Lords Sitting of 16 December 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Work-related Training Schemes
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the number of workers on work-related government training schemes has been allowed to decline since September 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, experience has shown that other measures such as jobclubs and the job interview guarantee have for some unemployed people been even more effective than training in helping them to get jobs. That is why we have refocused our provision in favour of these measures over recent years. At the same time demographic changes and a welcome increase in school staying-on rates in full-time education account for a reduction in the numbers in youth training.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he telling us that he is satisfied with the situation, in that after rising for three years, there is now a tailspin reduction in the number of workers on government-related training schemes, so that in fact the number has been reduced by 20 per cent. in two years? Can he say whether the Government are satisfied with the situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the prime responsibility for training rests with the employers, who are actually spending over £20 billion per year on training. Recent CBI evidence suggests that overall employers are going to spend more on training next year than they have done this year. Between 1984 and 1990 the number of employees receiving job-related training in a given month has risen by 85 per cent.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great many of these schemes have a very poor reputation among young people as they are not perceived as providing genuine training? Does he agree that the Government should be doing something about that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. She mentioned in particular youth training. Sixty-six per cent. of all those completing their training gain a qualification. That is a great credit to the scheme. I know that those who have been interviewed suggest that the scheme was useful or very useful.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the Minister accept the principle that at a time of high and rising unemployment the Government should give a high priority to work-related training schemes in order to preserve the skills base of this country?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the basis of that question. As I said in my original Answer, we do not believe that training is always the most effective way of helping people to get a job. The Government have introduced a wide range of measures to help about 840,000 people this year and up to a million next year. For example, the employment action scheme which has just been introduced is specifically designed to help people with current skills to keep them up to date so that, with the welcome upturn in the economy which is about to arrive, those people will go straight back into work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, has the noble Viscount taken into consideration some of the recommendations of the CBI which point out that the vast increase in the number of industrial bankruptcies means a massive reduction both in the number of apprenticeships and in other forms of work? In other words, does he agree that as more industries become bankrupt unemployment is affected and it increases?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in this Question we are dealing with training. I was able to quote the recent CBI evidence which suggests that more firms are undertaking more training.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend understand the charge made, I believe, by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that these schemes do not provide genuine training? If he understands it, can he say whether there is any answer to the point?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am distressed by any idea that training given either to the unemployed or to young people is not considered to be genuine. Most of it is work-related and is in place with employers. It is seen, especially for youth training, as a direct route into employment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that when the Government introduced these measures they called them "work related schemes" because they were related to the volume of work? Does he further agree that the volume of work has now fallen? Most people would expect that, as the volume falls, the schemes would expand, but they have contracted. Therefore, can the Minister tell us how far the Government expect the schemes to contract still further as the level of unemployment rises still further?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord considers that training is the answer to everything. The Government are concerned to get back into work those who have been unfortunate enough to become unemployed. We consider that there are many opportunities other than training for securing that end. About 414,000 people in all left unemployment in October, which is more than in any month in the past three years. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that that is not related to the effectiveness of the Government's varied range of help for the unemployed.

Air Fares: UK/Scandinavia
2.43 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will initiate discussions with those concerned to reduce the cost of air travel between the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian and Nordic countries.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the European Commission's final aviation package will introduce a liberal fares regime and further open competition on Community routes involving Denmark from 1993. The other countries could also implement this package in 1993, under the recently agreed EEA accord. A separate EC arrangement with Norway and Sweden might be introduced in 1992. We maintain bilateral contacts with the aim of liberalising air services arrangements generally.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that partially satisfactory but generally rather depressing Answer. Is my noble friend aware that for many centuries we have had strong links with Scandinavia and the Nordic countries? Following the Maastricht summit does my noble friend agree that trade with countries such as Finland, Iceland and Sweden, which may well join the Community, is all important? While accepting that governments cannot unilaterally control matters, will the Government pursue talks with their counterparts with much more vigour in order to get something going about this nonsense of being able to fly to Sydney much cheaper, pro rata, than to Helsinki or Stockholm?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am disappointed that my noble friend should have found the Answer depressing in any way. No government in Europe have tried harder than this one to liberalise air travel and to make it more competitive between countries. We appreciate that trade with the Scandinavian countries is important but, as I said in my original Answer, should the EEA agreement go ahead then those countries will be fully involved with the third stage of European liberalisation. If for any reason that does not go ahead we would be willing, and wish, to engage in bilateral discussions with them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must confess that I am not a great expert on air travel. I am glad to note that everybody agrees! Bearing that in mind, can the Minister say why it is that mile for mile the fares on the Atlantic routes are many times lower than those on the European routes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the whole it is because there is more competition on the Atlantic routes. That is what we are trying to get in Europe.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend think that the manifest desire of the EFTA group to get closer to the Common Market may provide him and
1014
his colleagues with an opportunity to press this matter and relieve the excessive burdens on the number of people who wish to travel regularly to Scandinavia?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. My noble friend is quite right. If the EEA agreement comes into force that will automatically mean that those countries have to abide by the European Community's liberal aviation policies.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I press the Minister to give an answer which he declined to give when a similar issue was raised on 5th December? In the light of the fact that the European Commission had condemned a large number of fares as being excessive—including those relating to British Airways—I asked him whether he agreed with the view of the chairman of British Airways that the market place should be allowed to set its own prices, or whether he agreed that the Commission was right to concentrate on what are, by any standards, excessive fares operating in Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I answered that question recently. It was our own Civil Aviation Authority that had referred these particular fares to the Commission. We were signatories to that agreement and obviously we appreciate Commission competence in this area.

London Transport Escalators
2.48 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the absence due to travelling difficulties of my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, at her request I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect London Transport to have all its Underground escalators in full running service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it would be unrealistic to expect all of London Underground's escalators to be in full service all of the time. The need to carry out essential scheduled maintenance means that a small percentage must be unavailable to passengers for that reason. But London Underground has made very good progress in improving escalator reliability since 1989 when the Government set them an escalator availability target of 86 per cent. to be reached by April 1992. London Underground Limited has in fact already exceeded this target with 88 per cent. availability. New targets are to be set next year.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before asking the Minister two questions I should like him to know how grateful I was to receive a letter from the managing director of London Underground clarifying some of the points which I raised in a supplementary question on 16th May. I believe the Minister also received a copy of that letter.
Has the Minister seen a commentary on escalator performance over the 12 months period ending October 1991, including the performance statistics for period 7? With permission, I shall read this short commentary:

1015
"Escalator availability decreased slightly this period due to an increase in the time spent on defective escalators which outweighed the decrease in maintenance time".
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I was asking the Minister whether he had seen a quotation and therefore it was necessary for me to tell him what the quotation was about.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is not up to me to say "Order" but I believe that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip should do so. Has not this work on defective escalators and also the escalator programme been affected by the restructuring of London Transport's investment programme during the past year, about which the London Regional Passengers Committee has expressed some concern? Is the noble Lord aware that, in order to avoid this diversion of investment, the Labour Party has made a commitment to ring-fence moneys devoted to the escalator programme? Have the Government any intention of doing likewise?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks regarding the letter from London Underground which he received in response to a Question in the House on 16th May. Noble Lords will no doubt be encouraged to know—this partly answers the noble Lord's question—that since that Question was asked in May escalator availability has again gone up, to 88 per cent. Credit should be given to London Underground where credit is due.
The noble Lord referred to ring-fencing moneys to be spent on escalator repairs or renewals. I do not think we have plans to do that. I know that the extra money available as a result of the latest grant settlement means that London Underground is likely to be able to spend an extra £10 million on escalator refurbishment in 1992–93. As I said in my original Answer, we have set a target for escalator availability to which we expect London Underground to keep, and we shall be setting a new one in April.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nevertheless is the noble Lord aware that posters are going up in London Underground saying that three escalators are to be taken out of action at Victoria in January 1992 and will be out of action for nine months? Passengers are advised to avoid using Victoria Underground station. Does the noble Lord agree that that does not seem to be a proper use of resources?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual stations—
Noble Lords: Why not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Because there are a great many of them and because I do not happen to run London Underground. I shall certainly look into the point. Obviously, if they are being taken out for that long it means that a major job needs to be done on them. I should have thought that the House would welcome such major investment.

