. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not ask us to disagree. If he does, I fear that I cannot agree with him.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)I declare an interest as an adviser to the Association of University Teachers, although I have had no communication with it on the subject of the amendment.
Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I am still hoping that the Government will be persuaded of the merits of the case put by the House of 1268 Lords on amendment No. 5. The reason for my hope is that, in time, the Government seem to come round to my view. Amendment No. 4, which the Government accept, is precisely the amendment I moved in this place on Report and which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), stoutly resisted. His resistance bore all the marks of tactical resistance, not resistance to a principle.
I do not believe that, in the ensuing weeks, the Ministers suddenly became persuaded of arguments which had not been obvious to them in the first place. The arguments on the issue in amendment No. 4 are so obvious that the negative procedure of the House is a completely inadequate means of dealing with a major issue. It guarantees no debate or parliamentary proceeding. I believe that the Government decided that they had to have a tit-bit for the Lords and some concession that they could offer in another place. Therefore, with great dispatch, when Lady Young moved the amendment, the Government leaped to their collective feet and announced that they were willing to accept the amendment, which is a compromise.
The amendment ensures that the first time that the scheme is brought forward it is the subject of affirmative procedure, which guarantees that there will be a vote in this place and a debate, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House—I think that it would be on the Floor. It was a compromise, in that I and others, including the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), believed that all the regulations should be subject to affirmative procedure. It was a reasonable suggestion in the spirit of compromise, and I am glad that the Government accepted it. It means that, the first time that this major scheme comes forward, we are guaranteed at least a vote on it.
7.45 pm
At that time, all of us said that we needed more than merely a vote. When something so major, which one would expect to be the substance of a Bill, appears before the House in the form of regulations, we should have the opportunity to amend anything that is wrong with it. That was the reason for amendment No. 5, which was moved in another place by Earl Russell. Although it was a Liberal Democrat amendment, it attracted wide support from Members of all parties and it carried the day, albeit with a small majority. If the Government get a majority of one tonight, they too will be satisfied because a majority of one is enough.
Amendment No. 5 is important because it ensures, not just for this House, but for the other place, that when the scheme is brought forward, if there is something wrong with it, the fault can be put right. The Minister is not talking about the real world when he suggests that the amendment is unnecessary, because the scheme can be brought forward and, if there is something wrong with it, Members can vote it down and the Government can take it away, make changes and bring it back again. Can the Minister remember when that was last done? I certainly cannot.
I know what will happen: the Minister will come before the House with a scheme which will be shown to be defective, at least in some particular—it may be a small but important one. The Minister will say, "I recognise that hon. Members have raised an important point, which we would like to get right, but if the House does not pass the proposal tonight some students who do not get a grant will 1269 not receive a loan. If the scheme is not put on the statute book straight away, hardship will be caused. It is too late to take away the regulations and bring them back, amended, another day. We shall look at it for next year. However sensible hon. Members think their points are, it would cause undue delay and hardship to introduce an amendment at this stage."
§ Mr. CormackThe hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is rehearsing.
§ Mr. BeithIndeed, I am offering the Minister the script which I know he will have to use on that occasion. I guarantee—if I were a betting man, I would put money on it—that he will have to say something like that when the scheme is brought forward.
Anyone who has experienced the recent poll tax debates will know that Ministers have had to make changes on specific issues. An announcement has been made in the past few days that the Government will have to introduce retrospective legislation on caravan rating because, within the legislation they have put forward, they will be unable to achieve the effect which they intended. That sort of thing happens all the time, and it will certainly happen in this instance, when it will be not just the details but the substance of the scheme that is put forward in regulations.
§ Mr. Simon HughesBefore my hon. Friend came into the Chamber, there was a debate on the guillotine, in which just such an argument was anticipated. The Secretary of State's greatest argument for the guillotine and for curtailing debates on the amendments was that we should get on with the legislation if the students are to receive their grants by the end of this financial year and the beginning of the new student year. That was exactly the argument used today, and the Secretary of State will undoubtedly be told to use that argument again if the amendment is rejected by the House.
