IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS AS TO FEES AT FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN SCOTLAND

HC Deb 13 July 1998 vol 316 cc128-60 10.20 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees to the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill in page 22, lines 31 to 39.

Madam Speaker

I inform the House that the Lords amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill involves privilege.

Mr. Blunkett

I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his hon. Friends for the enormous patience that they have shown in recent weeks during the to-ing and fro-ing between this place and the House of Lords. It has been a travesty to see in the newspapers and hear in debates in the other place signs of the failure to understand the Government's proposition in terms of four-year degree courses in Scotland. Intelligent people should understand clearly why we have introduced the measure. They signally fail to understand that we have done so precisely because there are different education and legal systems in Scotland, and then criticise us for taking action that underpins and underlines that distinction. It is frankly breathtaking.

The House listened to the views of the upper House when we returned again and again to this aspect of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. For that reason, I do not intend to detain the House for long tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] However, I must clearly detain the House long enough in order to explain to those Opposition Members who are shouting, "Shame," why we are carrying through this proposition, and why the motion carried by the House of Lords would create anomalies that would be much worse than those claimed in relation to our proposition.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett

I will when I have made some progress.

If the Scottish education system is different—and we all accept that it is—if four-year courses are the norm because highers last for a year, as opposed to A-levels, which last for two years, and if, therefore, there is a different system that takes account—

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

You have lost the House.

Mr. Blunkett

I fear not; the only person that I have lost is the hon. Gentleman.

If there is a programme of four-year degrees in Scotland in order to reflect the situation in terms of highers, if our proposition reflects the need to take account of that difference—which was picked up by Sir Ron Garrick in the report that he produced at the time of the Dearing inquiry—and if Lord Dearing has said, including in speeches in the House of Lords, that his report recommends that the distinction should be recognised and built into law, is it surprising to anyone that the Government should reflect the Garrick inquiry and Lord Dearing's recommendations, and act upon them?

Does it surprise anyone that we took action to ensure that the fourth year in Scotland was seen as different from that in England, Wales or Northern Ireland? I would have thought not, but as Opposition Members are clearly unconvinced, and want to pass something different, I would like to explain why we shall not accept that.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman started his explanation by noting that the university system is Scotland is different from that in the rest of United Kingdom, and in one sense it is. Why were my constituents, 2 per cent. of whom end up each year in Scottish universities, given the same application form to cover Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland? The same Universities and Colleges Admissions Service system processes their applications. If the systems are so different, why has there always been a common system for application to university, allowing students to choose their courses on the basis of their suitability?

Mr. Blunkett

That explains why we are having some difficulty in outlining the difference to Opposition Members. It is not a question of the simplicity of the administration of application, but of the extent, level and timing of tuition. That is the difference between the English, Welsh and Northern Irish and the Scottish systems. We are talking about an historic difference in education systems, and narrowing the differences in respect of the likely expenditure that students will have to incur. That was the difference that the Dearing and Garrick committees wanted to be reflected, and it is the difference that we are reflecting. To do otherwise would create other anomalies.

If someone from Northumberland went to Newcastle with an amendment passed to reflect the fourth year in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, we would create an enormous anomaly. It would result in 60,000 people taking four-year degrees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland complaining that the anomaly affected them rather than a small number of students who go to Scottish universities from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

If we are to accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that there should be an anomaly for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, given that we have debated the matter on several occasions and that it is important that the facts are laid before the House, will he take us through, country by country, the anomaly of why the education systems of France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and the rest of them make them eligible for a means-tested tuition fee, but not England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Blunkett

The hon. Lady misses the point. We are not talking about the education systems of France or Portugal but of Scotland.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Ask for a better briefing.

Mr. Blunkett

I have a perfectly good briefing. To carry through the recommendations of Dearing and Garrick, because the United Kingdom is part of the European Union, we must reflect on what happens in the home countries in terms of European Union entitlement. It ill becomes the Liberal Democrats, who are great enthusiasts for Europe, to use as a stick to beat us the inevitable outcome that we must acknowledge students from Europe. I want to explain to the House just how big an anomaly it really is.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett

I shall, when I have explained just how many students are affected by what our opponents describe as the European anomaly.

In 1996–97, there were precisely 350 students in their fourth year in Scottish universities from other European nations. Is it worth overturning the European issue, which is exercising Opposition Members and the House of Lords, in order to create a much bigger anomaly, whereby we would inevitably be accused of discriminating in favour of a young person doing a four-year degree course in Scotland, rather than in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?

We cannot afford as a nation to create a new anomaly that would inevitably cost us at least £27 million to take account of four-year degrees in the remaining countries of the United Kingdom. We simply could not do it. Twenty-seven million pounds is a convincing sum in terms of opening up access to students throughout the UK who are currently being encouraged to take up university places.

10.30 pm

Mr. Beith

Will the Secretary of State explain to students and potential students in Northumberland why what is perceived as a potential unfairness in relation to students from other European Union member countries is not recognised by the Government as an unfairness in relation to the inhabitants of Northumberland when they find themselves, not in two different universities, but in the same university as students who are paying £1,000 less in tuition fees for the same course—who, in some cases, would be students with whom they had gone to school, and who lived only a few miles from where they lived?

Mr. Blunkett

Because to do otherwise than we propose would result in the anomaly of which the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware—that exemption would apply to a student from his constituency who went to Edinburgh or Dundee, but not to a student who went to Newcastle. It is as simple—[Interruption.] It is as simple as that. I shall repeat—[Interruption.]—I shall repeat it again, because Opposition Members are so intent on shouting out after a good supper that they cannot understand the point: to do other than we propose would result in the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Northumberland finding themselves able to be exempt from fees if they went north of the border, but not if they went to Newcastle.

That would create an entirely new anomaly affecting all four-year courses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the House believes that that is an anomaly when it affects 350 students from Europe, what about the anomaly affecting 60,000 students from the rest of the United Kingdom? That is what it amounts to.

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett

I shall in a moment.

Precisely because we have had so much difficulty explaining to Members of this House and of the House of Lords why one tiny anomaly relating to European students should not be replaced by a very substantial anomaly relating to all four-year degrees throughout the country, and precisely because we do not appear yet to have managed to get the message across that, in any case, those who are not so well off will already be exempt from, or will have ameliorated, the fourth-year expenditure in Scotland if their income is insufficient to meet it—for those reasons, I want to offer a way forward tonight.

Mr. Rendel

Will the Secretary of State give way now?

Mr. Blunkett

The hon. Gentleman must have been in the House long enough to know that intervening on me at the moment when I am about to say something that might be of interest to him is not the best way of encouraging me to deliver it.

We have said throughout the proceedings on the Bill that we are prepared to monitor the impact of the changes that we are introducing. That is why, to enable Members of this House and the House of Lords to reflect on the alternatives and the anomalies that they would probably create, I offer, with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, the opportunity to have an independent review early next year to examine how our proposals for the Scottish fourth-year exemption are working. That review would monitor the impact—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The House must listen to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Blunkett

I am giving hon. Members a little time so that the wine and whisky can quieten them a little.

We propose to offer an independent review to take account of those entering Scottish universities this year and early applications for next year. It could also take account of the views of Opposition parties—if they so wish—the Scottish higher education principals, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and others on the alternatives that they consider might be better. That is not rubbish; it is not to be dismissed. It will give the other place and Opposition parties in this House the chance to state what action they want to be taken and to acknowledge what would be the impact of that action. That review would take place far in advance of any student reaching the fourth year under the new system.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Will the Secretary of State's acknowledgement that there may be some merit in the opposition to the proposal lead the Government to say that they will not try to reverse the Lords amendments, but accept them unless and until they are convinced that they are right and everybody else is wrong?

Mr. Blunkett

No, I shall not say that, for several important reasons. The most important reason is that, when an unelected House attempts again and again to overturn the declared will of an elected Chamber, it is always the democratic elected Chamber that must succeed in putting through its policies. In the end, whether or not the House of Lords believes that it is right, that its wisdom is greater than ours and that the anomalies that it would create are fewer than the ones that it criticises us for creating, this House must account to the British people.