Pension Funds: Trustees' Responsibilities
2.53 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to safeguard the assets of members of pension funds, and to make trustees more aware of their responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, safeguards already exist in trust law to protect the interests of members of occupational pension schemes. Trustees have a duty to act at all times in the interests of all the beneficiaries of the scheme in accordance with the trust deed.
In addition, the Government will bring forward, early next year, regulations to restrict to 5 per cent. the level of self-investment. Action is also in hand to produce a booklet for pension fund trustees, setting out their role and legal responsibilities.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for his assurance that the self-investment procedures will be covered in new regulations. I thank him also for the background paper in the Library, which I commend to your Lordships, on the Maxwell case and pension fund management. Have not the auditors a responsibility for seeing not only that the fund is prudently managed but also that there is a reasonable balance between the trustees representing employees—that is, pensioners—and management? Can he say too, since there is an ombudsman, how many people know of the ombudsman? Is it not time that publicity was given, first, to the responsibilities of trustees and their accountability and, secondly, to the rights of pensioners?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should certainly be prepared to look at the question of whether further publicity should be given to the role of the ombudsman. His appointment is still fairly new. He took up office earlier this year, so it is still early days in terms of whether people know about his role, his duties and responsibilities. The noble Lord asked whether the auditor should look to see whether there should be a reasonable balance of employees and pensioners appointed as trustees. The question of trustees is a matter for those originally setting up the trusts. We certainly would consider it good practice that there should be a reasonable number of pensioners and employees appointed as trustees. We do not believe that it would be a suitable matter for legislation but something that should develop as a matter of good industrial relations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a number of these pension funds are under the effective control of limited liability companies? Does the noble Lord agree that it would have been much better if the Government had followed the proposals put forward by noble Lords on this side of the House during the passage of the Financial Services Bill to secure the effective

1017
introduction of audit committees on all boards of directors and a far greater degree of legislation to prevent the misuse of funds of this kind?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the main trusts are very well run indeed in the interests of the members and of the beneficiaries of the trust. We do not believe that it would be right to come forward with rather hurried legislation at this stage to deal with what might be perceived to be problems if, in trying to deal with those perceived problems, we created newer and worse problems.
Lord Jay: My Lords, would it not also have been better if the Government had not been using public money to bribe people to leave the absolutely secure state pension scheme and move over into private schemes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally resist allegations of bribery. The entitlement of people who have moved out of SERPS into contracted out pension schemes will be protected by the guaranteed minimum pension.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why he believes that it is not a matter for legislation that there should be representatives of contributors and pensioners on boards of trustees? I should have thought that that was just such a matter for legislation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, this matter was considered by the Occupational Pensions Board in its report in 1989. It felt—and we agreed—that it was not a matter for primary legislation and would far better develop naturally as part of good industrial relations.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Occupational Pensions Board to which he referred made recommendations about self-investment two years ago? Is it not shutting the door after the horse has bolted to introduce them now, even though they are very welcome? Is he not further aware that the Occupational Pensions Board recommended that there should be independent trustees as well as employee trustees? Quite recently the TUC has also recommended that there should be an independent chairman of trustees to ensure that there is no misuse of the funds.
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness, who is a well respected member of the Occupational Pensions Board, is right that the board made those recommendations some two years ago. We then brought forward legislation—the Social Security Act 1990—to give us the power to make restrictions on self-investment. We then commissioned a report by Ernst and Young into the level of self-investment. We then made various recommendations which we put to the Occupational Pensions Board, which reported to us in July. We are now coming forward with proposals for regulations in January. However, I do not think it would be right to rush into an attempt to deal with the perceived problems of self-investment if in the process one, for example, bankrupted individual companies or
1018
individual pension funds. That would not be in the interests of either those companies or of the current or future pensioners.
As regards the question of independent trustees, my advice is that the Occupational Pensions Board considered it but judged it to be impractical in view of the number of occupational pensioners and of having to find a very large number—some 160,000—of independent trustees to take on that role.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not suggesting that the Government should rush into anything. However, in the light of recent events, surely they are concerned and will take steps to set up some form of inquiry and take some sort of advice—albeit formal—to safeguard these pension funds. Surely that is a reasonable suggestion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct; there are matters for concern. In the main we believe that most pension funds are very well run hut, in the light of recent publicity, it is possible that there have been abuses in some cases. We shall consider any representations made to us and, if necessary, come forward with proposals for reform.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister consider issuing to all trustees of major pension funds copies of the guidelines or the code which indicate their responsibilities and accountability? Further, does he accept that trustees are not appointed with sufficient care and attention, as they should be considering the very large sums of money which they handle and which affect markets as well as pensions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we intend to produce a booklet as guidance for those trustees. The booklet will be published in January and will be made available to all trustees.

Business
3.1 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment eight social security orders will be taken.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the taxation of chargeable gains. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to radioactive substances with corrections and minor improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 18th December
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to both this Motion and the other Motion standing in my name.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that, following the summit at Maastricht last week, it was only right that we should hold a debate in this House as soon as possible. After discussions through the usual channels, it was agreed that Wednesday of this week would be most convenient. However, as your Lordships will be aware, this Wednesday was the day in December which had been set aside under the Rules of the House for balloted short debates.
The first Motion tabled in my name is therefore necessary to move these debates to the first available day, which is Monday 20th January. I should tell your Lordships that this has been done with the full agreement of the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Jenkins of Putney. I am most grateful to both noble Lords for agreeing so readily to move their debates.
The second Motion tabled in my name applies five-hour debate rules to the Maastricht debate. Again, it was decided to do this after full discussions through the usual channels. As the two short debates on that day would have taken five hours, and as we have some business after that, it seemed right to avoid upsetting the timetable of the day as much as possible, especially in the light of the fact that we had a debate on Maastricht very recently. I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Motion allows for movers of amendments to the Motion to be allotted the same time as the mover of the Motion. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is fair.
Moved, That Rule 1 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates be dispensed with for the purpose of moving the short debates set down in the names of the Lord Molloy and the Lord Jenkins of Putney from Wednesday 18th December to Monday 20th January.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that this Motion has been agreed through the usual channels, perhaps noble Lords will consider that the Developments since last Thursday are such that the House ought to have a rather longer debate
1020
on this most important topic, especially in view of the fact that the other place will be having two Sittings on it. I urge the noble Lord and the usual channels to reconsider the five-hour limitation which has been placed upon the debate. In view of the number of speakers in prospect, that limitation will allow only extremely small individual contributions to be made by many who are particularly expert or interested in the field.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to raise one further point. It is in relation to the debate being held on Wednesday at the same time as the debate in the other place. I should have thought that it would have been far better for this House to have had a debate following the Christmas Recess, after mature consideration of all the implications of the Maastricht summit. Even at this late stage, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will give some thought to that possibility.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I have a secondary point to make; namely, that when this House has debates that are limited in time to two-and-a-half hours and five hours it is quite important that the Digital Clocks on both sides of the Chamber should work properly. Last week, the noble Lord the Chief Whip said that the matter was in hand and that he hoped the Clocks would be working very soon. However, they have not been working for nearly a week. In this technological age, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether any progress has been made in the matter?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, on the last very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I am assured that the Digital Clocks will be working by Wednesday. I hope that we are not let down in that respect.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I think that it would be for the convenience of all sides of the House to know when the debate will end. I believe that that was why the usual channels came to the conclusion that it would be desirable to time limit the debate. I see the force of the argument that more time may be required. But judging by the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak, I believe that there will be eight minutes for each person in addition to the time for the movers of the amendments as well as the mover of the original Motion. I think that I have the feeling of the House if I say that we shall stick to what was originally proposed.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the other place is debating the matter this week. I respectfully suggest that it would look rather odd if we were to postpone the matter. There is no reason for our not getting on with it. We have the time. For that reason, I suggest that we should stick to what we have proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate, 18th December
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion for a resolution in his name set down for Wednesday 18th December shall be limited to five hours, but that the mover of any amendment tabled thereto shall be entitled to the same allocation of time as the mover of the Motion.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 11,

Schedule 1,

Clause 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 27,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 28 and 29,

