LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 25 July 1988)

HL Deb 25 July 1988 vol 500 cc31-42 31

§ 19 Page 114, line 27, leave out ("payments") and insert (''grants'').

§ 20 Clause 117, page 115, line 25, after ("any") insert ("grants or other'').

§ 21 Page 115, line 32, after third ("the") insert ("grants or other").

§ 22 Page 115, line 33, leave out ("payments made by").

§ 23 Page 115, line 39, at end insert ("grants or other").

§ 24 Clause 189, page 167, line 29, leave out ("payments") and insert ("grants").

§ 4.15 p.m.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am sorry to say that what I shall now deal with is just a little complicated. The amendments that were proposed to the Commons amendments came rather late. We have as a result of these late amendments proposed in effect a rewording of them. This has come in the shape of a manuscript amendment. When I say "manuscript" your Lordships will be glad to know that it is not my manuscript but in a much more readable form. There are copies around the Chamber. I hope that most of your Lordships have them. However, I propose to read the amendment through once, fairly slowly. The rules may require me to read it twice, but unless your Lordships feel that it should be repeated, after I have read it perhaps noble Lords will allow me to leave it at that..
I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons had disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the words so restored to the Bill and in their consequential Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 to the Bill..
Perhaps I could pause there. The effect of that is to substitute in the original wording of the Bill, the word "grant" instead of "payment". Your Lordships may remember that that was a matter of some question. The other consequence is that the phrase "terms and conditions" is restored so that the Bill will read very much as it did before except that "grant" will replace "payment". that will happen not only in relation to the Universities Funding Council but also to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, because it is right that there should be symmetry in these arrangements. So far the position is relatively simple..
The noble Lord,Lord Swann, and others, have put down various amendments to that system proposing consultation with someone before the terms and conditions are settled. I now refer to the part which is the manuscript amendment and which deals with that; and propose the following manuscript amendment to the Bill in lieu of Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed. Clause 115, page 115, line 34, at end insert— (3A) Before exercising their discretion under section 115(6) or (as the case may be) section 116(7)(a) of this Act with respect to the terms and conditions to be imposed in relation to any grants each of the Funding Councils shall consult such of the following bodies as it appears to the Council to be appropriate to consult in the circumstances, that is to say—

(a) such bodies representing the interests of relevant institutions as appear to the Council to be concerned: and

(b) the governing body of any particular relevant institution which appears to the Council to be concerned.
32 (3B) References in subsection(3A) above to relevant institutions are references—

(a) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Universities Funding Council, to unversities: and