This House must stand or fall by what it does. This House will, in the end, have to take responsibility for the outcome. That is why this House, on behalf of the democratic constitution of our country and the people who elected us, has to succeed in having its way. That is why we shall overturn the Lords amendment, and, if the Lords send it back to us again, we will overturn it again. That is why this House must always prevail over the unelected House next door.

Mr. David Willetts (Havant)

I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State, because so far he has not played a conspicuous role in the debate on this matter. We hoped that, as he had deigned to contribute to the discussion of the Scottish anomaly, we might have a prospect of making progress. The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, has come to the Chamber several times with feeble and unconvincing arguments, and we hoped that the Secretary of State could come up with something better. That hope was further encouraged when we read some briefing—I do not know whose ministerial office it was faxed from—in last week's Financial Times. The journalist wrote: In a sign the government has been rattled. David Blunkett, the education secretary, will lead a mission 'to explain' in Monday's crucial debate in the House of Commons. He takes over from Brian Wilson, Scottish Office spokesman, who is thought to have underperformed on the so-called 'Scottish anomaly'. He has under-performed, has he? This issue led to the second biggest rebellion in this Chamber since the election, apart from the single parent vote, and the biggest defeat for the Government in the Lords since 1913, which, come to think of it, was a year after the Titanic under-performed as well.

Mr. Blunkett

I know that we have introduced a numeracy programme, but I should have thought that even the Opposition could count. Only one Labour Member voted against on the previous occasion.

Mr. Willetts

The rebellions, which included 31 Labour Members on one occasion, were against proposals put forward by the Secretary of State under the Bill.

The Secretary of State now steps in and appears to offer a crack of light. We are told that the door is ajar, inasmuch as we shall get a review, but we are not told whether he is willing to accept the fundamental point of principle—whether he understands the anger that is caused by the idea that two students studying side by side, doing the same course at the same university, should pay different tuition fees simply because of where they happen to live within the United Kingdom. That is the point of principle which the Secretary of State has signally failed to address tonight.

The review seems to involve students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland applying for places at Scottish universities without knowing whether they face three or four years' fees. That is not a reasonable basis on which any student should be asked to apply.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

Are not the Government trying to pick up on the Dearing report, in which a three-year degree course in England and Wales takes four years in Scotland? If a course takes four years, whether a student comes from England or from Scotland, he or she still has to do four years, but the Government feel that they should pay only three years' tuition fees. Why are the Government so against following the logic of their own principles in this matter?

Mr. Willetts

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What I find extraordinary is that the Secretary of State is now trying to defend a position that he did not advocate when he made his original statement on the matter to the House last July. I do not believe that he intended that there should be a Scottish anomaly when he first announced his alternative approach, on the very day of the Dearing report's publication. I think that this mess is caused entirely by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office announcing a concession in October without clearing it with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment. The only explanation for the Government's obduracy is a row going on between that Department and the Scottish Office.

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson)

Whether under-performing or over-performing, I was certainly performing well enough to see the hon. Gentleman off on the last occasion. Does he think that, when Lord Dearing and his committee made precisely the recommendation that we have acted on, they intended to create an anomaly or resolve one?

Mr. Willetts

All that I can say is that I am still leading for the Opposition on this subject, whereas the Minister is no longer leading for the Government, so it is pretty clear to me who has been under-performing.

The Dearing report is absolutely clear that this would be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State for Scotland". That is what Sir Ron Dearing said, and that is why we are inviting the Government to consider the matter again.

The only argument that we heard tonight was the claim that the anomaly would cost not —2 million, but —27 million. In other words, we were told that, instead of simply having to ensure equal treatment among students from England or Scotland at the same Scottish university, the Government would have to get rid of fourth-year tuition fees for every university in the United Kingdom. That is no part of our policy. I do not believe that that was the intention of any of the very many peers from all parts of the other place who voted against the Government. The argument is a complete red herring, because the two systems are indeed different. There is no reason why a regime that should apply to a Scottish university should also apply to an English university.

Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking)

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking the House to accept that a constituent of mine from Barking could attend a Scottish university and pay only three years of fees—not the fourth—whereas the same constituent, reading the same subject at an English university, would be expected to pay fees for the fourth year? Is he not, by his policy, creating a new set of anomalies?

10.45 pm

Mr. Willetts

All I can say is that they are different education systems. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They are different education systems.

Mr. Blunkett

Is it not precisely the fact that Scottish students go through the Scottish education system and students in Barking do not that makes the difference between what the hon. Gentleman proposes and what we propose?

Mr. Willetts

No; that is not the case. That approach—the claim that the first year of the Scottish four-year university course exists only to allow students to catch up with English A-levels—produces great anger and irritation in people in the Scottish educational world. That is not the case, but what is? I quote the secretary of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, Ronald Crawford: The £27 million is a distraction. The four-year degree course is the norm in Scotland and it's the exception in the rest of the United Kingdom. It's inappropriate to consider the two analogously". There is absolutely no need, therefore, for the principle of equal treatment of students at the same Scottish university to require that one also abandons fourth-year tuition fees at all English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities. That is why the concession would cost only £2 million.

The Secretary of State failed to explain on what basis he moved from contemplating having to concede on the Scottish anomaly to saying that he would have to make the wider concession in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is he saying that it would be a legal requirement on him, as we were told at one point? We were told that, as soon as the matter went before the courts, he would be obliged to abandon fourth-year tuition fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is he saying that? If so, I must tell him that the courts would be familiar with the different higher education system in Scotland; they would understand perfectly that one was entitled to have a different regime in Scotland from that in England.

If the Secretary of State is not saying that it is a legal requirement, is he saying that it would have to be done as a matter of policy? The present Government are supposed to believe in devolution. They are the Government who are supposed to believe in allowing things to be different in Scotland from in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not see why any Minister should feel obliged to take a policy decision to enforce uniformity in that one small area of higher education when, throughout the rest of education and higher education in Scotland and England, the situation is different.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument that, above all, puts an end to that used by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is the fact that the Government have never argued that her former students in Islington, when they were secondary school pupils, could not go out of Islington, as many pupils did, to another education system, paid for by the taxpayer? That is exactly the same parallel in secondary education as in higher education, where people may choose where to go to advance their studies. The hon. Lady never previously argued that Islington 15-year-olds could go to school only in Islington.

Mr. Willetts

That is a very useful point, whatever it might mean.

I shall revert to the argument that I was developing. If the Secretary of State claims that he is on a slippery slope and that he cannot make a concession for a footling £2 million without being obliged to make a concession for £27 million, he should explain to the House where that requirement comes from. Is it a legal requirement? Is it a policy decision? Or is it a political judgment about the forces that he would face? Is he saying that the political campaigns around the country would be so powerful that he, a poor weakling of a politician, would immediately have to give way and abandon fourth-year tuition fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

I do not find that credible. I have a higher opinion of the Secretary of State than to believe that he would immediately give way on the £27 million. The argument that he is trying to use with the House of Lords is that he is such a tough guy and such a macho Secretary of State that he is willing to jeopardise his entire Bill, rather than pay £2 million to deal with a glaring, absurd anomaly facing students going to Scottish universities.

The only way in which the House could accept the argument advanced by the Secretary of State tonight is to believe two contradictory propositions—first, that the political pressures for an entirely different higher education system in England immediately to abandon fourth-year tuition fees would be so irresistible that the Secretary of State would give way, and secondly, that the Secretary of State is so tough and macho that he is willing to sacrifice his entire Bill, rather than make a £2 million concession.

I am prepared to believe one proposition or the other, but not both. The only way that the Secretary of State can win the argument tonight in the House is by maintaining that both are true.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman referred to the anomalies which it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to resolve. Does he agree that, as the Secretary of State intends to set up an independent review, the best way of ensuring certainty would be to assure those entering Scottish universities this year that they would not have to pay fees in the fourth year, and that the review should be on the anomaly that the Secretary of State considers important and the extent to which it matters in the longer term?

Mr. Willetts

If the Government accepted that there should not be anomalous treatment of students attending Scottish universities, and undertook to review the evidence, having protected the status quo, that would be a different matter. Sadly, that was not the point that the Secretary of State made this evening.

We have heard much in the past few days about the Secretary of State's other responsibility. We have already heard some of the briefing about the statement that we shall hear from the Chancellor tomorrow. We may find that the Secretary of State himself comes to the House to tell us about the enormous sums that he claims are to be put into education in the next few years. We have read in the press about £15 billion of higher education expenditure over the next few years.