Schedule 4,

Clause 30.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 64 [Grants to councils]:
[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 45, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 253, 255A, 256, 292, 294 and 298. The other amendments in the group relate to two clauses, Clauses 64 and 77, and appear in the names of other Members of the Committee. This is an important group of amendments. On Second Reading, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister will recall, what is generally described as academic freedom was raised by almost every Member who took part in the debate. Anxiety about the two clauses was expressed from all parts of the Chamber.
I said at the time that I was puzzled that the Government had amended the Education Reform Act
1022
1988 in respect of freedom of the universities. I was puzzled, because I recall clearly the extensive debates during that Bill's passage. The wording of Section 134(7) of the eventual Act was the result of a government amendment. The question arises: why change what was agreed by everyone?
The purpose of the amendments is to put the position back to what it was under the Education Reform Act 1988. It is, after all, only a short time since the passing of the Act, and a short time in which to make the type of important changes which the Bill brings about.
Amendment No. 251 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 253 which is the substantive amendment. The effect would be to re-enact Section 134(7) of the Education Reform Act. The wording is almost identical. Perhaps I may explain the anxiety felt, I believe, by all universities and polytechnics, although I know that other Members of the Committee with far more detailed knowledge will explain how the Bill, if not amended, will affect higher education.
Clause 64(1) gives the Secretary of State power to attach terms and conditions to the grants which he makes available to the funding councils. To that extent, it re-enacts Section 134(6) of the Education Reform Act. There is no dispute about that. I believe that everyone who has taken part in the debates accepts the need for the Secretary of State to have longstop powers. However, Clause 64(2)(a) goes much beyond that position. It provides that the terms and conditions may impose requirements not just on each institution, but on each institution falling within a class or description specified, with which it must comply.
The wording of Amendment No. 253 is almost identical to the wording of Section 137(7) of the Education Reform Act. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to accept it. In case there should he any doubt about my interpretation of the matter, the Notes on Clauses confirm the point. They state:
"Subsection (2) provides that such conditions may impose requirements to be complied with by all institutions or by institutions falling into specified classes or descriptions".
That extends the Secretary of State's powers considerably beyond those contained in the Education Reform Act 1988.
I turn now to Clause 77. The general point is similar. The amendments relating to the clause are designed to put back the position to what we believed it to have been under the Education Reform Act 1988. The object of Amendment No. 292 is to delete Clause 77(2). That subsection does not appear in the Scottish further and higher education Bill. We are bound to ask why, if it is not required in Scotland, it should be required in England and Wales. The subsection gives the Secretary of State power to intervene, in detail, in individual institutions. That is of concern to those in universities and polytechnics. It does not suggest a power of last resort. Why does the Secretary of State now feel that he needs those further powers?
In case there should be doubt in anyone's mind, perhaps I may make it clear that no one questions the need for powers of last resort. I have been a Minister,

1023
and I know that no government, of any political complexion, will give enormous sums of money to higher education without there being some long stop powers. That is accepted. It was accepted in the 1988 Act. It is accepted in the two parts of the Bill which merely re-enact that position.
The real anxiety—this is what I hope my noble friend will understand—is that, as drafted, the Bill goes considerably beyond that position. It goes beyond the Education Reform Act 1988. As several Members said on Second Reading, it goes against the proposals set out in the Croham Report. It would appear also to go against what my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Baker, the then Secretary of State, said in Committee on the Education Reform Bill in another place. He said:
"The directions are, as Croham said, essentially a measure of last resort to enable the holder of my office to safeguard the taxpayers' interests if the councils or an institution are going completely off the rails. I do not expect them to do so, so I do not expect to have to direct them in that fashion. I would be the first to admit that to do so would represent a failure in the relationship between the councils and the departments".
That seems to go against what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on Second Reading of that Bill. He said:
"Given the importance of higher education, the Secretary of State needs long-stop powers to direct the funding councils to take particular actions in the nation's interests. The Bill"—
that is, the Education Reform Bill—
"now provides for any such direction to be subject to parlimamentary negative resolution procedure, in other direct parliamentary control".—[Official Report 1364.]
Finally, Bill to be enacted as it stands, it would considerably weaken the authority of the funding councils. I said that I regarded the amendments as important. I know that other Members of the Committee will illustrate in detail what will be the effect of the Bill if it is not amended. I hope, of course, that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept the amendments. If that is not possible, I hope that he will bring forward amendments of his own at the next stage of the Bill. I must emphasise the strength of feeling that lies behind the amendments and the great importance attached to them by the universities and polytechnics. I find it difficult to believe that the Government do not agree with the principle I am enunciating, which will be made clearer as the debate proceeds. I do not want my noble friend to be under any illusions as to the strength of feeling and the importance attached to the amendments. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: It is only three years since the Chamber debated this issue—the freedom or power of the Secretary of State to intervene directly in the affairs of a specific educational institution. It is a longstanding principle of our educational system that universities enjoy academic freedom. That freedom is properly constrained. They are accountable to the funding council, and through the funding council—and only through that body—to the Secretary of State, and so to Parliament. That is the basis on which our higher educational system works.
1024
To the discomfort of many of us, the Government have introduced clauses which entirely subvert that principle. Clause 77(2) states directions made by the Secretary of State may,
"relate to the provision of financial support … in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution or institutions".
That means that, for the first time, the Secretary of State would have the ability to intervene in the affairs of an institution. He may, for example, decide he does not like a particular course and that he is not willing to fund it. The principle of academic independence was—as we have just heard—after much discussion, embodied in Section 134(7) of the 1988 Act which states:
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
Therefore the proposed provision directly controverts what was inserted in the 1988 Act. Amendments Nos. 251 and 253 restore the wording of the original legislation.
The present Bill has the admirable primary objective of enlarging the higher education funding sector. In this respect it was widely welcomed on Second Reading. However, these provisions are distinctly illiberal: indeed they are authoritarian—it is not just a matter of one or two such provisions—and go far beyond anything required to fulfil the primary objective.
On a previous occasion we debated an amendment to Clause 58 which removes the obligation for active university teachers to be members of the higher education funding councils. Later today I shall introduce an amendment to Clause 71. As it stands that clause would allow the Department of Education and Science, through the Privy Council, to alter unilaterally, by fiat, the Royal Charter or the Act of Parliament governing each university, or the statutes which follow upon them.
Clauses 64 and 77 allow the Secretary of State altogether unlimited powers of intervention. I would not insist that these cumulative powers are introduced by Ministers with malice aforethought. However, many people would gain that impression. As a government supporter, I am saddened that the public impression given by what in its primary intention is so admirable a Bill is frankly repressive.
Amendment No. 291B has two useful functions. It excludes directions bearing on funds which do not come from the Government. That is a necessary provision. Another principle we debated earlier is that funds which do not derive from the funding councils should not be subject to constraints by the funding councils. The same would also apply to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 291B also restricts the directions to the provision of funds as indicated in Clause 77(1).
Amendment No. 292A excludes the offending subsection whereby directions may relate to activities carried out by any particular institution or institutions. Amendments Nos. 294 and 298 follow from that. By these clauses the Government may have sought only to reassert the powers they thought they