§ Mr. BeithMy hon. Friend is right, and I know that other hon. Members agree. How much better it would be to have a procedure for amendment there and then. The Minister says that it is not possible to build in such a requirement, but it is possible and it is done. I have moved amendments to census orders arising from the Census Act 1920, under which orders providing for a census are subject to amendment. I have moved just such an amendment, and the procedure set out in the Lords amendment is on similar lines.
If the procedure were in place, the regulations would be much more likely to be properly drafted in the first place. I do not think that the Government will want them to be amended. If the Minister wants to induce a spirit of efficiency and care among his civil servants on this issue, he will find no better mechanism than the certainty that the Government will face the amendment of their regulations. He will find that I have been his ally when he discovers that his civil servants are far more zealous than ever before in their attempts to get the regulations right and consult everyone because they know that there is a serious risk that the Goverment will be exposed to the embarrassment of having the legislation amended.
There is a great deal at stake: the nature of the scheme, the manner of the repayments, the problems that will be faced by students having to repay these loans, and the rules of eligibility—not to mention all the administration. It is important that we be given the opportunity to get those 1270 things right. The procedural difficulties are not insuperable obstacles. On previous occasions this House and the other place have had to work out mechanisms for dealing with amendments to orders. A whole passage in "Erskine May" on page 546 points out that
If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".So such amendments have been successfully dealt with in the past, and the procedural obstacles are not real.The overwhelming case is that we are are enacting by regulation a major scheme that will affect the lives of large numbers of young people. If we are to get that right, it is surely far better that we be able to do what we can do with normal legislation—bring forward amendments. They might even be Government amendments. During the passage of this Bill we have seen how the Government have had to recognise as they go along that some of the legislation was wrong, or how they have wanted to respond to advice that they have received. It would be open to the Government to use the amending procedure that we are recommending here.
I do not see how we can go on showing parties of east Europeans around the House and sending out people to eastern Europe, where countries are developing new democratic Parliaments, telling them to see how we run the show, given our legislative arrangements under which we cannot amend a scheme as fundamental as that for student grants. My noble Friend the Earl Russell proposed a perfectly sensible and well precedented way of allowing amendments, and the Government should accept his method. If they are unwilling to do so, I shall invite the House to affirm its support for this principle—
§ Mr. Simon HughesI invite my hon. Friend to reflect that, above all in the context of this Bill, the Government should be minded to accept the amendment. The Bill was launched on the basis that it would be supported by the banks. Something went wrong and the Bill's proposals had to be completely rethought. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the Government should have understood by now that it is rarely possible to get such measures right first time —the more so on this measure.
§ Mr. BeithI have never thought that the Secretary of State was the sort of Minister who thinks that he always gets it right first time. He has always struck me as the sort of man who is prepared to listen to arguments. So I have put an argument to him, and I ask him to reflect on his own experience in this and other matters and to realise that a subject as large as this should come to the House in amendable form. That is the substance of the amendment, and I believe that he and the House should accept it.
§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)During the debate on the timetable motion, I argued that our debates should be allowed to continue because they would touch on issues that will affect people in future. This debate would have had more sense if it could have gone on longer. The ideas that we need to thrash out and formulate should be legitimately debated, and we should be allowed a procedure which was not only subject to affirmative resolution but allowed amendments.
I almost missed this debate because I slipped out after the timetable motion and the debate on Lords amendment No. 1 lasted only five minutes, which made me wonder why we had spent three hours discussing the guillotine motion when, instead of skipping through some of the 1271 amendments, we might have had more time to deal with others and find out the Government's attitude to them. It would be interesting to hear the Secretary of State explain the Government's attitude to the various proposals in the amendments and to hear what they accept and what they reject. It would have done us no harm to hear such an explanation on the timetable motion.
Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State shouted out that a Lords amendment had been carried by just one vote. That was indicative of the Government's attitude—they have a vast majority, but they do not like admitting to the weight of opinion behind decisions which go against them. One vote is perfectly adequate—if it were not, we might as well pack up and disappear.
§ Mr. CormackAs the hon. Gentleman will well remember, Lord Callaghan's Government fell on one vote.
§ Mr. BarnesI remember that very well. The Government fell because Tom Swain, the former Member for Derbyshire, North-East, was killed in a motor accident in the constituency that I now represent. But for that accident, the vote would have been tied and, in accordance with precedence, the Government could have carried on for a while—although for how long is another matter.