Will not the Secretary of State look a rather absurd figure if he pops up on our television screens explaining that he has secured billions of pounds of extra cash from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet it is impossible to spend £2 million to deal with an anomaly that makes no sense to anyone outside the whipped ranks of his own party?

Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)

rose—

Mr. Willetts

No, I am about to finish.

If the Secretary of State is to be taken seriously when he speaks about the financial settlement that he is bringing to the House in the next few days, he cannot also maintain that £2 million to deal with such an anomaly is a concession that it is impossible for him to make.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

A lot of this is about perception. Many students at Scottish universities come from the north of Ireland, so how is it to be justified that a student from Belfast will pay £1,000 more than a student from Dublin? That raises the issue of the cement of the British universities system. Part of the cement that keeps the United Kingdom together is the universities, and anything that damages the Scottish universities as United Kingdom universities is a serious matter.

In the previous debate, I asked specific questions about the legal situation. I am entitled to say that the view of Edinburgh university, which comes through Sir Stewart Sutherland, the vice-chancellor, after the taking of legal advice, is that it is more than likely that the Government's view would not be sustained in a test case. I have also consulted Professor Anthony Bradley, a practising Queen's counsel, former editor of the Journal of Public Law and recently retired professor of constitutional law at the university of Edinburgh. This is what he put into print in the Edinburgh Evening News on Thursday 9 July: The Government's controversial plan for students' tuition fees could be destroyed by its commitment to European human rights". That is the view of a QC. Although this is not the time to occupy the House with the detailed legal argument that some of us have heard, I must ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two specific questions about the review. I welcome the offer of a review and think that it will be helpful and constructive, but will he undertake that nothing will be done to charge existing students until, first, the review has reported and, secondly, there has been a test case in the courts to determine whether Professor Bradley and the university of Edinburgh, backed by Professor Ian Graham-Bryce of the university of Dundee, are correct? If he could give those undertakings, he would greatly assist some of us.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus)

Now we have it: after all the to-ing and fro-ing, and after all the kerfuffle outside this place, all that we are being offered is an independent review of a situation that should have been resolved by any Government who were semi-competent. Will the Minister explain how independent the review will be, who will be on the review body, and how will it prevent uncertainty among the student population? From what I have heard, all this is simply a ploy based not on any principle, but on ducking and weaving by a Government who have been trapped by their inability to sort out discrimination that they have created.

This is a point of principle. Tuition fees are wrong and, along with student loans, they will restrict access to higher education. The Government are completely out of step with university principals, students, the Association of University Teachers and others involved in education. The Scottish National party has opposed all attempts to erode the principle of education for all, according to ability and regardless of financial circumstances. Tuition fees are, like student loans, a backward step. As the Government insist on those fees, we can only seek to ensure that the arrangements are as fair as possible.

Mr. Wilson

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party's commitment to use the Scottish Parliament to remove student tuition fees and student loans has been wiped from the internet, along with the rest of his party's previous policies?

Mr. Welsh

The Minister has forgotten all points of principle. His Government should have allowed the Scottish Parliament to take this decision. In respect of the Scottish Parliament, we will get rid of this discriminatory anomaly affecting English, Welsh and Northern Irish students. We shall maintain our moral commitment, unlike the Government.

The amount involved is only £2 million. It is a disgrace if the three Departments cannot find £2 million from their budgets. The Scottish National party will, on a point of principle, ensure that we get rid of this discrimination against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South)

Can I be absolutely sure that the hon. Gentleman is committing the Scottish National party to spending Scottish taxpayers' money to fund English students coming to Scottish universities. [Interruption.]

Mr. Welsh

Who is the nationalist now, I wonder.

11 pm

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask hon. Members to apologise? We do not use the word "racist" in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I did not hear that word being used.

Mr. Welsh

The question of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) should be directed to the Government, who have introduced this measure that discriminates against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students. The Scottish National party will ensure that such discrimination does not exist.

I refer the hon. Lady to a debate on this issue that I secured last January. We made our views clear that we are against such discrimination. The Home Departments in Wales, Northern Ireland and England should pick up the tab. The Government are annoyed at the House of Lords' refusal to back down. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment is becoming increasingly alarmed that his whole Bill will collapse. My party believes that it would be no bad thing if it did collapse, because we think that all matters relating to higher education in Scotland should be within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. It will not be long before the Scottish Parliament is in power and taking these decisions. It should be left to that Parliament to decide, in a Scottish context, what the Scottish people want to happen in our universities.

If the Government are determined that the Teaching and Higher Education Bill should become law, all they need to do is to accept the amendment and they would have the approval of those involved in education, and of the general public.

In January, I led an Adjournment debate on this issue. I raised objections to the Government's policy, not just because it is discriminatory, but because of the effects that it will have on Scottish universities and on the Scottish economy. I was accused of scaremongering, yet my fears are shared by many involved in education in Scotland.

The principal of Dundee university said at this year's graduation ceremony last Thursday: It is the end of an era for higher education.…I cannot disguise my feelings of profound concern. Notwithstanding what you may read in the press, our application figures leave little doubt that the issue of student fees is having an adverse effect, particularly the differential between Scottish domiciled students and those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Even before the review, the Government have been told what is going on. The principal went on: Whatever rationalisations are put forward, the practical impact is discriminatory. If this leads to a decrease in the diversity of the student body…then it will be Scottish higher education and ultimately Scottish interests which will be the losers. The Government do not need a review to find out what educationists of Scotland are telling them now.

In an independent Scotland, the Scottish National party plans to abolish tuition fees. If the Government fail to listen to public opinion and to solve this anomaly, a SNP-led Scottish Parliament, even at a reduced devolutionary level, will find the £2 million required to ensure equity for all students who choose to study in Scotland. That compares well with the Government's prevarication by offering a review rather than solving the problem.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

My information is that 31 per cent. of the students from England who will be eligible to pay these fees will come from English public schools. As a former pupil of an English public school, I find it odd that the Scottish National party proposes to raise Scottish taxpayers' money to subsidise people from English public schools.

Mr. Welsh

The hon. Gentleman has been in the Labour party for too long. He has forgotten what principle means. If he is willing to sell his political soul to new Labour, good luck to him, but others have different views.

Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that, by that reckoning, 70 per cent. do not come from English public schools. We would sort the anomaly out, but his question should be directed at the person who—

Mr. Home Robertson

rose—

Mr. Welsh

Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? We have heard enough from him.

Mr. Wilson

rose—

Mr. Welsh

The hon. Gentleman's question should be directed at the hon. Member who is now trying to intervene, and who failed to convince his English, Welsh and Northern Ireland colleagues of the need to sort out the discrimination. The hon. Gentleman should direct his ire at his own Front Benchers, who could solve the problem very quickly and at very little cost.

Mr. Wilson

I think that—doubtless inadvertently—the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). At least a third of students coming from England, Northern Ireland or Wales to Scotland will pay no tuition fees. My hon. Friend's point was that, as a third of students coming from England to Scottish universities come from the private sector—and are welcome to do so—inevitably the vast majority of those who would benefit from the waiving of fees would be people who had paid for a private-school education in England. The hon. Gentleman intends to give them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The intervention is far too long.

Mr. Welsh

I wanted the Minister to explain his hon. Friend's question, because I am a bit fed up with the Minister fiddling statistics and trying to make a case when none exists. He stated categorically that 40 per cent. of students would not pay tuition fees, but that is not necessarily the case. If the worst comes to the worst, and people from low-income households are deterred from coming to university—as we fear—the figure will not be 40 per cent.; it could be 30 per cent., 20 per cent. or lower. The Minister has used statistical methods and debating tricks to hide a policy that is fundamentally flawed and basically immoral.

I was going to say that the Government must tonight listen to the views expressed, not only in another place, but by hon. Members on both sides of the House—those who have not have been gagged on the Minister's side, that is. They must also listen to the voices of students and those working in education. The Government's policy is opposed by Scottish Ancients, the Association of University Teachers, the National Union of Students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom—but, of course, this Labour Government think that they know better. If they are so confident of the wisdom of what they are doing, why do they not allow a free vote?