1025
had under the 1988 Act. I know the Government have had difficulties in one case in applying those powers. If that is the case, the Government have introduced so great a degree of overkill as could, in other hands, be used to devastate the independence of the universities.
Lord Dainton: I shall be brief as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a powerful and cogent advocacy on behalf of Amendments Nos. 251, 253, 292 and 294. On Second Reading I commented that Clause 64(2) was both a clear breach of the arm's length principle which has served this country so well in so many ways, and also represented a complete reversal of Section 134(7) of the existing Education Reform Act. Many other Members of the Chamber took exception to the power which Clause 64(2) would give the Secretary of State to impose any condition in respect of any activity mentioned in that clause carried out in every or any institution via a funding council when the latter makes a grant. There are no restrictions whatsoever on the Secretary of State's power as the Bill now stands. As we have heard, he would have the power to prescribe criteria for the admission of students, what subjects should be taught or not taught, who would be thought fit or unfit to teach or conduct research in a particular subject, how candidates should be examined and other matters.
I am sure some Members of the Committee would say that such interference could never happen here and that such censorship and intervention and such extreme dirigisme is unthinkable in our pluralistic and democratic society. However, I am not so sure. I have lived too long and can remember the malevolent absurdity of Bertrand Russell being pronounced unfit to lecture on philosophy in one of the colleges of the city of New York. Many of us must be aware of the prohibitions against teaching evolutionary theory in higher institutions in some of the states of the United States of America.
The threat implicit in this clause could also have a debilitating effect on the universities. It would lead to over-caution in academic policy, to a stultifying conformity and to playing safe rather than that exciting innovation which is the epitome of self-confident, autonomous institutions. Moreover, it can be safely predicted that some able academics who are independently minded and aware of this element in the Bill will go where they can teach what, how and whom their professional consciences allow. UK universities will be further impoverished.
In his reply to the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, expressed the Government's acceptance of the need,
"to safeguard the essential nature of higher education".— [Official Report, 21/11/91; col. 1122.]
He said the Government did not wish to attack academic freedom. Those were most welcome words. The Minister referred to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who gave an assurance during the Report stage of the Education Reform Act—that Act passed through this Chamber just three and a half years ago—that the Government would not interfere with particular universities "except in extreme circumstances".
1026
However, the fact remains that the Education Reform Act did not give any powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in the affairs of any university. Section 134(7) of that Act is quite specific. It states:
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
It is of course true that the original form of the Education Reform Act would have given the Secretary of State that power, but in the event wiser counsel prevailed during the debates and the Bill was amended. I plead with the Government once again to listen to reason and common sense.
I have, of course—I expect this is the case with many Members of the Committee—wondered why the Government seek this power. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to,
"necessary accountability associated with the public funding of higher education".
Mr. Howarth, the Minister responsible for higher education, is reported as wishing to attain,
"the indispensable objective of protecting taxpayers money".
However, the Government already have all the safeguards they need through the accounting officer system. That system now extends to the institutional as well as to the council level, that is to say the chief executive of the funding council is an accounting officer, as is each individual vice-chancellor. Therefore they are subject to Treasury rules. The council itself can discipline universities The former University Grants Committee by only two sentences provided in a of 1919 which appeared to give it no However, that measure never inhibited me from applying any necessary financial discipline to a particular university. The Committee will not expect me to name the university here.
I cannot imagine why the Government buy such dogs and then want to bark themselves. I plead once again that the principle underlying the amendments be accepted by the Government and that Clause 64(4) be altered as suggested in the amendment and Clause 77 be omitted.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Young that, in the light of the debate in your Lordships' Committee, the Government should reconsider the matter and return to it at a later stage of the Bill with their own amendment. I say with the greatest respect to Members of the Committee that this is not a question which can be dealt with by tinkering with amendments; it is fundamental. That applies to Clause 64, Clause 77 (which, as my noble friend Lady Young said, raises a similar point), and it applies to Clause 53 which is concerned with further education. Should the situation arise at Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will move that Clause 53 do not stand part of the Bill. The fact that it was agreed to on Thursday night raises a matter of considerable concern.
Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Renton sees the important point. The matter was dealt with

1027
tangentially in Amendment No. 218. In connection with that amendment my noble friend Lord Renton said:
"we shall find similar provisions relating to higher education in Clauses 54 and 77 whereby the Secretary of State is to be given power to give directions affecting specific places of learning … in relation to both further and higher education. I cannot see the need for that either in relation to higher or further education".—[Official Report, 12/12/91; col. 960.]
I turn to the Government's terror of misconception. At col. 962, in his reasoning, my noble friend Lord Belstead said:
"Therefore, the Government believe that it is essential that Clause 53 should provide not only for general but also for institutions' specific directions."
The issue will not go away. It is a matter of fundamental disagreement on which I should have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, if there had been a Division on Clause 53. I have put down my own Motion that Clause 77 do not stand part of the Bill, which I shall move in due course. This is a matter of fundamental importance which has to be dealt with as such and should not be subject to tinkering. It is a matter of principle.
Having made that point I accept two points without qualification. First, the concept of academic freedom is cherished not only by the universities but also by polytechnics. I also accept that a central government which propose to dispense some £5 billion a year in support of anything, and in particular education, would wish to retain some reserve power in case of possible misappropriation. My noble friend Lady Young made the point and I very much doubt whether any Member of the Committee would dispute the fairness of that proposition.
However, as my noble friend Lord Limerick and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said at Second Reading, Clauses 64 and 77 go far beyond what is necessary That point has just been made in relation to the effect of the overkill of the 1988 Act. In a moment I shall deal with the crucial misconception in the mind of the Government as to the effect of the 1988 Act. The noble Lord has just dealt with one of the amendments which saved a form of interference, and in due course I shall deal with another section to show that the Government's position under the 1988 Act is wholly dissimilar from that now proposed under the new regime. It is not a question of whether or not that is intentional; the point is that the result is overkill and strikes at academic freedom.
The link between Clauses 64 and 77 was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. He said at Second Reading:
"When I first read Clause 64, especially subsection (2), I was unclear as to the precise intention. Did he"—
the Secretary of State
"wish to impose specific requirements on individual institutions? When I read Clause 77 there was no longer any doubt. Under subsection (2) he can instruct the funding councils as to how much money they should give to particular institutions for particular activities. That is monstrous. It totally undermines the general convention whereby the Government do not interfere in the affairs of individual institutions".—[Official Report, 21/11/91; cols. 1072–1073.]
I weary the Committee with a verbatim quotation because who could have put it better? Who could have put it more objectively? And who could have put it
1028
more objectively and with greater persuasive force? That is the principle at stake, but the Government do not appear to understand that.
I must not take up the Committee's time, but the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said at Second Reading that Clause 77 is a dangerous provision and that it should not be amended but should be scrapped. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, (col. 1081 refers) found it quite astonishing:
"a scandalous piece of work. Perhaps it is a Civil Service idea of a joke".
It was also criticised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and my noble friend Lord Beloff on grounds of ministerial interference.
As I understand it the purpose of Clauses 64 and 77 is to define the Secretary of State's condition and decision-making powers in relation to the new councils, as was explained by my noble friend Lord Belstead. My noble friend said that he was doing no more than retaining the careful balance of responsibility between the Secretary of State, the funding councils and the institutions which this Chamber debated extensively during the passage of the 1988 Act and that Clause 77, as drafted, does not exceed in scope Parliament's intention in voting through the direction-making power in the 1988 Act which provided in terms for directions to be institution-specific. That is so important that I shall give the Hansard references for the speech of my noble friend: cols 1024 and 1123.
With respect to my noble friend, that is wrong advice to your Lordships because on any objective analysis the contention that Clause 77 merely restates the law as accepted by Parliament during the passage of the 1988 Act cannot be accepted. Section 219 of the Act of 1988 deals with those powers of the Secretary of State as well as the section to which the noble Lord just referred. That is the obverse of the coin. Section 219 dealt with those decision-making powers in three categories. The first category was to determine disputes and questions. That arose under Section 67(1) of the 1944 Act which is still extant. It is the principal Act. The second category was to prevent unreasonable exercise of functions. That was under Section 68 of the principal Act. The third category related to the exercise of powers in default where there had been a failure to discharge a statutory duty. That was under Sections 69(1) and 69(2) of the principal Act.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor truly said—reference has been made to this point—the Government would not interfere in relations between universities and funding councils except in extreme circumstances. That truly reflected the position as it was under the 1988 Act. However, those circumstances fell within the limit of those three categories as defined under the principal Act. One has only to compare the drafting of Clause 218 and the obverse of the coin clause with the clauses in this Bill to conclude that the powers of direction sought by the Secretary of State under these conglomerate powers—Clauses 64, 53 and 77—are far more extensive. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to call them an overkill.