(b) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Polytehnics and Colleges Funding Council, to institutions within the PCFC funding sector.")"
That is the amendment proposed. It would be fair to describe it as I did earlier in the first part and to say that it adds in some detail appropriate machinery for consultation before the terms and conditions, if any, to be imposed are decided upon where the Universities Funding Council or the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council are considering exercising their discretion to make grants subject to terms and conditions.
I do not wish to go over the whole of this matter. I hope that these amendments will not be entirely unacceptable to your Lordships. However, there are some background matters that it may be worth putting on record here in connection with these proposals. I believe, as I have said, that your Lordships accepted at Report the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, relating to the powers of the Unversities Funding Council to which I have referred. This was itself amended in the other place on 19th July.
The focus of the debate has, I believe, changed. It now seems to be generally accepted that, as the Croham Report said, the mechanisms of conditionality and earmarking available to the University Grant Committee will he required in order to manage public resources effectively". But, in case there is any lingering doubt, I should restate the arguments briefly.
By way of introduction to them, I should remind the House of two points: the first is that the Bill's provisions on university funding follow the recommendations of the Croham Committee very closely. For the first time, the public funding of universities to the tune of some £1.5on annually will have a proper statutory base. I believe that that is correct. The aim generally has been to carry forward the present non-statutory arrangements into a statutory context. This was never an attack on universities, to which the Government continue to look for a vital contribution to our national life. I personally owe far too much to universities to be any part of an attack on their contribution to our national life. Quite the reverse; the provisions in the Bill in fact represent a rather more constrained set of powers than is available at present.
Legislation affecting universities is rare, so their apprehensions on seeing the funding framework set out in black and white for the first time were not, I suppose, altogether surprising. My second point is therefore to remind the House of the Government's efforts—both in this House and the other place—to reassure the universities and clarify the Bill's provisions. We have sought to do that with the help of your Lordships as the Bill developed in this House.
There remained, though, continuing concerns about "contract funding" which led the House to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, that the Universities Funding Council's power to make payments to universities subject to 33 such terms and conditions as the council thought fit should be reduced to a power to make: grants. specifying such particular obligations and subject to such general guidance as they think fit". The other place, with its particular responsibility for Vote expenditure, has made it overwhelmingly clear that this amendment will not provide a sound basis for the annual disbursement of very large sums of' taxpayers' money. While it is ready to accept the use of the word "grants" instead of "payments", it seeks the reinstatement of "terms and conditions". Let me explain briefly why these words are necessary.
First, they provide for proper accountability. The other place, which votes the funds, must be able to be satisfied that they are used for the purposes intended and in accordance with financial proprieties. That must be right. The chief officers of the funding councils will be accountable for that to the Public Accounts Committee. They cannot simply hope that all is well. Appropriate financial memoranda need to be in force as binding conditions of institutions' funding.
The councils must also be able to continue the present practice of earmarking funds—for example, for the engineering and technology initiative and the programme of rationalisation reviews initiated by the UGC. These need the precise and ultimately binding targeting of funds if they are to be satisfactorily achieved. Indeed, without the certainty provided by "terms and conditions", would the Government be ready to provide additional funds for these good purposes?
Finally, the councils must be able to attach broader terms and conditions. The present funding bodies already do this on student number planning targets and the developing emphasis on academic and financial plans as a basis for coherent funding. I believe personally that the academic plan plays a very important part in the development of the organisations in universities.
As to the particular issue of contract funding, I believe that the Government have given satisfactory assurances. As the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, reminded us on 16th May, the Croham Committee was the first to use the word "contract". Admittedly it put quotation marks around the word to show it was not talking about contracts in the strict sense. I am not sure that I understand exactly what that meant, but it shows that with the quotation marks round it there was a certain doubt about the matter. The Government do not wish to insist on very detailed contract provisions, such as those with which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, entertained us by reciting at Second Reading and on occasion thereafter.