§ Mr. JacksonI made the point about the majority of one not to disparage a majority of one, which is perfectly acceptable, but as an ironic comment on arguments advanced earlier during the guillotine motion debate when the Government were reproached because our majority fell on occasion to 40.
§ Mr. BarnesThat is significant because the Government have a majority of 150 over the Labour party and a majority of 100 over all parties combined. It would be of great significance if this amendment were agreed to by a majority of one—it would say something about the Government's position in connection with the Bill, and about their general difficulties.
We need an amendment of this type because of the nature of the legislation. This terrible measure of enabling legislation does not enable us properly to debate the items that will form part of the scheme. The legislation is so empty that, when the scheme was turned upside down by the banks' withdrawal, it did not cause a ripple in the Government. That proved, not that the Government had it right or that the Bill was compatible with anything, but that the Bill had run into serious constitutional, parliamentary and procedural problems.
The Secretary of State said that there could be some difficulty with the Lords amendment if the two Houses differed in their attitude to proposals that the Government brought forward. But "Erskine May", on page 546, points out
If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".So we should not be perpetually bouncing back and forth waiting for fresh proposals from the Government; the Government could get together with their Lordships—the other place is not so far away—to try to resolve such issues. If that proved cumbersome, awkward or unusual, it would be due to the Government's having brought forward legislation of this sort. The other place has 1272 attempted to overcome some of those considerable difficulties and its efforts would be further assisted by our amendment.The affirmative procedure, which can be amended, is essential, for example, in relation to Northern Ireland measures, and this measure is particularly important to Northern Ireland. Nowhere in the United Kingdom will be more affected by the measure than Northern Ireland because of the percentage of the population there involved in higher education and its higher participation rates for people with working-class backgrounds and women compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a significant interest in the measure.
But when the House debates measures which extend legislation to Northern Ireland we are allowed only one and a half or three hours. When we debated the extension of the Education Reform Act 1987 to Northern Ireland we were allowed only three hours. Yet that measure contained 167 clauses and 10 schedules and its principles went beyond the Education Reform Act—for example, in its measures encouraging education for mutual understanding. Without those new principles it could have been dealt with by a negative procedure and there could only have been a debate on a prayer which would have dragged it on to the agenda for us to discuss. We do not want to be in that situation in this legislation which makes the position of Northern Ireland worse. For them we should learn from some of the procedural niceties to be found in "Erskine May", some of which were employed in the other place and gave rise to the amendment.
Enabling legislation which requires measures only to be rubber-stamped makes it essential that the two Houses of Parliament should between them try to discover procedures whereby the Government can be put on the right track even if the measure itself is not correct. I hope that the Government will change their mind on the amendments.
§ 8 pm
§ Mr. MacGregorThe hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred to exchanges that took place in another place on whether or not the affirmative resolution should apply to administrative arrangements. We took the view that we were amply fulfilling the commitment that the noble Lord gave in relation to making the affirmative resolution apply to the regulations.
The administrative detail of the scheme is subject to the normal processes of scrutiny by various other parliamentary methods. The Secretary of State will be responsible and accountable for the use of the funds that are required for the administration of the scheme, and he must secure them through estimates agreed to by Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee will be able to inquire into the efficient administration of the scheme, and we have also promised to publish the company's annual report.
The Bill deliberately makes the terms of the scheme which affect individuals enactable through regulations and subject to the usual form of parliamentary scrutiny, which we are discussing now. It is right to leave the details of administration, which is a different matter, subject to the mechanisms that I have just described, and not to go into the need for a further layer of scrutiny that would be involved in the affirmative procedure on administrative issues. If we start to think about some of the 1273 administrative issues, we see that they are inappropriate for the affirmative procedure. They include such things as contracts of employment for employees and so on. Therefore, we rightly fulfilled our commitment.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to amendment No. 4. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I listened carefully to the debate on that amendment, which we thought was rather ingenious and which dealt with the point that on the first set of regulations there was a greater issue than in subsequent amendments. We were tempted to respond positively during that debate, but we felt that we needed some time for reflection to see whether there were any snags that we had not thought of before we agreed to the amendment. Therefore, we took it away and used the opportunity of the debate in the other place to accept the principle of it. It is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman that he clearly impressed us with the arguments in the debate.