1029
In effect, if the Bill is passed in this form, the Secretary of State will have been afforded by a House of Parliament absolute discretion and absolute decision-making power to direct as he wills. A direction such as that should never appear in any statute passed by either House of Parliament under any Government. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take the matter back in the light of the debate in Committee.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: I intervene only briefly and on this occasion not primarily in my capacity as a party leader but as Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
The provisions in Clauses 64 and 77 have aroused the deepest anxiety in the university. It was the unanimous decision of the hebdomadal council that the vice-chancellor should write to heads of houses and ask them to approach their Member of Parliament on the issue, as in the case of some heads of house to write individually to their Member of Parliament is still quite a heavy burden. That was about the strongest step that the university could take.
There is also great mystery as to why the Government wish to go back on the position that was arrived at after great difficulty in relation to the 1988 Act. The 1980s were in some ways a rather abrasive decade for relations between the Government and the universities and there has been some hope that the 1990s might be a happier decade, with a greater feeling of confidence from both sides on the issue. However, I can assure the Government that if they try to get the Bill through with Clauses 64 and 77 unamended, it will be the worst possible foundation for a happier decade of relations in the 1990s.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: I rise to speak briefly for two or three reasons. The first is to express my hope that if the Minister rises to defend the clauses as they now stand, he will not argue that there is a financial necessity for them. There is no evidence for that and there is a good deal of evidence against it. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that when the University Grants Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred, was set up in 1919, it was responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must surely have been somewhat concerned about expenditure from the public purse yet, to the best of my knowledge, he never claimed or exercised any power of intervention in what the University Grants Committee did with the funds entrusted to it. It therefore seems to me that we must look at the matter in the light of the transfer of the funding system to the Department of Education and Science, which appears, and has for some time appeared, to take a different view. It was in my view one of the greatest blows ever struck against our education system when that transfer was made.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will remember a conference at Toronto some 30 years ago when he told an assembly of education Ministers and academics from a number of countries that Britain had the ideal
1030
system. That system enabled public support to go to higher education without the intervention that often went with it in many other countries. As a much junior academic to the noble Lord, I then ventured to say that, once the funding was in the hands of a government department, one could not rely on the piper not calling the tune; but even I never thought that the tune would be as harsh as that in the present proposals.
My second reason for rising is that, as some of your Lordships will no doubt remember, I took some part in the debates on what became the 1988 Act both in your Lordships' House and in discussions with the responsible Ministers. I then received in private the assurances which had been quoted in public that the clause would be amended—it was amended into the form in which it now stands in the 1988 Act—in such a way as to preclude direct intervention in the affairs of a particular institution.
The noble Lord must therefore not merely defend the clauses. He must also defend the Government against the charge of breaching an undertaking, because, I remind him, it was that undertaking which enabled the Bill to be passed. If we had held it up any longer, the summer recess would have come and the 1988 Act would not be on the statute book. It was a bargain: you give us this clause—the clause that now stands in the Act—and we shall then see that the Bill reaches the statute book.
My third reason is a curious and, if I may say so, a personal one, shared I think probably only by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who is the Chancellor of the University of Buckingham with which I used to be connected. If the Bill is passed unamended, the University of Buckingham will be the only independent institution of higher education in the United Kingdom not subject to directions as to whom it employs, whom it teaches, what it teaches and how it examines. I had great ambitions for the University of Buckingham, as no doubt did my noble and learned friend, but we never hoped, and we do not hope now, that it would stand in a unique position as the only independent university in the country.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to focus on a narrow but important point that so far has not been fully developed; namely, the event from which this problem arises. I understand that it arises largely from a decision given in a case before Mr. Justice Simon Brown in July 1991, when it was found that the words of Section 134 of the 1988 Act did not cover what the Government had done. It therefore behoves us to consider what the Government did, as presumably that is what the Government want to have the power to do. They want to change the words in the Bill because the judge decided that the words in the 1988 Act do not cover what the Government wish to do.
Members of the Committee may know the relevant circumstance. It arose because the Government wished to introduce a system of appraisal into academic life in British universities, colleges of further education and polytechnics. As a result, they withheld 1 3 million of the national pay agreement and stipulated in a very precise way what the colleges had

1031
to do in order to receive that money. In effect the colleges had to make sworn statements that the heads of the colleges would apply the discriminatory appraisal system and not pay the money across the board. They received commitments from individual lecturers. In effect, there was a ballot of individual lecturers to see whether they would apply the appraisal system to themselves and to their subordinates. Sworn statements were received to the effect that they were operating the scheme introduced last year and that they would accept further intervention of a similar kind next year. That is what the Government did. But the judge said that that did not come within the provisions of the Act. That is why the Government have come back and want to change the words.
Many Previous speakers have envisaged very well how that principle could be extended to any aspect of a course, any teaching method, any part of a rubric or syllabus which the Government do not like. The lecturers and the god-forsaken professors would have to vote not to teach it and if only 50 per cent. of them said that they would do so, only 50 per cent. of the money would he received.
Both the defences put before the judge by the Secretary of State were struck. That is the Government's problem. It is quite remarkable that on behalf of the Secretary of State it was said that it was all right to impose conditions because it was done before he handed out the money. Precedent conditions were all right but subsequent conditions were quite wrong. The learned judge said that that was sophistical and not true and that he could not accept it; in effect it came to the same thing. It was said for the Secretary of State that it was only indirectly intended to affect particular institutions and not to affect them directly. The judge replied that that was sophistical, not reasonable and not plausible. Therefore, the Government have come back to Parliament; they have to have a form of words.
I ask the Minister whether it is still the Government's intention to practise in that way. Will they do it, for example, in respect of further pay awards? Is that the intention, even though the judge said that it would not work? Is that why there are these new words? Is it the Government's intention to have further ballots on other aspects of academic life? Is that what all this is about? If the Minister can say that that is not what it is all about, I do not understand why he wants the Bill to be different from the 1988 Act.
Lord Flowers: I must shortly leave the Chamber so perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make a brief speech now. I shall return at about 7 o'clock and I shall greatly miss what happens in the meantime. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for effectively making my argument very much better than I could have done. I wholly agree with what he said and hope that the Government will pay due attention to it.
The only other point that I wish to make is in support of the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, to the effect that each university has an accounting officer. He is known as the vice-chancellor.
1032
Each university, on the terms under which it presently operates from the Universities Funding Council—the funding councils generally in future—has a financial memorandum which sets out precisely how the university is to be accountable for the government funds that it has been given. As the accounting officer, the vice-chancellor is personally responsible for ensuring that those funds are spent correctly, in the manner laid down in the financial memorandum.
The chief executive of the funding council, as accounting officer for the funding council, in turn is accountable to the department, thence to the Treasury and thence to Parliament. There is a precisely defined chain which exists already, essentially under the 1988 Act, for accounting from the university to Parliament through Government. All the powers that the Government need for dealing with a recalcitrant university (if there should be one) can be found in that chain. I do not believe that any other powers are necessary. I support the amendments which are now being discussed and especially support the idea that Clauses 64 and 77 should be dropped altogether.
Lord Belstead: I wonder whether it would be helpful for me to intervene at this point. This is a Committee of the Whole House and Members of the Committee—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who has taken an interest in all stages of the Bill—will not be prevented from continuing the debate until it is finished.
Before considering ways in which the clause might be dealt with, perhaps I may just say a few words at this stage about the reason for Clause 64. Members of the Committee have put forward different views as to how this clause might be dealt with. They range from those who do not wish to have the clause at all to those who feel that it ought to be amended. Incidentally, the amendments moved by my noble friend Baroness Young include those which hang upon Amendment No. 286, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealing with Clause 77.
On Clause 64, perhaps I may emphasise, as I did at Second Reading, that the Government regard this clause as doing no more than securing the intended effect of existing provisions governing the relation-ship—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord say by whom it was intended?
Lord Belstead: It was intended by the Government. I shall go on to explain why we feel that. I repeat that the Government regard the clause as doing no more than securing the intended effect (intended by the Government) of existing provisions governing the relationship between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
The wording in Clause 64 certainly is different from that in Sections 134(6) and 134(7) of the Education Reform Act because of doubts cast on whether those provisions had the effect that we intended, following a judgment in a case brought by the Association of