To put the position beyond doubt, let me repeat my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's unequivocal reassurances in the other place last week when these amendments were being considered. He made it clear that the new funding arrangements must not be excessively bureaucratic. That is the essential matter that concerned the noble Lord, Lord Swann. I sought to reassure him without success but the Secretary of State has done it now in these clear words and I hope that this time he will be persuaded.
34 Secondly, the new funding arrangements must respect the distinctive characteristics of higher education. Thirdly, they must not jeopardise the pursuit of research or scholarship and they must not deprive institutions of the flexibility they need to seize new opportunities.
So, in response to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian and others at the Committee and Report stages, all that "contracting" means is a clearer articulation of features already existing in the present arrangements, which is another way of saying what I said when this matter was debated on Report. As an example of this, my right honourable friend cited the UGC's practice over the past two years of agreeing academic plans with universities as a basis for funding. The universities have not resented this, and in many cases have welcomed the clarity provided as a way to organise their affairs.
Turning now to the substance of the amendments before us today, the Secretary of State provided a further reassurance in the other place on 19th July about the funding councils powers. He said that, as a matter of course, the way in which the funding councils will interpret "terms and conditions" will be developed through consultation.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and other noble Lords seek to reflect the Secretary of State's commitment on the face of the Bill. In all the circumstances, and to secure agreement, the Government are ready to accept such a move. But I should make clear that such consultation would in any case be bound to happen. Any reasonable council will consult appropriately anyway. Indeed, consultation would seem to be a central feature of any "contract" system, for most contracts require some form of agreement. However, I am sure that the noble Lords who have proposed the amendment will not be offended if I say that we believe that our amendments are just a little better drafted. We have had the benefit of parliamentary counsel's help in the matter. I am not in any way criticising the drafting of those other amendments when I say that ours are perhaps more technically accurate. The manuscript amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hooper seeks to overcome these slight drafting difficulties and to ensure the clarity which Parliament must provide.
It seems clear that we should impose identical requirements on the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. There is no justification for treating them differently. This points to the provision appearing in Clause 117 which deals with supplementary matters affecting both councils.
There is also the question of whom to consult. It seems clear that the answer will not be the same in all circumstances. In relation to terms and conditions attached to funds allocated to a particular institution, consultation would, of course, he with that institution. Where more general conditions are intended to affect all institutions, more general consultation might be appropriate. For example, as I have indicated, the funding councils will want to ensure that institutions are properly able to manage and account for the use of the funds provided; a 35 general condition—for example, one of accountability—affecting all institutions might be appropriate. I imagine that they will want to draw up a standard financial memorandum but also to consult all institutions on it to see whether any particular local circumstances also need to be taken into account.
But there may be cases where consultation is best taken forward with representative bodies such as, in the case of the universities, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I am thinking in particular of discussions about how new funding arrangements will develop. The Government's amendment provides for the funding councils to make these kinds of' decision as appropriate in relation to the particular conditions in question.
In sum Clauses 115 and 116 confer on each council a necessary power to attach terms and conditions. Clause 117 already qualifies that power to ensure that such conditions may not relate to income received from sources other than the councils. That is in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. The proposal now is that there must also be prior consultation with the appropriate body.
Against the background of what now seems to be general agreement of the principle involved, I commend to your Lordships the Motion which I have read out in the name of my noble friend Lady Hooper.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the words so restored to the Bill and in their consequential Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 to the Bill, and agree to the manuscript amendment (No. 17ZA) to the Bill in lieu of Amendment No. 16 with which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ 4.30 p.m.