I regret that I cannot say the same about the arguments that we have heard tonight on amendment No. 5. There are a number of problems. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for his kind words and I want to make a point that I hope he will make to his vice-chancellor who felt that the Bill had been considerably improved in the other place. It is important to note that we are accepting most of the amendments from the other place, so if they are improvements, as we agree they are, they have been included in the Bill.
My objection to amendment No. 5, in addition to those that I have stated, is that it would involve a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure that deals with regulations. The Census Act is unusual. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made an interesting point when, by a slip of the tongue, he referred to student grants and the negative resolution procedure. In fact, the negative resolution procedure does apply to the regulations for student grants. We are going further in having the affirmative resolution for the first set of regulations. We were originally basing our approach on the student grant system, and the student loan arrangements have pretty well the same implications for a large number of students —the changes in regulations that one might wish to make from time to time—as student grants. There is a clear and direct precedent for what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that it will be necessary from time to time to make changes to regulations, and I accept that. We have said clearly that we shall be reviewing the scheme each year and we would expect to make changes to regulations from time to time. But that is a normal process. The flexibility that we have to do it through regulations gives us, as I have constantly said, the benefit of being able to make those changes quickly.
§ Mr. CormackMy right hon. Friend is dealing with the matter with his customary courtesy, but does he accept that much hardship can be caused in a year? I believe implicitly that my right hon. Friend wants to improve on matters that have gone wrong, but how much better it would be to improve them before they went wrong.
§ Mr. MacGregorWe shall obviously be looking carefully at all the reviews and listening to many points made by colleagues in the House as well as others outside before we make any regulations. I hope that there would 1274 not be real hardship as a result of a delay from one year to another. I am not persuaded that having a special procedure, as this would be, to apply to those sets of regulations, allowing amendments to be made as they go through the House, would necessarily make that any less likely to occur. I hope that it will not. But it is not unknown for regulations to be wrongly drafted and for other regulations to follow quickly. I have myself, sometimes with some irritation, seen that happen.
But the most important point, apart from the one that I have already made, is that the amendment involves a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure. Some hon. Members may like to see that. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) in relation to Northern Ireland. But it would involve a significant change in the normal procedures of the House, which we should not make lightly in one Bill.
The regulations that we shall be carrying through are similar to a range of other Government schemes where affirmative or negative procedures apply to regulations. In my previous capacity as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I had to take regulations through the House on a considerable number of Government schemes. That is a perfectly normal process and that is what should apply here. Therefore, I stick to my view and invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but to disagree with amendment No. 5 and amendment (a).
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
(8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
§ The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 198.
1277| Division No. 160] | [8.10 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Atkinson, David |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) |
| Allason, Rupert | Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) |
| Amess, David | Baldry, Tony |
| Amos, Alan | Banks, Robert (Harrogate) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Batiste, Spencer |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Bellingham, Henry |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Bendall, Vivian |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Benyon, W. |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Hague, William |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hannam, John |
| Boswell, Tim | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Harris, David |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hayes, Jerry |
| Bowis, John | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Hill, James |
| Brazier, Julian | Hind, Kenneth |
| Bright, Graham | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Holt, Richard |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Burns, Simon | Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) |
| Burt, Alistair | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Butler, Chris | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Butterfill, John | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hunter, Andrew |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Cash, William | Irvine, Michael |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Irving, Sir Charles |
| Chope, Christopher | Jack, Michael |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Jackson, Robert |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Janman, Tim |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Conway, Derek | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Key, Robert |
| Couchman, James | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Cran, James | Knapman, Roger |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Knight, Greg Derby North) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Devlin, Tim | Knowles, Michael |
| Dicks, Terry | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lang, Ian |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Dunn, Bob | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Durant, Tony | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Eggar, Tim | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Luce, Rt Hon Richard |
| Evennett, David | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Fallon, Michael | Maclean, David |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick |
| Fookes, Dame Janet | Major, Rt Hon John |
| Forman, Nigel | Malins, Humfrey |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Mans, Keith |