The fact is that, yet again, the House of Lords has given the Government a chance to get out of the corner into which they have painted themselves. They are totally out of step with educational and public opinion on the subject, and they will pay a price for that. It will be unfortunate for everyone if the Scottish education system also pays a price for their incompetence.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of an independent review as a step in the right direction and a recognition by the Government that, on this important issue, they may be wrong; but I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or whoever will wind up the debate, to give us assurances along the lines requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Government's announcement seems to be a last-minute concession: I certainly knew nothing about it before the debate, and I think that it has taken many of us by surprise. I feel that we are entitled to know more about the details of the membership of the body conducting the review, and about its remit and time scale. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Government have acted, and the fact that the debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

During the previous debate, I remarked to my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry at the Scottish Office that he had perhaps drawn the short straw in coming to the Dispatch Box and trying to defend the indefensible. Of course this matter is of great relevance to the Scottish Office, which has some responsibility for Scottish universities and Scottish higher education in general, but, because it affects students attending Scottish universities from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, greater interest should be—and should have been from the outset—shown in this matter by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and, indeed, by the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

I do not want to go over the same old ground that we have gone over in previous debates, but I should like to comment on some of the points that have been put forward by the Government, both in the House and in some of their press statements. We are told that better-off students would be the main beneficiaries of the fee waiver. If that is true, it would also be true in the case of the Scottish Office's original decision regarding a fee waiver for students from Scotland and other European Union countries.

I suppose that there are some well-off students from England who attend Scottish universities, but there are some well off students from Scotland and indeed from France, Germany and Italy who attend Scottish universities. The latter will nevertheless benefit from the fee waiver, whereas their English counterparts with the same parental income will not. That is where the injustice comes in.

Besides, it is nonsense to suggest that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who go to Scottish universities generally come from very high-income families. The Government's own figures refute that, because we are talking about 3,500 people a year and, if they all came from very high-income families, obviously, they would all pay the full fees of £1,000 and the total cost of the amendment would be £3.5 million, but the Government have at last admitted that the total cost of the amendment would be only £2 million. Therefore, the average fee paid by the 3,500 students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland works out at about £570 and the corresponding average residual parental income is £22,750 per annum, which is not exactly filthy rich.

During the previous debate, the Minister for Education and Industry said—this has caused a bit of controversy in Scotland: The pecking order of schools supplying students from England to Edinburgh and St. Andrews universities is: No. 1, Eton college; No. 2, Wellington college; No. 3, Charterhouse; and, No. 4, Westminster school. That tells us something about the wonderful, egalitarian education system that we have in Scotland."—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 442.] What he did not tell us was that he was referring to a grand total of 256 students, out of a total of 8,400 students, from England attending Edinburgh or St. Andrews universities, which are not typical Scottish universities. Nevertheless, we are talking about a sample—and not exactly a random sample—of 256 students out of a total of 8,400.

Mr. Ian Bruce

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has done any more research. I believe that most of those 256 probably come from Scottish families and go to English public schools, and will get the concession because their parents live in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan

That may be the case. The statement that those 256 are absolutely domiciled in England may be inaccurate.

The broader picture—of students from England accepted to all Scottish universities last year—shows that the breakdown is far more egalitarian than was suggested by my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office. Of those students, 33 per cent. came from state schools, including 26 per cent. from comprehensives; 21 per cent. came from further education, many—probably most—of whom would have come indirectly from state schools; 1 per cent. from higher education; 13 per cent. from other or unknown sources; and 32 per cent. from independent schools. It is therefore nonsense to claim that the majority of English entrants to Scottish universities are from English public schools.

11.15 pm

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal issues that is being missed in the debate is that the Scottish higher education system needs students from all walks of life and from all countries to provide the diversity and specialness that make Scottish universities so vibrant and positive? Does he agree that the Government's proposals will drive away the very students who give the Scottish education system its very special flavour?

Mr. Canavan

Scottish universities—possibly more than many of their English counterparts—have always had an international outlook. It would be a tragedy if they became narrow-minded nationalist institutions rather than international institutions.

The trend to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) referred has already started. This year, compared with last year, applications from England are down 4.1 per cent., and applications from Northern Ireland are down 5.5 per cent. If the trend continues, it will pose a threat to the viability of many four-year honours courses and to the Scottish tradition of a broad-based university education following on from a broad-based school education.

The other point that I should like to mention was repeated in this debate by the Secretary of State—the Government's claim that acceptance of the Lords amendment would create a new anomaly, as students doing a four-year course in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would not qualify for a fee waiver for their final year. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) —who intervened earlier in the debate—is not in the Chamber now, as I seem to recall that there was a vote to eradicate that specific anomaly, and that she, most of my hon. Friends and every Minister voted against eradicating it. I should welcome any proposal to extend the fee waiver to such students. However, the Government rejected such a proposal because of its cost, reckoning that £27 million would be too expensive.

There is also a uniqueness about the Scottish anomaly. Under the Government's proposals, a student at a Scottish university may have to pay £1,000 more than a student in the same class doing the same course at the same university and with the same parental income, simply because he or she comes from a different part of the United Kingdom. That situation will arise not at any university or college in England, Wales or Northern Ireland but only in Scotland. It would cost only £2 million to eradicate that unique and unfair anomaly.

The Government have probably already incurred a six-figure sum in debating the matter continually here and in another place. If the measure is challenged in the courts, as it is likely to be, they will face paying a bigger sum out of public expenditure in legal fees. I am pleased that, at this eleventh hour, the Government are prepared to think again.

Finally, I have one comment on my right hon. Friend's rant about the House of Lords, that we also heard during the previous debate on the matter. It would be a sad day for British democracy if even the reactionary, unelected House of Lords were seen to take a more enlightened view than a Labour Government—especially a Labour Government who were elected on the mantra and the priorities of education, education, education.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

I am absolutely delighted to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who conducted a forensic examination of the Government's position. He effectively pointed out that the Government have not been consistent on the issue. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will pick up that point.

The House well knows that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the main plank of the Bill—the introduction of tuition fees—and we voted against it on Third Reading. We have argued consistently that the Bill was hastily prepared without any real attention to detail, as the fiasco over gap year students clearly demonstrated.

We are discussing another example of the effects of legislation that has been prepared too hastily—the Scottish anomaly. Already we have heard from the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for Angus (Mr. Welsh) and for Falkirk, West—and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) certainly implied it—that the Government have now created a ludicrous, incoherent and unjust position. Surely it cannot be acceptable to right hon. and hon. Members that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should pay more than students from Scotland for the same course at the same university. That is the anomaly that we are debating.

Sadly, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) simply fails to understand the difference between that anomaly and the fact that students from the same area may choose to go to different universities in different locations, study different courses and possibly pay different fees. That is not an anomaly of the same order.

Equally, it cannot be right that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should pay more than students from all other European Union countries. Why should a student from Cumbria in England pay more than a student from Umbria in Italy? Why should a student from Manchester pay more than a student from Madrid? The Secretary of State should be aware that many others agree that that is ludicrous.

Lord Shore of Stepney, a former Labour Cabinet Minister described the position as folly beyond all belief. It is not just discrimination; it is reverse discrimination. Another Labour peer, Lord Stoddart, remarked in the same debate: Ordinary working folk, the people in factories and offices, will not understand why English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students have to pay £4,000 for a course in Scotland, while Italians, Southern Irish and Scots have to pay only £3,000. They will laugh their sides off. They will ask 'What sort of people can do this? Who is advising them? Why do they take the advice they are receiving if that sort of nonsense is being handed out to them?"' —[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1103–05.] No wonder Lord Stoddart went on to describe the Government's position as nonsense and an absurdity.

Dr. George Turner

rose—

Mr. Foster

I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Turner

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with what I think is an important point on whether there is an issue worthy of debate? Lord Dearing was appointed by the Conservative Government to head the commission whose recommendations this Government are applying. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Lord Dearing still supports his commission's recommendation if, as the hon. Member says, there is no academic or reasonable argument for it?

Mr. Foster

It is a great pity to hear the hon. Gentleman make the same mistake as the Prime Minister has been making day after day at the Dispatch Box. His argument would be infinitely more credible if the Government had accepted the Dearing recommendations, but they have not.