1033
College and Polytechnic Teachers against the Secretary of State, to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy referred in his intervention.
As a matter of principle, the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament for the Government's funding policies, needs to have effective means of implementing those policies through the flow of public funds to the funding councils and institutions. It is that which underlies his powers to attach conditions of grant to the funding councils established by the Education Reform Act and continued in this Bill.
In furtherance of those policies, the Secretary of State might earmark part of the funds made available to the councils for particular purposes. For example, in the past my right honourable friend has earmarked a small portion of his grant to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Councils to service what is known as a restructuring fund. That kind of condition is quite a normal part of the relationship between a government Minister and the body to which he is making available public funds. That is why Clause 64(1) is the same as Section 134(6) of the Education Reform Act. That is why, as I understand it, my noble friend Lady Young, and indeed other Members of the Committee have not quarrelled in any way with Clause 64(1).
As I ventured to say at Second Reading, Section 134(7) of the Education Reform Act was included specifically to fetter the Secretary of State's power by precluding him from attaching conditions in relation to the funding of individual institutions; from setting as a condition that university X or polytechnic Y should receive a particular amount of funding. Setting conditions in relation to named institutions is most certainly not a feature of the Secretary of State's normal higher education policy although he does need, in relation to Clause 77, a last resort power.
However, what is firmly part of the Secretary of State's legitimate policy in higher education is, for example, an interest in securing satisfactory pay and conditions settlements, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Speaking from this side of the Chamber, I believe it right that the Secretary of State should have such an interest, given the level of public funding made available to higher education.
The way in which my right honourable friend has sought to exercise influence in this field has been through holding back grant to the funding councils until a satisfactory settlement has been reached. That has operated for three years in relation to the polytechnics and colleges and the universities. The gains in terms of flexibility and efficiency in the final settlement have been considerable. It is an approach known as setting conditions precedent.
So far the Secretary of State has released all the withheld funds to the councils each year for distribution to institutions because satisfactory settlements have been reached at the national level. But it cannot be ruled out that national negotiations break down and local settlements need to be made. In those circumstances my right honourable friend needs to be able to say to the funding councils that they may release funds to those institutions which reach
1034
satisfactory settlements but not to those which do not. Another example of the use of a conditions precedent might be for the Secretary of State to say to the funding councils that they should not release a particular portion of funding to institutions which do not over time receive a satisfactory report from the unit which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics will be establishing to look at institutions' internal quality control systems.
The crucial point about such conditions is that while they may impact differently on different institutions the Secretary of State certainly does not know which ones in advance. That is the difference between those conditions and a condition which would specify a particular level of funding for a named institution.
It is in order to enable a condition to be made which exercises influence but is not designed to affect a particular institution that Clause 64(2) (a) has been introduced. To delete that clause and return to the wording of the present Act would introduce the very considerable doubts of the Secretary of State's power to exercise influence. That is why I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 251, 253, 254, 255 and 256, which have that effect.
I have been referring to what I call management issues which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made clear when we debated Clause 7, are legitimately within the scope of the Secretary of State's higher education policies. However, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the basic issue is academic freedom. I know that what most concerns noble Lords is the prospect that the powers in Clause 64 could be used in support of policies which would be unacceptable; for example, setting conditions under subsection (2) (a) that institutions could not offer a particular course or programme of research or that a specific subject must either he taught or assessed in a particular way. I emphasise that that is not the Secretary of State's intention. It would not be his intention to use the powers under the clause in such ways. Nonetheless, before any Member of Committee says it, I recognise that it is what is on the face of the Bill that matters. I recognise the very real anxieties expressed by the Committee over the past hour.
I have therefore discussed the matter with the Secretary of State. As a result I can respond to my noble friend Lady Young's wish that I should bring forward an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. Having listened to the Committee—and the messages have been loud and clear—I can give an undertaking that I am ready to bring forward an amendment at Report stage in your Lordships' Chamber which will put beyond doubt on the face of the Bill that the condition-making power may not be used to set conditions for the purposes that I have described.
I repeat that it would not be possible under Clause 64 to set conditions that higher education institutions could not offer a particular course or programme of research. Nor would it be possible to interfere with the way in which a specific subject is taught or assessed.
That leaves the matter of Clause 77. Perhaps I may say a brief word about the background. There are two

1035
features of the discussion which took place in 1988 on the Education Reform Act to which I wish to refer in this context. First, the statutory framework established by the Education Reform Act 1988 represented a diminution of the powers which the Secretary of State had vis-à-vis the funding of individual universities. The Secretary of State's funding powers were theoretically unlimited before 1988 because the University Grants Committee was an advisory body. Therefore, allocations of funds to individual universities were for the Secretary of State who would have been technically within his rights to overturn the UGC's advice and substitute his own judgement. That is often forgotten.
The second issue was whether the Secretary of State should have an institution-specific power of direction in the new framework. There have been several quotations in the past hour. Perhaps I may add my own. When these matters were debated three years ago, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained why Section 134(8) of the 1988 Act was intended to encompass a power of institution-specific direction I remind the Committee of the words of my noble and learned friend during the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill when he said that amendments moved on Report in another place had made it plain that the Government would not interfere between the Universities Funding Council and particular universities except in extreme circumstances. In other words, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear that Section 134(8) was intended to he a long-stop power.
There are other instances of that intended feature of Section 134(8) being made clear both by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State at that time, Mr. Kenneth Baker, in another place. 11 is not possible to distinguish between institutions, as Amendment No. 286 seeks to do. That potential power must extend to all those who receive public funds from the higher education funding council. The Government accepted that in order to demonstrate the long-stop nature of the power it should be made subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. However, we have now been given advice that Section 134(8) is defective. Set within the carefully constructed provisions in that section as a whole, and in particular alongside Section 134(7), we are advised that clearer words are needed for the Secretary of State to make an institution-specific direction even as a matter of last resort or as a long-stop power. Clause 77(2) is intended merely to put that power beyond doubt. Removing subsection (2), as Amendment No. 292 seeks to do, would in practice rule out any institute-specific directions.
Perhaps I may repeat that this is a necessary power of last resort. It is to be used if relations with the funding council break down and in order to provide a long-stop protection for the taxpayers' interest in considerable sums of public funding.
My noble friend Lady Young fairly quoted words which were spoken by my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Baker, then Secretary of State. I suggest to my noble friend that the position now is no different from that described by Mr. Baker when he was
1036
Secretary of State. He referred to the council going off the rails, or to the danger of the council going off the rails, in taking particular decisions. But he also referred to institutions going off the rails. It is those circumstances which Clause 77 is designed to meet. Mr. Baker also made clear that he did not expect to have to use the power; nor does the present Secretary of State. However he, like Mr. Baker before him, considers it necessary to have a power of direction that can be institute specific as well as being general. If the Secretary of State did not have that power his ultimate responsibility in the other place for the Government's higher education funding policy would be at risk should there arise what I might call a nightmare scenario in which either the institution concerned or the funding council appeared to go completely off the rails in taking particular decisions.
Perhaps I may also repeat that I recognise the fears voiced by Members of the Committee in relation to this power. They are similar to those voiced about the condition-making power in Clause 64. The fears are that under Clause 77 a Secretary of State could issue a direction that institutions could not offer a particular course or programme of research, or that a particular subject must be taught and assessed in a particular way; in other words, that the provision strikes at academic freedom. The Government understand those fears. As with the condition-making power under Clause 64, I undertake to bring forward an amendment on Report which I believe will put those fears to rest. It will make clear that a direction under Clause 77 cannot prohibit an institution in higher education offering a particular course or programme of research and cannot direct that a particular subject is taught or assessed in a particular way
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening and giving the Committee an explanation of the reasons for inserting these new and different clauses into the Bill. They are clauses which do not exist in the Education Reform Act. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for promising to come forward on Report with amendments to Clauses 64 and 77. He said that the amendments will make clear that it will not be possible to intervene in issues such as the nature of particular courses and, I hope, in the nature of assessment, the type of students to be recruited and the type of staff to be appointed. We have a long list of areas in which the Government must guarantee not to interfere in order to satisfy the considerable anxieties that exist throughout the higher education system in respect of the new proposals.
I shall first respond to what has been said about Clause 64. I had intended to follow up what was asked by my noble friend Lord McCarthy about the purpose of the clause. I, too, had assumed that it was concerned with intervention on pay. It is perfectly reasonable that a Secretary of State who is responsible for the spending of substantial sums of public money should be able to satisfy himself or herself about