| Forth, Eric | Marland, Paul |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | Marlow, Tony |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Freeman, Roger | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| French, Douglas | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Fry, Peter | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Gale, Roger | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Gardiner, George | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mellor, David |
| Gill, Christopher | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Mills, Iain |
| Glyn, Dr Sir Alan | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Mitchell, Sir David |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Gow, Ian | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Mudd, David |
| Gregory, Conal | Neale, Gerrard |
| Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Grist, Ian | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Ground, Patrick | Norris, Steve |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Page, Richard | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Paice, James | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Sumberg, David |
| Patnick, Irvine | Summerson, Hugo |
| Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Pawsey, James | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Portillo, Michael | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Price, Sir David | Thurnham, Peter |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Redwood, John | Tracey, Richard |
| Renton, Rt Hon Tim | Tredinnick, David |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm | Trotter, Neville |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Viggers, Peter |
| Rost, Peter | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Rowe, Andrew | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas | Waller, Gary |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Ward, John |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Shersby, Michael | Watts, John |
| Sims, Roger | Wells, Bowen |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Whitney, Ray |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Speller, Tony | Wilshire, David |
| Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Wood, Timothy |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John | |
| Steen, Anthony | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stern, Michael | Mr. David Lightbown and |
| Stevens, Lewis | Mr. Sydney Chapman. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Cohen, Harry |
| Allen, Graham | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Cook, Robin (Livingston) |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Corbett, Robin |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Cormack, Patrick |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Cousins, Jim |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Crowther, Stan |
| Battle, John | Cryer, Bob |
| Beckett, Margaret | Cummings, John |
| Beggs, Roy | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Beith, A. J. | Darling, Alistair |
| Bell, Stuart | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Dewar, Donald |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Dixon, Don |
| Blunkett, David | Dunnachie, Jimmy |
| Boyes, Roland | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth |
| Bradley, Keith | Eadie, Alexander |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Eastham, Ken |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Evans, John (St Helens N) |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Fatchett, Derek |
| Buchan, Norman | Faulds, Andrew |
| Buckley, George J. | Fearn, Ronald |
| Caborn, Richard | Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Fisher, Mark |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Flynn, Paul |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Foster, Derek |
| Canavan, Dennis | Foulkes, George |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Fraser, John |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Fyfe, Maria |
| Clay, Bob | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Clelland, David | Godman, Dr Norman A. |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Gordon, Mildred | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Gould, Bryan | Morley, Elliot |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Grocott, Bruce | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Mullin, Chris |
| Hardy, Peter | Murphy, Paul |
| Haynes, Frank | O'Brien, William |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Henderson, Doug | Patchett, Terry |
| Hinchliffe, David | Pendry, Tom |
| Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Home Robertson, John | Prescott, John |
| Hood, Jimmy | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) | Randall, Stuart |
| Howells, Geraint | Redmond, Martin |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Reid, Dr John |
| Hoyle, Doug | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Richardson, Jo |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Robertson, George |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Rooker, Jeff |
| Illsley, Eric | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Ingram, Adam | Ross, William (Londonderry E) |
| Johnston, Sir Russell | Rowlands, Ted |
| Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) | Ruddock, Joan |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Salmond, Alex |
| Kennedy, Charles | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Kilfedder, James | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Short, Clare |
| Knox, David | Skinner, Dennis |
| Lambie, David | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Lamond, James | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| Leighton, Ron | Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam) |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Snape, Peter |
| Lewis, Terry | Spearing, Nigel |
| Litherland, Robert | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Livingstone, Ken | Stott, Roger |
| Livsey, Richard | Strang, Gavin |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Straw, Jack |
| Loyden, Eddie | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| McAllion, John | Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| McCartney, Ian | Turner, Dennis |
| McGrady, Eddie | Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) | Walley, Joan |
| McLeish, Henry | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Maclennan, Robert | Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Madden, Max | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Marek, Dr John | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) | Wilson, Brian |
| Martlew, Eric | Winnick, David |
| Maxton, John | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Meacher, Michael | Worthington, Tony |
| Meale, Alan | Wray, Jimmy |
| Michael, Alun | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Mr. Archy Kirkwood and |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Mr. Matthew Taylor. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.