There is no question but that the Government's position is nonsense and an absurdity. One would have thought that they would be grateful to my right hon. Friend Lord Steel, who tabled in another place an amendment that did not seek to wreck the Bill, or even to tear down the arrangements for tuition fees, much as we would like to; it merely sought to get the Government off the hook—to allow them to avoid any further embarrassment—by ending the Scottish anomaly.

I hope that the Secretary of State has carefully examined the vote in another place, as the amendment made clear the feeling about this issue—it commanded an almost unprecedented majority of 211. The majority was so large that, if all Conservative peers had abstained, the amendment would still have won the day. It was so large that, if all hereditary peers had stayed at home, the amendment would still have been agreed to. The amendment's supporters included a former Master of the Rolls, a former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, a former vice-chancellor of London university, the president of the British Academy, three bishops, a former Clerk of the Parliaments and a former Speaker of the House of Commons. Those people are not negligible; when they and so many others are joined by senior Labour peers, their voices surely cannot be ignored.

The Government rightly want to reform the House of Lords, and we support them in that. Like us, however, they still want a second, revising chamber. The House of Commons must accept that, from time to time, the revising chamber will want to revise, which is what legitimately happened on this occasion in another place. An unacceptable anomaly was identified, and a proposal to rectify it was agreed.

The Government's reaction was remarkable. On 8 July, Glasgow's The Herald said: Senior Government sources last night made clear their determination to ensure the heavily-criticised plan does eventually become law. 'We are taking the Drumcree line on this; no surrender to the peers. We are toughing it out,' said one source. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may ask, "Who said that?" He should check with The Herald, from which it is a direct quotation.

Toughing it out will perpetuate the ludicrous anomaly that is perhaps most starkly illustrated in today's Daily Telegraph. The article tells us that Tom Laycock from Lamberton, 100 yards north of the Scottish border, will pay £1,000 less than Tom Maxwell, from Berwick-upon-Tweed, two miles south of the border, when they both attend an English, film and media course at Stirling university this year.

Last week, the Prime Minister made clear his determination to tough it out. He seems to have misunderstood even the Government's position. He frequently tells us that the Bill reflects the Dearing proposals, when it does not, and at Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday he got it wrong again. He initially implied that the cost of Lord Steel's amendment would be £27 million. Even had free tuition to all students in their fourth year been proposed in the amendment, which it was not, the figure would have been wrong: definitive calculations by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals over the weekend show that even then the figure be only £18 million. In fact, the amendment, which would remedy the incoherent and unjust position, would cost only £2 million.

11.30 pm

The approach of some of the Secretary of State's colleagues can only be described as pig-headed, so perhaps we should applaud his attempt to find a compromise. At least he has shown some signs of realising the hopelessness of the Government's position and appears to be willing to try to build a consensus; but he has not gone nearly far enough to elicit my support or that of my party.

We have become somewhat immune to the offer of a review. After only 14 months of this Government, we are approaching 150 reviews and task forces: that is 10 reviews a month. It is as if the Secretary of State is saying, "Ah, yes. I might be beginning to understand, and perhaps you're right, but I'm not prepared to change my position, so I'll stick to it, but if it causes a problem, I'll review the situation."

We believe that the anomaly will create problems. More importantly, the so-called Scottish anomaly is unjust. In the face of injustice and inequality, we will seek every means at our disposal to persuade the Secretary of State to do what anyone should do if he finds that he is wrong: change his mind. He has shown some willingness to consider that he might be wrong. I hope that he will go further. We are prepared to enter discussions with him to help him to dig himself out of the hole that, frankly, others have dug for him. Better still, he could resolve the matter here and now for £2 million by simply accepting the Lords amendment.

Valerie Davey (Bristol, West)

People outside cannot understand the preoccupation of the House with a minority of higher education students from the most well-off families. When people ask me what is going on, when the House of Lords has for the third time brought back this detail of the Bill, and I talk to them about higher education, they begin to understand. Let me try to explain to the House, as I have to those people.

As a country, we say to students that it will take them, on average, five years to get a first degree. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for the most part, two years are spent at school and three at university. In Scotland, for the most part, one year is spent at school and three at university. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Fine. That is exactly what I have been learning: more students now stay on for two years at school and then have three at university. The Bill's generosity towards Scotland should therefore be accepted and understood. We are saying that there are five years in which to gain a degree. That argument has been accepted for all students. The special situation in Scotland of having four-year degrees is being recognised and funded.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Valerie Davey

No, it is my turn.

The Bill is fairer to more students than any of the amendments put forward in the other place.

Mr. John MacGregor (South Norfolk)

I do not want to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) because I do not believe that she knows what she is talking about.

I speak not as a former Secretary of State for Education, but as someone born, brought up and educated in Scotland. I did a four-year university degree course in Scotland as well, incidentally, as a degree course in England.

I want to address the two arguments put forward by the Secretary of State. I have followed all the arguments about Cumbria and Umbria, and so on. Relevant though they are, I do not want to comment on them. I certainly will not follow the prejudice shown by the Minister of State in previous debates and again tonight. He should be ashamed to resort to arguments about students from English independent schools, which is base, old Labour prejudice.

The Secretary of State rested his case on two arguments. The first is that the Scottish education system is different. Because students do highers, they tend to spend less time in school, and need longer at university. That argument does not wash. Some students from Scotland—I was one—do A-levels before entering the Scottish higher education system.

In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, the Secretary of State cannot argue that his policy on Scottish tuition fees rests on the nature of Scottish education when he is allowing students from all other European Union countries, which have completely different educational systems, to benefit from free tuition. He cannot dismiss that argument by saying that it affects only 350 students. It is an argument of principle, not of numbers.

The Government have not implemented the Dearing report, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out, left the matter to the Secretary of State for Scotland. They have instead decided to follow their own route because the four-year honours degree is the norm in Scotland, but does not apply elsewhere. The Secretary of State's first argument fails on that ground.

The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was that, if students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who went to Scotland were to be allowed free tuition in the fourth year, the same would have to apply to four-year courses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, that argument does not wash. It is totally bogus. The point is that we want to treat all students at the same university equally, wherever they come from within the European Union. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to say that the ability of students from the United Kingdom to go to whatever university they want is part of the cement of our universal university education system.

If students from Scotland decide to do a four-year degree course at an English university, they must accept that they will not get a year's free tuition, because that will not apply to anyone from England. All we argue is that students from anywhere in the EU who go to a Scottish university should be treated the same as students from Scotland. Equally, the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—she is not here—is that everyone who goes to an English university, whether from Scotland or anywhere else, knows that the fourth year of tuition will not be free. That is the simple point. Therefore, the £2 million argument is correct and the £27 million is a complete red herring. That is why the Secretary of State was wrong in his arguments tonight.

Mr. Willis

Like everyone else who has mentioned her, I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is not in her place.

The Bill has been a disaster for the Government from the very beginning, and the Scottish question has gone from bad to worse. Every time that the issue has ping-ponged like Wimbledon in ermine between this and the other place, the Government's justifications of their position have become more bizarre. If it were such an important issue, the Secretary of State would have mentioned it on 25 June 1997 when he responded to the Dearing inquiry. However, he did not consider the consequences for Scottish four-year degrees at that time.

Fortunately, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, was on hand to help out the Secretary of State. The Minister announced that there would be a concession for Scottish students who were domiciled in Scotland and that their fourth-year fees would be paid. It was then pointed out that that was not good enough because the concession fell foul of European law and the fees of all European students would have to be paid. So that concession was made.

We then had the marvellous situation on a Radio 4 programme when the Minister justified the fact that French students at Scottish universities would have their fees paid, by saying that they were part of the European Union—of course, the fees of students from England, Northern Ireland or Wales would not be paid because they were part of the European Union. Since then, the Minister has proved singularly unable to persuade his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment to fund those students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who attend Scottish universities. Ultimately, the debate is about one Minister going off on his own. Ever since then, the Government have made a concerted effort to cover their tracks and not give ground. Even on this very small point, the Government are not prepared to give way, irrespective of the arguments.

Lord Sewel—who has done a remarkable job attempting to defend the Government's position in another place—explained that, because there was a difference between the two systems, the rules had to be different. He then admitted that there would be a small anomaly and added that, as students would be paying more for their maintenance, an extra £1,000 did not matter. That became the basis of the Government's argument. When that did not work, an attack was launched on the Scottish university system. There was a concerted effort to persuade us that it was far better for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to enter university at year two because they were well equipped to do so.