1037
general matters concerned with pay and conditions. However, I remain unconvinced that the clause is necessary as regards specific institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Secretary of State might need powers to intervene should national negotiations break down and individual settlements be needed. He said that the Secretary of State would also need to exert influence on those matters. I am somewhat surprised by that statement. It appears to me that under existing legislation it is perfectly possible for a Secretary of State to exert considerable influence on just such matters. Indeed, the present Secretary of State and his two predecessors have exerted just such influence in introducing proposals for a proportion of the salary bill to be retained for discretionary purposes and, indeed, in imposing them. Does the Minister believe that it is right to give such powers to the Secretary of State in respect of higher education? I believe that for the Secretary of State to make such individual interventions rather than to have influence on general aspects of pay and conditions, as he already has, is totally incompatible with the status of higher education institutions as independent organisations responsible for managing their own affairs.
I turn to Clause 77. The Minister has made something of the fact that Section 134(8) of the Education Reform Act 1988 is defective, even as a matter of last resort. He went on to illustrate what is meant by the phrase, "problems of such magnitude that powers of last resort must be introduced". He referred to institutions going right off the rails. I suppose that it is possible that institutions in higher education might occasionally do so, although I hope and expect that that would be incredibly rare. However, I do not find credible the suggestion that the funding council might go off the rails at the same time. That is what appears to me to be so extraordinary. Given that the chief executive of the funding councils is the accounting officer and has the powers and the duty to intervene, if that happens it appears that the status quo is working perfectly well.
In the light of what I have said, Members on this side of the Committee have not been entirely convinced that the new powers for the Secretary of State are required. However, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that on Report we shall see some amendments, which we shall wish to examine most carefully, relating to the preservation of academic freedom. We all regard that aspect to be immensely precious and it must be protected with the utmost care.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister has made a concession. I hope that I am not ungracious in saying that it is a great pity that he has not today brought forward his own amendment. He was asked to do so on Second Reading by his noble friend Lady Young and several other Members of the Committee. It would have been far more convenient if we could have seen that amendment today. However, having reverted to the untrammelled path of the 1988 Act as presented, he said instead that the Government had not been able to devise an amendment but they would
1038
consider any put forward from the body of the Committee during the Committee stage. Obviously that was an impossible demand.
It will rest with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to say whether or not she is content to wait until Report stage. I merely draw attention to two points. The first point was made by my noble friends Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, that the power of last resort is unnecessary in view of the responsibilities of the accounting officer. I take leave to say that such Treasury experience as I had bears that out. No doubt that point will be considered.
The other point is this. The noble Lord the Minister skated lightly over the degree of Parliamentary control involved. He rightly said that under the 1988 Act it is the negative resolution procedure; but that was based on an implicit bargain. It was pressed in another place in Committee that the power should be the affirmative resolution procedure. In view of the concession made by the Secretary of State at the time, that demand was dropped. However, the Government having reopened the whole matter, it falls for reconsideration as to what should be the degree of parliamentary control.
The criteria were clearly set out in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73. According to no less than two of the criteria propounded, this should be done by affirmative resolution, as is demanded in Amendments Nos. 192 and 198. That, again, will fall for consideration at Report stage, when the Committee discovers—if the noble Baroness permits it—what the Government propose in the way of limiting these virtually unchannelled powers.
Lord Kilmarnock: As Amendment No. 293 is in my name and grouped with Amendment No. 251, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I shall not detain the Committee for long.
When we debated similar clauses in Part I of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave an undertaking that Clause 7—the equivalent clause in that part of the Bill—would not impact on named institutions. He again repeated that assurance this afternoon and undertook to bring forward an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I am not clear whether that will take the form roughly of what was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—that the word "each" should be removed, as I said it should be—but we shall wait to see.
Now that the noble Lord has given the undertaking my specific question is: does it apply also to Part I? We are all aware that Clauses 7 and 53 in Part I of the Bill are the analogues of Clauses 64 and 77 in this part of the Bill. They are not only similar, they are in fact identical. Therefore, it will be interesting to know from the noble Lord whether he proposes to bring forward amendments of a similar or identical nature to Part I, to which I also attach importance.
My second point is that, as everybody recognises, Clauses 64 and 77 hang together. In the debate on Clause 53—the equivalent in Part I of Clause 77—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he would draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on an amendment of mine that, as drafted, the clause

1039
enables the Secretary of State to intervene in the teaching of specific subjects. The noble Lord drew the point to the attention of the Secretary of State and seems to have offered us something which may be of some comfort. However, what I do not find of comfort are the words, "reserve power", which continue to fall from the noble Lord's lips. That phrase is not statutory language; it does not appear on the face of the Bill and in statutory terms means nothing. A power is a power is a power.
If Clause 64 were properly drafted to give the Secretary of State certain powers in relation to financial and managerial but not educational matters—the sorts of power to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred and which the Secretary of State might legitimately require—I cannot see why Clause 77 is required at all. I understand that the Secretary of State was upheld in the referral to the court to which reference has been made. He seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I do not believe that the Committee will be satisfied with anything less than the removal of Clause 77.
I urge the Committee to amend Clause 64 so that it gives the Secretary of State the powers he legitimately requires and no more, and that Clause 77 be dropped from the Bill.
Lord Renton: Every speech that we have heard this afternoon, except that of my noble friend Lord Belstead. besides saying other things established the view that we should not have any interference with the affairs, syllabus or workings of any specific academic institution.
My noble friend Lord Belstead acknowledges that argument but says that the power is needed as a last resort. To leave it unqualified in the Bill, even after he has fulfilled his undertakings to reconsider the wording of the two clauses, would be dangerous. We must not have a reserve power which might be used in an unreserved way.
I took the liberty of tabling two amendments, one to Clause 54 and the other to Clause 77. Each was inspired by the memorandum attached to the letter from the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford to the head of the college to which I belong. If we wish to eliminate the power to interfere with academic freedom in specific institutions, these two amendments will achieve that object in the simplest possible drafting way and without going into any elaborate detail. Amendment No. 255A amends Clause 64. I was heartened when my noble friend Lord Belstead, in saying that he cannot accept the group of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, did not mention that amendment. I therefore hope that he is keeping an open mind about it.
I should like to say a brief word about Clause 77. I appreciate the argument that it may be possible to do without that clause altogether if we merely wish to leave the matter open. But having thought about it and heard what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others, I feel that a difficulty would arise if we did not have something that modified subsection (2) and confined it to general
1040
power. I say that partly because it must be made to dovetail with Clause 64. Therefore I think we must keep Clause 77 in one form or another.
I had hoped that we could avoid a Division today—it may be misinterpreted—in the light of the undertakings given by my noble friend Lord Belstead. I hope that in considering the matter he will realise that he has not impressed the Committee by saying that a special power is needed as a last resort. We should avoid that.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: This debate has generated an extraordinary amount of interest. The last time I found as much difficulty in contributing to one of your Lordships' debates was on Lord Chelwood's amendment to the poll tax Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for the care and courtesy of his reply and for the promise of a forthcoming amendment on Report. It is a gift horse. But it is the duty of this Committee to look a gift horse in the mouth. I understand that the noble Lord offers us an assurance that the powers will not be used on academic matters, nor will they be used to cover the intellectual content of a course. I am grateful for that assurance. Those fears were not rugatory and I believe that the noble Lord has dispelled them. The problem is that there is a grey area where one must consider what the boundary is of an "academic matter". In particular, the daily life of an academic matter is where the academic and the financial meet. It is there that I would particularly like to probe the effects of the clause.
For example, take a decision by an academic department that it cannot expand the number of its students beyond a certain figure on the books it has available. Is the decision on how many books will be needed for how many people an academic decision and protected by the noble Lord's forthcoming amendment or not? Is the decision how many undergraduates we can properly teach in one group without diminishing the quality of our teaching an academic decision and protected by the amendment or not? I could multiply those questions, but I shall not.
The phrase "off the rails" is, to borrow the term of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not a statutory phrase. What is off the rails is in part a subjective question. It would help the Committee a little more if we could have clarification of what is meant by "off the rails". Most of the ways of going off the rails that I can foresee are already covered by other powers. I think in particular of the laws against fraud and those dealing with bankruptcy. If academic matters are not covered and those two are already covered, then I do not see what is covered.
I should also be grateful for an answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the improbability of the funding council and the institution going off the rails together. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is not, in the good old 17th century phrase, keeping a dog and barking himself.
Lord Milverton: I have listened with interest to the many strong arguments for the amendment which are therefore not sympathetic to the Government. My noble friend Lord Renton said that no voices had been raised with sympathy for the Government. I am afraid that he is wrong because I have sympathy and I should like to have explained to me even better why there is this academic fear from the universities. I have listened to and read material and I honestly do not believe that Her Majesty's Government are trying to interfere with academic freedom. Therefore, until someone is able to convince me about that, my sympathies are with the Government. I hope that the Committee will allow the Minister to take this matter away and bring forward the amendment which he proposes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise to discuss what the Committee ought to do because sooner or later we shall have to make up our minds on the practical point. I know that the peacemakers are blessed and, if I did not, I see two right reverend figures on the Bishops' Bench who would quickly remind me of that fact. I am bound to say that my experience of political life is such that the peacemakers usually have rather a rough ride.
I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lady Young with great pleasure. I wish to say to her and to my other noble friends who have taken part in the debate something along the lines of the remarks of my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We must make up our minds at what stage this interesting series of questions—it is not one question—should be brought to a head.
I come to the conclusion, after listening carefully to everything that has been said in the debate, that it would be better to bring the matter to a head at Report stage than in our present state, which may not be as clear as it will at the later stage. If we do not postpone a decision to that stage, we may perhaps be in a worse position than we are now to come to a final conclusion.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Milverton. I believe that there is no basic difference between the Government and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals as to the necessity, at almost any cost, of preserving academic freedom in the country. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was perfectly correct in pointing with regret to a certain amount of suspicion which exists between those two admirable bodies. I only wish that that suspicion could be dispelled and I hope that it will be. I do not believe that there is any fundamental difference between them.
Therefore, between now and Report stage, in the light of what my noble friend Lord Belstead has said, we may well suggest that those two eminent bodies should get in touch with one another to discuss frankly their real positions. I am not sure that either is quite clear about the position occupied by the other.
The only other point I wish to make which is designed to reinforce this hesitant conclusion is this. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale may have been on to rather an important point. The powers—whatever they be—in the latter group of amendments which have been under discussion are
1042
subject to parliamentary control but only by way of negative resolution. I am not always as persuaded as are some people in the House that there is much difference between the two because it is the business of both Houses to invoke parliamentary control, even in matters of negative resolution.
I make a point to the Committee which is worth consideration. We have too many and too elaborate provisions, in my judgment, which is one of the difficulties of the working of our constitution at present. The purpose of putting down elaborate provisions in Acts of Parliament is not to reduce the accountability of Ministers to Parliament but to shift the responsibility of Ministers from Parliament to the courts. That is why we put provisions, as the cant phrase is, on the face of the Bill.
My view is that there are areas of policy in which Ministers ought primarily to be accountable to Parliament and not to the courts. I say to three or four respected and beloved noble and learned friends on the Cross Benches that there are areas of public policy in which Parliament is a better judge of what ought to be allowed and what ought to be prohibited than our professional judges, most of whom at present have never had experience of either House of Parliament or of political questions.
Therefore, I suggest as a practical proposition, first, that the question which the Committee has to decide, subject to whatever my noble friend Lady Young proposes, is whether we bring matters to a head now or give the parties a chance to come together. Secondly, in the last resort, do we want to make it a matter of judicial control or are we anxious that it should be subject to political control through the Houses of Parliament? I venture to believe that that is rather similar to the point put by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I put it in the context of what we have now to decide.
Lord Annan: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help on one point. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She put it extremely well when she said that we shall need to know in more detail what it is that the Secretary of State is alarmed about. I do not know whether the noble Lord read on Friday the recent edition of the periodical called the Higher. It contained an interview with the Secretary of State. When the Secretary of State was asked why he was so worried and why Clause 77 was needed, he said "What would happen if a department of architecture in a university decided that it wanted seven years for its degree? We must have reserve powers to stop that kind of thing". Is that the kind of interference which we have to expect when the noble Lord brings back his amendment?
Perhaps we may take another point. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has often spoken about the great success of the University of Buckingham which grants a degree in two years. But in each of those two years the university has four terms: so it is a case of eight terms as against the normal nine in other universities. In addition, in that university each academic is able to have a term off for research. Let us suppose that in the very difficult situation in which the Secretary of State finds himself of trying to expand the number of