§ Lord Swann
My Lords, as it is my amendment which is being amended for the second time, if not possibly the third, I should like to say straight away that I warmly welcome the Government's amendment. It does exactly what we wanted and it is phrased much more elegantly than was ours. Not only do I welcome the amendment but, so I discover, do my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Halsbury (who added their names to it) and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, who regretfully must be in the Middle East..
I must confess to a few twinges of disappointment, having spent the weekend thinking up powerful arguments and sharp criticisms which must now be muted. However, I should like to make a few comments in order to point out why we caused so much trouble at various stages of the Bill, particularly at this eleventh hour, why we believe that this is such an important matter and why we so warmly welcome the Government's amendment..
Before doing so I should like to clarify one matter. I was told that it was thought by some people that we were put up to this by the Committee of University 36 Vice-Chancellors and Principals. That is by no means the case. We acted entirely independently..
What is all this about? We have heard a great deal about contracts, with and without inverted commas round them. It began with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, who had inverted commas round his contracts. When it came to the government White Paper it did not have inverted commas round the contracts; when a consultative document was produced it did not have inverted commas either but it contained a massive amount of what I can only describe as suffocating bureaucracy. It is that consultative document which has caused all the trouble..
I shall not go over the various amendments and what has been done to them because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done so much more clearly than I could. However, I should like to describe briefly how the present amendment, borne of our amendment, has come about..
The noble and learned Lord quoted what the Secretary of State said in another place; his unequivocal assurances which have been widely welcomed and his promise that there should be consultation. I believe that he actually called it "meaningful discussions". He is to be congratulated on those promises; they have gone down very well. But—and we believe that it is a serious "but"—Secretaries of State do not last forever; far from it. Their words are not binding on their successors. Therefore, while higher education can feel more confident about the immediate future, there can be no certainty whatever about what will happen as the years go by. Ministers, governments and financial crises will no doubt come and go. Bureaucracy has an alarming tendency of escalating without anyone realising what is going on except its victims..
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, saying at an earlier stage of the Bill that he believed that it has grown exponentially in recent years. From what I have observed I should hazard a guess that, where universities and research are concerned, it has indeed been growing exponentially, doubling every three years. Exponential growth has a habit of becoming faster; six years makes it fourfold and nine years (the length of time that this Government have been in office) makes it eightfold. I do not necessarily stick to those precise figures, but it is true that bureaucracy has a habit of growing without people noticing. I shall not again regale your Lordships with some of the examples that I gave during the earlier stages of the Bill..
Once the Bill becomes an Act it will last not only for Mr. Baker's time as Secretary of State. However, whether it will acquire the classic status of the great Education Act 1944 remains to be seen. Whether or not it lasts for 44 years, we believe that there needs to be written into it such protections as we can give against funding, which could all too easily become less and less liberal and more and more bureaucratic..
Our universities and other institutions of higher education are highly esteemed. Indeed, some are among the best in the world. It would be disastrous if undue constraints were ever to be laid on their freedom of thought and action. Putting into the Bill 37 the necessity for consultations on the manner of their funding will, we believe, provide a lasting statutory weapon in case of need. It will go a long way towards dispelling some of the short-term, and still more the long-term, apprehensions which have so troubled the academic world. The positive right to argue one's own case -is, after all, well worth having..
Finally, I hope that the consultations will at last start in a new atmosphere of mutual good will. I suggest that they start with the Croham Report and quietly forget the consultative document.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, I have only a couple of remarks to make in joining with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, to thank the Lord Chancellor for having improved on our original amendment. I am delighted, as is he and as I believe the universities will be, that this important point has been taken..
The first point that I should like to make is that, perhaps along with many other noble Lords, I read with some surprise in The Times on Friday last that government sources had said that it was bad form to be bringing forward at this stage another amendment, as had the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I. I believe that if that language was used, it was extremely inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, has said, we are dealing not with some passing phase in legislation but with the remodelling for perhaps a generation or longer of the relations between our government and higher education, science and learning in this country. I believe that it was nothing less than the duty of this House to use every constitutional opportunity open to it to make certain that what we ultimately had could be found acceptable not only to us but to the university community at large.
I found the remark even more surprising in the light of the speech made on Tuesday, 19th July, in another place by the Secretary of State, referred to by the noble and learned Lord. It went very far towards meeting many of the anxieties expressed in this House over the course of the discussions of the university provisions in the Bill. Therefore, it seemed odd to me that it should be thought curious or bad form to suggest that one of the assurances could reasonably be incorporated in the Bill..
The reason why we wish to have it incorporated has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swann. One of the difficulties of debating or discussing higher education with Ministers is that dons and politicians are very different kinds of animal. On the whole, dons specialise in a particular subject and a particular area of that subject. Whatever may be thought by the Under-Secretary for Higher Education in another place, it is not easy to regard a professor of sanskrit and a professor of "tribology" as interchangeable units of production. But Ministers are different. They are movable; they have ambitions; they expect to move, to Downing Street or Brussels as the case may be. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said it seems essential that anything which is intended to last for a long period of time should be on the face of the Bill..
38 It is not only Secretaries of State who will change. The members of the original funding councils will not he immortal. They will have their successors, and it seems improbable that their successors would immediately remember that the Secretary of State had made a speech on 18th July 1988 (which may be 20 or 30 years in arrears) and hasten to look it up in order to know how to exercise their responsibilities..
Therefore, we have wished to see on the face of the Bill what we accept to be the goodwill of the Government towards higher education, which has been expressed today by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think we are now all happy to say—as has been commented on in other quarters—that on universities at least the Government have advanced a very considerable way from the Bill as it originally came before your Lordships' House. There have been considerable advances in understanding—as has been the point of all the amendments on the university clauses which we have discussed— that there can be no healthy relationship unless it is based on confidence, on mutual understanding and on consultation. This afternoon we are putting in the last brick in the edifice, that of consultation..
Once again I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord for his contribution to that end.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, as one of the sponsors of the original amendments, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for all the hard work undertaken last week-end in producing a situation which somewhat confutes the leading article in this morning's Times. I am not concerned with the article that appeared on Friday or Saturday. I am in entire ageement with the amendment as proposed by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, and I give it my full support.

§ Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
My Lords, I concur in what the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said earlier except for one point: I do not think that he should apologise for having caused trouble on this matter. Any trouble that he has caused has been very well worth while. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he pointed out that words in speeches are not as good as language in statutes. We are therefore grateful that there is some statutory language before us on this important point..
Nonetheless, I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the forthright way in which he spoke this afternoon about his commitment to universities. I thought he struck a more constructive and helpful note than he has done at certain earlier stages in the Bill. I am sure that that represents his real view. We note it and are very grateful indeed for it..
I hope that I am not being unduly churlish in saying that I still incline to the view that his Bill will do little, if any, good for our universities, but it will do a great deal less harm than when it started, and that progress is largely due to the work which has been done in this House.

§ 4.45 p.m.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, I wonder if somebody who is not quite such a pundit can append a word or two about this matter. I have been caused a good deal of distress by this longstanding controversy. I have been connected in one way or another with higher education both in the universities and in the polytechnics for the greater part of my life..
I think the real lesson to be learnt is that there are limits to what can be achieved by parliamentary draftsmanship. The one secret whereby higher education in its diverse forms can be made to run smoothly in this country is that government—by which I mean any government—and universities and polytechnics—by which I mean all of them—should work both in harmony and in mutual trust with one another. Without that, no degree of parliamentary draftsmanship is possible..
As my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack probably knows, although I have played no public part in this controversy I have taken an interest in it from the start. One of the pieces of advice that I ventured to give was that the noble and learned Lord should be brought into the question, as he has been to great effect. I should like to congratulate him on what he has done.

§ Lord Flowers
My Lords, it may not seem entirely inappropriate if an active, living, vice-chancellor says a few words before the House moves on..
First, I must say that I am grateful to Mr. Kenneth Baker and to his ministerial colleagues, and especially to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for going so far to meet the genuine anxieties of the universities about the financial implications, especially, of this Bill..
The present chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Sir Mark Richmond, is known to be broadly satisfied with the position now reached. We are all deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have given their support to higher education during the various stages of this mammoth piece of legislation..
Of course I accept the Commons decision that the funds provided to universities through the Universities Funding Council shall be in the form of grants subject to terms and conditions. That was clearly spelled out in the Croham Report, which the universities have welcomed. Moreover, I am perfectly happy to accept Mr. Baker's unequivocal assurances solemnly given in another place last week that the terms and conditions would themselves be subject to terms and conditions, which he was careful to spell out and which are also perfectly satisfactory to me..
My concern, which I share with the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Beloff, is that Mr. Baker will not be Secretary of State forever and other Ministers may put different interpretations on the Bill if it is not amended. Indeed, other Ministers within Mr. Baker's department already appear to offer different interpretations, so if this Bill is to last for 50 years, as we have so often been promised, it needs to be interpreted correctly no matter who is Secretary of State..
40 Mr. Baker spoke impressively of the common ground between the universities and the Government. He said that the Government would not proceed further without having meaningful discussions—that was his phrase—with the leaders of higher education. I was greatly comforted by that assurance. Neverthless, I feel bound to point out for the benefit of the generally cynical Civil Service that meaningful discussions imply more than the mere consultation with which we are so frequently fobbed off. Meaningful discussions mean no less than that the leaders of higher education shall be represented at the conference table. Almost the first business to be discussed around the table should be the financial memoranda which will in future govern the financial arrangements between the Government, the funding councils and the institutions of higher education. That is where the terms and conditions will have to be thrashed out. That is why it is important that we be represented..
The manuscript amendment to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken achieves what we seek. All that remains for me therefore is to thank the Government for listening to us. I shall support the amendment.