Mr. Hayes

Am I right in remembering—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can correct me—that the Minister described that Scottish tradition as bogus, thereby insulting Scottish universities and causing real distress among vice-chancellors, students and all those who believe that it is a decent and proper Scottish tradition?

Mr. Willis

I do not know whether I am grateful for that intervention.[HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am told that I am—but one cannot toady to the Tories. It was not a member of the other place, but the Minister who made that disgraceful statement to which I shall return later.

When the Bill was on Report in the House of Lords, the arguments changed again. Then it was not because the university systems were different, but because there was a difference in intellectual attainment between students in Scotland and England. We then went on to the hidden agenda when the Minister in the Lords said that Scottish universities wanted English students because they wanted extra cash.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was right to say that the Minister for Education and Industry argued that the Scottish four-year degree system was bogus and that the act should be disregarded. Tonight, we have had the final throw of the dice. The Secretary of State said that all those arguments mean nothing and that this is really a battle with the House of Lords. He said that, irrespective of the argument, this House must win. That is what we are faced with. We are to ignore the arguments and the issue's importance, and ensure that the Secretary of State and his macho Government win.

11.45 pm

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)

About once a fortnight, the House assembles to hear the Government marshall their arguments for this policy. Every time, their arguments become weaker, less plausible and more desperate. Tonight, we have seen the start of the Government's retreat.

The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that it came as a surprise to him that the Minister was offering this half concession. It came as no surprise to me because, characteristically, a journalist had phoned me some hours ago saying that the Secretary of State would offer it and asking what our response would be. As ever, it had been leaked to the press hours before it came to the House.

We should pay tribute to hon. Members in the other place for their commendable insistence and for producing a reasonable and narrow amendment, which the Government would accept if they had any sense. I urge their Lordships to keep going until the Government's U-turn tonight becomes the headlong retreat that this policy deserves.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a former Secretary of State for Education, honoured the Secretary of State by saying that he had two arguments. I suggest that basically he had one—that two anomalies are possible and that the Government are choosing the easier of them. That argument does not bear the faintest examination. If one accepts, as the Government do, that the Scottish and English education systems are different, one could accept that the fee structure should be different. If one does not accept that, as the Government appear not to, two students doing identical courses will pay different fees. That is unfair, and if the Government do not recognise it, they are being wilfully ignorant and deliberately pig-headed.

Let us be generous to the Secretary of State. If there are two anomalies, which is the easiest to swallow? The Lords amendment would introduce fairness to Scottish university courses at a cost of £2 million. That is slightly more than three times the cost of the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper. We could pay for it out of the extra budget allocated to political advisers and spin doctors by the Government. We are told that the Scottish Office already has the £2 million in its estimates. Only the arrogance of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment stands between the Government and a welcome outbreak of common sense on this policy. [Interruption.] He has blustered away, and continues to do so from a sedentary position. I invite him to consider the effect that he has had on his colleagues in the other place.

We have already heard some of what Lord Shore of Stepney said, but it is worth repeating to the House another of his remarks. He said that his colleagues in the other place, if they were allowed a free vote on the issue…would make quite clear their own feeling of repugnance at what is being proposed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1103.] He emphasised the word "repugnance" and he was right to do so. I hope that, this evening, there are once again some men and women of principle on the Government Benches who are prepared to vote according to their conscience.

The Secretary of State has not convinced Britain's students either. Tonight, I am happy to give a plug for The Guardian, which tomorrow will feature a full-page advertisement asking the crucial question: Why should it cost £1,000 more to go to university in Scotland? The advertisement has been placed by the National Union of Students, whose representatives tell me that a ring round enabled them to raise, in one afternoon and in voluntary contributions from member unions, the money to pay for the advertisement, such is the strength of feeling against the Government's policy in universities throughout the country. The NUS makes the key points: We know it doesn't make sense. The House of Lords knows it doesn't make sense. Is it so hard to admit a simple error? It is clearly too hard for the Labour Government and for the Secretary of State.

The NUS addresses itself directly to the Prime Minister, asking: Please Prime Minister, listen to the pleas of students, lecturers, senior academics and the House of Lords. It's time to stop the destruction of Scottish universities and to stop your legislation as it stands. This Bill has caused confusion and uncertainty for all new students. It's time to think again. I hope that, for once, Education Ministers will listen to those most involved in the process of education—the students who are going through it.

What arguments we have heard from those few Labour Back Benchers whom the Government have managed to get on their feet tonight have been straightforward, old-fashioned class warfare, in which vein they have been encouraged by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). In a recent article for The Scotsman, he wrote: the most conspicuous beneficiaries of the concession demanded by the Lords would be the products of private education outside Scotland who opted to pursue the four-year Scottish honours degree. In new Labour, class warfare is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If they have nothing else left, they revert to their atavistic instincts.

In this case, to do so is not only cheap, but inappropriate. First, if the Minister has great objections to gilded youth from English public schools, what about gilded youth from Scottish public schools? For some reason, Fettes springs to mind. Secondly, and more to the point, what about the many students from Northern Ireland who choose to pursue higher education in Scotland? The president of the NUS in Scotland says that he has been inundated with telephone calls from anxious students from Northern Ireland who wished to know if they could escape the £1,000 fee by gaining Scottish residency…Of 40 or so students we met, not one was from a 'privileged elite'. None were well able to afford fees, none were confident of missing out the first year of the four year degree, and most did not have that option. That is what the students from Northern Ireland are saying. The Government's attack on them as a privileged elite is completely inappropriate.

Let us look at the real figures relating to the students about whom the Minister talks. I shall quote from another article by the Minister—I have been assiduous above and beyond the call of duty in reading all the Minister's words—in The Times Higher Educational Supplement.

He wrote: Any student from a family with an income of below £16,500 will not pay any fees in any year if they come to Scotland. The Minister might regard a £16,500 family income as enormous or as signifying fat cats, but I should point out that that is only just over £8,000 per parent. Are such people really fat cats? Are they worthy of the sneers of the Minister and those sitting behind him, desperate to do the Whips' bidding? No, they are exactly the people whom we should be encouraging into higher education, many of whom are the first from their families.

I agree that the Minister has made his case worse than he needed to, because the Government's own figures state that, if a student's gross family income is less than about £23,000 a year, the students and the student's family will not have to pay anything towards fees. The Government seem to regard any family on more than £11,500 per year per parent as a fat-cat family that does not deserve any help to get into higher education. That attitude is completely disgraceful.

Then there is the legal case. How much do the Government expect to pay in legal fees when the decision is challenged? It certainly will be challenged. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned advice from Edinburgh university. He will know that there is advice from many distinguished lawyers from Scotland and elsewhere that the European convention on human rights will leave the Government wide open to challenge. Quite apart from the wider issue of equity, they should not waste the education budget in this way.

The one interesting point that the Secretary of State made was that, in all cases, this House must prevail. That is the true arrogance of power. No revising Chamber in any circumstance will be listened to by this Government, not even when, as in this case, it is supported by students, vice-chancellors, the Scottish universities, legal experts and every Opposition party. Not one Labour Back Bencher who is keenly involved in this issue has made any plausible case in favour of the policy. Where are the former presidents of the NUS when students need them?

The Secretary of State has tonight started the long retreat, but his offer of a review is completely inadequate. Why does he not offer Labour Members a free vote on this issue? That would be a proper concession. If he does not, we shall know that it is only the payroll vote, the ambitious-for-a-job vote and the Whips' lackeys' vote that are pushing through this absurd policy. We have won the intellectual argument and we have won the moral argument. I urge hon. Members on all sides to go into the Lobby against this miserable policy and save the Government from themselves.

Mr. Wilson

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) with his intellectual argument because he obviously has difficulty distinguishing between £16,000 and £23,000. I shall help him because I know that he is anxious to secure the intellectual basis of his argument. One figure is net and the other is gross. I appreciate that those are difficult concepts.

Mr. Green

The Minister rightly says that £23,000 is the gross figure, and in doing so he is admitting that families with a gross income above that figure are the fat cats at whom he has sneered throughout the debate. Many families in Britain will find that interesting.

Mr. Wilson

I am sorry, but I shall have to help the hon. Gentleman again, because he intervened too quickly. I was about to point out that anyone with that minimum financial level for contributions would contribute not £1,000, as the hon. Gentleman implies, but £50. If even in all the dishonesty and bogus—I use the word advisedly—indignation of this debate, Opposition Members are suggesting that any student from the rest of the United Kingdom who has decided to follow a four-year course in Scotland would be deterred from doing so by the prospect of paying £50 over four years, the synthetic nature of their indignation becomes even more apparent.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ashford welcoming, and singing a paean of praise to, the advertisement by the National Union of Students in The Guardian tomorrow. He will of course be aware that, under Tory higher education legislation, that advertisement would not have appeared because it would have been illegal. Perhaps the House can unite tonight at least in celebrating the freedom of speech granted by the Government against the will of the Tories.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

While the Minister is on the issue of the law, would he be good enough to answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? It is the Government's policy that, in the next Session of Parliament, after the Human Rights Bill has been enacted, the Minister responsible for a Bill will make declarations as to its compatibility with the European convention on human rights. Has the Minister or the Secretary of State taken advice on that? In the Minister's opinion, is the proposal compatible with the convention?

Mr. Wilson

One of the endearing features of our mutual friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), is that he asks the same questions at each succeeding debate, even though he was given the answer at the previous one. The answer at the previous debate is the same as the answer at this debate: yes, of course the Government have taken advice, and the very firm advice is that what takes place within the jurisdiction is not a matter for the European courts, which are intent on achieving equity between member states. I find it extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats, of all people, and other pro-Europeans who preach the doctrine of subsidiarity and devolution, have such difficulty when it comes to practising subsidiarity and devolution.

One of the remarkable statements tonight came from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who gave a constituency example, the hon. Gentleman leaped to his feet and said, "But there are two different systems in Scotland and in England." That was a belated flash of enlightenment. This whole issue is about matching within one state two distinct systems—the Scottish and English education systems.

Tory Members are all, by definition, from English constituencies. There are none from Scotland or Wales.

Mr. Ian Bruce

That is outrageous.

12 midnight

Mr. Wilson

It might be outrageous, but it is true. If it is outrageous—

Mr. Bruce

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the usual channels have asked three colleagues to sit down to give that hon. Gentleman time to slander us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Wilson

If the hon. Gentleman will tell me later how I slandered him, I shall try to develop the theme.

All the Tory Members who have spoken represent English constituents, yet none them has spoken up for his or her own constituents. I hope that their constituents have noted that. The irony is that, a fortnight ago, Tory Members were here speaking and voting in support of a diametrically different Lords' amendment, which would have given that concession not only to students from England attending Scottish universities, but to students from England doing four-year degree courses at all universities within the United Kingdom.

The plot has now changed completely. The Tories now say that English students attending English universities do not matter at all; the only ones who matter are those attending Scottish universities. We know that, on average, all the Tory Members who have spoken have 10 times more constituents attending English universities on four-year degree courses than Scottish universities, so why do not they speak for their constituents?

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Wilson

I shall give way to my hon. Friend in due course, not when Tory Members tell me to give way to him.

Thus, we have a remarkable discovery from the hon. Member for Havant that there are two different systems.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Wilson

We then had an equally remarkable statement from—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It would help considerably if the Minister would say whether he intends to give way when people seek to intervene.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to mislead the House by confusing Master of Arts four-year degrees in England with Bachelor of Arts four-year degrees in Scotland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That, I think, is a matter for debate.

Mr. Wilson

I do not think it was much a point of order as a point of ignorance.

The second notable statement tonight was made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh). He gave us a real, live spending commitment on behalf of the Scottish National party. Those of us who follow the Scottish press know that, within the past week, it has been revealed that every previous spending commitment by the SNP has been wiped from its internet site, because it has realised that someone might start adding them up. Now a new internet site is being opened, and the hon. Member for Angus has made the first spending commitment.

Does the hon. Member for Angus, or any Opposition Member, know how much of the Scottish block goes towards subsidising, supporting, the presence of students from other parts of the United Kingdom at Scottish universities—something to which I have no objection? Does the hon. Gentleman know how much it is? Let me tell him. I assume that he has no idea that the net figure from the Scottish Office block spent on supporting students in the rest of the United Kingdom at Scottish universities is £65 million. That is not enough for the hon. Gentleman, so tonight the first spending commitment by the SNP is to commit it to spending, not £65 million, but £67 million, on supporting students from the rest of the UK at Scottish universities.

Mr. Dalyell

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilson

In due course.

The third remarkable statement tonight was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling.

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)

Falkirk, West.

Mr. Wilson

I thought that I would never hear my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) say, to support his argument, that "only 32 per cent." of students coming from England and the rest of the UK to Scotland come from independent schools. I believe that 32 per cent. is quite a high percentage. I would not mind—I say this to my hon. Friend in good spirit—if that figure, in my view a remarkable one, were a little lower. If there were a few more students from Bannockburn high school or St. Modan's academy, I would not regard that as the end of the world. However, that is a matter of judgment for my hon. Friend.

Perhaps most remarkable—

Mr. Wallace

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wilson

No.

Perhaps most remarkable of all, we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), pray in aid Lord Shore of Stepney in support of his argument—Lord Shore of Stepney, who finds a passing anti-European bandwagon, jumps aboard it and then finds, extraordinarily, that his views are being quoted with approval by the hon. Member for Bath.

Mr. Dalyell

Lord Shore of Stepney was my good colleague for more than 30 years.

Returning to the constructive suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, may I ask what is the time scale for the review, and what are the terms of reference? If there is a test case, as undoubtedly there will be, might we wait until we have the result of the test case in law before any action is taken?

Mr. Wilson

I need hardly say that we intended answering, because my hon. Friend had already asked those questions, so of course I intended answering him. Let me turn to the subject of the proposed review. Let us be clear about this: the Government have always said that they would monitor the effects of the changes that are proposed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Hang on. We are very pleased—from a position of strength and from confidence in our views, we are very pleased—

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

Behind you.

Mr. Wilson

We are very pleased—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. There are far too many interventions, particularly from a sedentary position.

Mr. Wilson

Everyone knows the source of the Opposition's behaviour. I suppose that is all they have to console them.

The review will be formal and independently chaired. It will take place in the early part of next year, in time for the following academic year, so that the arguments that have been adduced on both sides of the House and in the other place over several weeks can be assessed and their impact on applications considered.

If we are wrong, we shall accept that. We do not believe that we are wrong, and I do not sense one iota of such humility on the part of the Opposition. We believe that we are right, but, if matters are in doubt, we have a committee. The Scottish university principals, with whom I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow is closely connected, will be represented on it, as will the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It will have independent chairmanship at its head.

If the findings were that what we were doing had any of the effects claimed by the Opposition—something that we refute—we shall learn from that and act on it. That is an act of generosity and magnanimity on the Government's part, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will support.

On the question of legal challenge, it depends on the nature of such a challenge and the stage at which it was made. As I have repeatedly told my hon. Friend, the advice that we have received is that that challenge would not be successful.

Mr. Wallace

When the Minister answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), he said that the legal advice that he had received was that the European rules did not apply to an internal arrangement within a member state, and that he was satisfied that the European Court of Justice would accept that.

However, as the Minister well knows, the purpose of the Human Rights Bill, which is before the House, is to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law. Therefore, those matters will be justiciable in the British courts. What legal advice has he received with regard to any possible challenge under the European convention on human rights that would be heard before a British court?

Mr. Wilson

The advice is the same. There is no breach of human rights. I understand why Opposition Members and some in the House of Lords have tried to elevate the matter and make it something that it is not. A practical problem arises from the fact that, in the United Kingdom, there are two different educational systems with different school qualifications and honours degree courses of different lengths. That is what Lord Dearing's committee recommended and Sir Ron Garrick acknowledged. The recommendation was that we should take exactly the steps that we have taken. To try to leap from that to breaches of human rights is ridiculous. On that basis—

Mr. Peter Bottomley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have a genuine dilemma. Advice to Ministers is usually kept confidential. The advice of Law Officers to Ministers that what they are doing does not contradict the European convention is not advice that the House can normally obtain. In the present circumstances, the Government intend to incorporate the European law. Although the Minister said that it would be a purely domestic matter, it is accepted on both sides of the House and by Ministers that European students from outside the UK would be treated differently from many students in this country. [Interruption.] If I may continue my point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is simply seeking to extend the debate. The point that he is raising is entirely a matter for debate.