§ Lord Croham
My Lords, as the name of my committee has been referred to once or twice, perhaps I may say a few words..
The procedure described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that will now follow in the handling of grants as the result of the amendments passed by Parliament is very much in line with what my committee envisaged would happen. We deliberately did not spell out every detail. We believe that procedures will need to be worked out by what we call the University Grants Council, which is now to be called the Universities Funding Council. Little has been said this afternoon about the importance of the new constitutional position and the new constitution of that council in the working out of future arrangements for the universities. The council will be much more independent and have much more standing because it will not be so readily accused of being merely a spokesman for a vested interest..
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out something that seemed to get lost in much of the discussion—namely, that the Government are reducing their powers in the Bill, not increasing them. Everything that noble Lords have feared the bureaucrats might do could be done very readily under present arrangements and will be done much less readily under future arrangements. Therefore, I think that we have now reached a point at which the universities can be much more assured of their future than they might have been before. They will not receive large sums of money without any conditions; of course there will be occasions when earmarking is appropriate. Indeed, if one goes round the universities, one will find that many faculties are very keen on earmarking to preserve the funds that they believe are their own due. That said, I think that we can be reasonably satisfied that the fears that were created last year by that very foolish, half-baked consultative document about contracts have now been subdued.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, it would be dishonest of me if I did not say that I believe that the original amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and others and carried by your Lordships was better than this. I believe it to have been better than this. I am happy that mine is not the first discordant remark made. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made a remark earlier, with which I entirely agree, that at best the parts of the Bill dealing with universities do less damage than they earlier did. However, that is about the best that we can say. That is why I felt I must start by speaking as I have..
As to the substantive issue before us, it is a matter of balance between providing general funding according to broad criteria and providing specific funding when—to use the exact phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Croham—earmarking is appropriate. I certainly believe that there will be occasions when earmarking is appropriate. if the Government wanted an economics department to concentrate specifically on the economics of Europe post-1992, it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that funding might be found for such a department. The point at issue all along has been: how frequently is "occasionally"? Our worry is that we just do not know how frequently occasionally is. We shall have to hope that occasionally will not be frequently in terms of earmarking..
Those are my churlish remarks. However, I believe that the amendment is an improvement. I am particularly glad—I had intended to ask the question—to be assured that the CVCP—the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals--and the committee of polytechnic directors are among the bodies that would be consulted, I hope as a matter of course, on matters of general principle to do with funding..
I have one last remark. Unlike other noble Lords, I am not worried about the Secretary of State: I have no worries about the specific Secretary of State not continuing to be such, because I am one of those who would hope that neither he nor any of his friends in the other place will continue in office for very long, but that is a personal prejudice on my part. My worry on bureaucracy and interference has nothing to do with the Secretary of State; with the funding council. In my life as an academic, I think that the UGC has already gone too far in poking its nose into the details of what happens in universities. There is too much of that kind of thing. There are too many committees to which one has to go, and there are too many plans with which one has to be involved. My worry all along has been not about the Secretary of State but about the behaviour of the funding council..
I do not want to end on an entirely discordant note. I hope that the interpretation that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor puts on the amendment—that the funding council will not act without consultation and will not interfere in matters where it knows nothing but where I would claim boastfully that some of us who are practising academics do know something—is correct. With other noble Lords, I think that what is proposed is better than my worst fears, and for that I thank the noble and learned Lord.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of what we propose. For my part, my view is that nothing but good could have come out of the Bill as it was, and all that we have done is to make even more plain the excellence of our intentions..
I am slightly sorry that the Civil Service was referred to as generally cynical. I think that I may be permitted to say that, while no doubt there are some cynics in the Civil Service, the proportion of cynics there is perhaps no larger than among living, working vice-chancellors..
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. In particular, I am very grateful for the kind remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. As your Lordships will appreciate, the kind of remark that he makes is one that is specially precious to me in my present circumstances..
On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the words so restored to the Bill and in their consequential Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 to the Bill and agree to the manuscript amendment to the Bill in lieu of Amendment No. 16, Motion agreed to.