Mr. Bottomley

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have dealt with that point of order.

Mr. Bottomley

My point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have dealt with that point of order.

Mr. Bottomley

Mr. Deputy Speaker, my point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have dealt with it.

Mr. Wilson

The hon. Gentleman can, as ever, be safely ignored.

We have done exactly what Dearing asked us to do. There is a practical problem, which we have addressed. We are offering an independent review of how we addressed it. We can do no more, we should do no more and, on that basis, I ask the House to support us.

Mr. Hayes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am a relatively new Member of the House. The record will show that the Minister used the words "ignorant" and "dishonest" during his tirade. Could you advise me on whether those words are parliamentary? If not, should he withdraw them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As far as I am aware, neither was applied to individual Members of this House.

I shall now put the Question.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 168.

Division No. 335]	[12.14 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Borrow, David
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Alexander, Douglas	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Allen, Graham	Bradshaw, Ben
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Atkins, Charlotte	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Banks, Tony	Browne, Desmond
Barron, Kevin	Burden, Richard
Battle, John	Byers, Stephen
Bayley, Hugh	Caborn, Richard
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Begg, Miss Anne	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bennett, Andrew F	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Benton, Joe	Cann, Jamie
Bermingham, Gerald	Caplin, Ivor
Best, Harold	Casale, Roger
Blears, Ms Hazel	Caton, Martin

Cawsey, Ian	Hain, Peter
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Chaytor, David	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hanson, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Healey, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clelland, David	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clwyd, Ann	Heppell, John
Coaker, Vernon	Hesford, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Coleman, Iain	Hill, Keith
Colman, Tony	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Connarty, Michael	Hoey, Kate
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)	Home Robertson, John
Cooper, Yvette	Hood, Jimmy
Corbett, Robin	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cousins, Jim	Hope, Phil
Cox, Tom	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cranston, Ross	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Crausby, David	Howells, Dr Kim
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Cummings, John	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)	Humble, Mrs Joan
	Hurst, Alan
Darvill, Keith	Hutton, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Davidson, Ian	Illsley, Eric
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Jamieson, David
Dean, Mrs Janet	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Denham, John	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Dismore, Andrew	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Dobbin, Jim	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Donohoe, Brian H	Jowell, Ms Tessa
Doran, Frank	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dowd, Jim	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Drew, David	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Khabra, Piara S
Edwards, Huw	Kidney, David
Efford, Clive	Kilfoyle, Peter
Ellman, Mrs Louise	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ennis, Jeff	Kingham, Ms Tess
Etherington, Bill	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Fisher, Mark	Laxton, Bob
Flynn, Paul	Lepper, David
Follett, Barbara	Leslie, Christopher
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Levitt, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Foulkes, George	Lock, David
Galbraith, Sam	Love, Andrew
Gapes, Mike	McAvoy, Thomas
Gardiner, Barry	McCabe, Steve
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Gerrard, Neil	McDonagh, Siobhain
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Macdonald, Calum
Godsiff, Roger	McFall, John
Goggins, Paul	McIsaac, Shona
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	McLeish, Henry
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McNulty, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	MacShane, Denis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Grocott, Bruce	McWilliam, John
Grogan, John	Mallaber, Judy
	Mandelson, Peter

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Sawford, Phil
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Sedgemore, Brian
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Sheerman, Barry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Short, Rt Hon Clare
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Singh, Marsha
Martlew, Eric	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Maxton, John	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Merron, Gillian	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Michael, Alun
Milburn, Alan	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Moffatt, Laura	Snape, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Soley, Clive
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Southworth, Ms Helen
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Spellar, John
Morley, Elliot	Squire, Ms Rachel
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Steinberg, Gerry
Mudie, George	Stevenson, George
Mullin, Chris	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Stinchcombe, Paul
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)	Stoate, Dr Howard
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Stott, Roger
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
O'Hara, Eddie	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Olner, Bill	Stringer, Graham
O'Neill, Martin	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Organ, Mrs Diana	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Palmer, Dr Nick
Pearson, Ian	Temple-Morris, Peter
Pendry, Tom	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pickthall, Colin	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pike, Peter L	Tipping, Paddy
Plaskitt, James	Touhig, Don
Pond, Chris	Trickett, Jon
Pope, Greg	Truswell, Paul
Pound, Stephen	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Prosser, Gwyn	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Purchase, Ken	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Quin, Ms Joyce	Vaz, Keith
Quinn, Lawrie	Vis, Dr Rudi
Radice, Giles	Walley, Ms Joan
Rammell, Bill	Ward, Ms Claire
Rapson, Syd	Watts, David
Raynsford, Nick	White, Brian
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)	Wicks, Malcolm
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Rogers, Allan	Wilson, Brian
Rooker, Jeff	Winnick, David
	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Rooney, Terry	Woolas, Phil
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Worthington, Tony
Rowlands, Ted	Wray, James
Ruane, Chris	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Ruddock, Ms Joan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Salter, Martin	Janet Anderson and
Savidge, Malcolm	Mr. Clive Betts.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Blunt, Crispin
Amess, David	Boswell, Tim
Arbuthnot, James	Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Baker, Norman	Brady, Graham
Baldry, Tony	Brake, Tom
Ballard, Jackie	Brand, Dr Peter
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Brazier, Julian
Bercow, John	Breed, Colin
Beresford, Sir Paul	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Browning, Mrs Angela	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Lidington, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Burnett, John	Livsey, Richard
Burstow, Paul	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Butterfill, John	Llwyd, Elfyn
Cable, Dr Vincent	Loughton, Tim
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Chidgey, David	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Chope, Christopher	MacKay, Andrew
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
	McLoughlin, Patrick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Madel, Sir David
Collins, Tim	Malins, Humfrey
Cotter, Brian	Maples, John
Cran, James	Mates, Michael
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
	May, Mrs Theresa
Curry, Rt Hon David	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Moore, Michael
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Day, Stephen	Moss, Malcolm
Duncan, Alan	Nicholls, Patrick
Duncan Smith, Iain	Oaten, Mark
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Öpik, Lembit
Evans, Nigel	Ottaway, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Paice, James
Faber, David	Paterson, Owen
Fallon, Michael	Pickles, Eric
Fearn, Ronnie	Prior, David
Flight, Howard	Randall, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Foster, Don (Bath)	Rendel, David
Garnier, Edward	Robathan, Andrew
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Gibb, Nick	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gill, Christopher	Ruffley, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
	St Aubyn, Nick
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Salmond, Alex
Gorrie, Donald	Sanders, Adrian
Gray, James	Sayeed, Jonathan
Green, Damian	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Greenway, John	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Grieve, Dominic	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Soames, Nicholas
Hammond, Philip	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hancock, Mike	Spicer, Sir Michael
Harris, Dr Evan	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Harvey, Nick	Steen, Anthony
Hawkins, Nick	Streeter, Gary
Hayes, John	Stunell, Andrew
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Swinney, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Syms, Robert
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Hunter, Andrew	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Tredinnick, David
Jenkin, Bernard	Trend, Michael
	Tyler, Paul
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Tyrie, Andrew
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Wallace, James
Keetch, Paul	Walter, Robert
	Wardle, Charles
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)	Waterson, Nigel
Key, Robert	Webb, Steve
King, Rt Hon Tom Bridgwater)	Wells, Bowen
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Welsh, Andrew
Kirkwood, Archy	Whittingdale, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Wilkinson, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Willetts, David
Lansley, Andrew	Willis, Phil
Leigh, Edward	Wilshire, David
Letwin, Oliver	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)	Tellers for the Noes:
Woodward, Shaun
Yeo, Tim	Mr. John M. Taylor and
Young, Rt Hon Sir George	Mr. Edward Davey.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That this House disagrees to the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill in page 22, lines 31 to 39.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill in page 22, lines 31 to 39: Mr. Damian Green, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Tony McNulty, Mr. Phil Willis and Mr. Brian Wilson; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.