1043
students in higher education, he is advised that one solution would be to compel universities to institute a new structure of that kind into their degrees. Is that the kind of thing in which the Secretary of State could direct the universities under the present draft?
I ask these questions because in the past, as my noble friend Lord Dainton, said, such matters were always dealt with by hints, nods and nudges by the Secretary of State to the chairman of the University Grants Committee or the chairman of the vice-chancellors committee. When Mrs. Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education she thought it monstrous that there should be quotas for women in medical schools. Some people, quite rightly, thinking of days long gone by, said that there would have been no women in medical schools at all unless quotas had been instituted. On the other hand, the time for that had gone. Although there was considerable opposition to abolishing quotas, nevertheless, as a result of conversations through the normal channels, the vice-chancellors committee invited those universities which had medical schools and were operating quotas to change their practice. That is the way things were done.
There is a suspicion of government within universities which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, wishes to dispel. It is the suspicion that government no longer believe that quangos—whether the University Grants Committee, the governors of the BBC, the IBA or the trustees of museums and galleries—do their job. There is a suspicion in the air that government no longer believe that these bodies, as they once did, decide what is right for the nation as a whole. It may well be that some of those bodies became too used to defending their own bailiwick rather than considering the question, "Has not the time come for a change?" I believe that the noble Lord will need to convince the Committee and say precisely what he is hoping that any power he requires for intervention is intended to do.
We are, all, I am sure, aware of one reserve power in the Government's hands in broadcasting. The Home Secretary has the power to prohibit the transmission of any programme. He does not of course exercise that power. However, a maladroit Home Secretary can, by giving nods, nudges and hints, create a furore as happened some years ago over a programme which the BBC wanted to transmit. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell the House at Report stage that that is the kind of power he wants. But he will need to convince us that it is on very specific points in respect of which he can see that power being used and, equally, that it will not be used on other points.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: It may help the noble Lord and Members of the Committee if I speak briefly as to where the Opposition stand on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is not here at the moment, but I would like to deal with his intervention first. I believe that one could make the matter very clear on the basis of what he said. He said that he trusted the good intentions of this Government and, I presume,
1044
specifically the Secretary of State. I too do not wish to argue about the good intentions of the Government. I take it that we write legislation not on the assumption that our governments always have good intentions. The whole point about the fear of academic freedom is that alternative governments may have less good intentions.
I hope that noble Lords opposite are not seeing this matter in terms of whether one is for or against the Government. That would ruin the nature of the debate which has happily been rather non-political. I hate to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but I believe that this is not an occasion for the Committee to divide. I did not believe that originally but now I feel that it is premature to take a decision. The reason is that I am not clear that it is easy to produce proper amendments. Therefore, the alternative of simply rejecting all these matters remains with us. If Members of the Committee will forgive the cliché, I want to wait and see.
However, I have a specific question for the noble Lord the Minister. It was not clear from what he said whether the amendments that he wishes us to consider have already been drafted and that therefore in his view the problem is solved. That would really interest me because I do not believe that I could draft such amendments. Alternatively, is the Minister saying that at some time between now and January his department will come up with a solution to the problem? We need to know the answer. It will not change my mind about not wishing to vote on the matter now. I simply want to know what is the Minister's position. Can he assure us that we shall see the amendments in good time?
Perhaps I may draw to the Minister's attention a fact which I am sure has not escaped his notice; namely, that it is Christmas next week and that we return not long afterwards. This is a deadly serious subject. I want time to look at whatever the Government are proposing. I ask the Minister specifically and repeat the two questions: has he the amendments in his pocket now, in which case can we see them now? Alternatively, is the Minister saying that his department is still trying to produce such amendments? If the latter, can he guarantee that we shall see them in time to scrutinise them properly? I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will rise to her feet fairly soon. I believe that we can reach the end of this matter in the very near future.
Lord Beloff: I should like to put the point that I was going to put to my noble friend, because it is part of the peace-making process which has been commended to us. I understood my noble friend the Minister to suggest that his amended Clause 77 would be by the addition of exclusions—excluding the content of courses, the methods of examination and so on.
I should like to point out to my noble friend that that might prove to be a very difficult task, for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. For instance, one would certainly need to exclude the power to dictate the choice of students or the categories of students to be chosen. It would need to deal with the appointment of staff. If one looks at the

1045
interference by governments in less happy countries—some state legislatures in the United States come to mind—there is a whole range of matters upon which financial power has been used to impose provisions that all of us would agree are hostile to academic freedom. I ask my noble friend whether it would be possible to have a clause which did not need exclusions but which was itself so precise that no possible doubt could arise.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask one specific question following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I am pleased he has recognised that this is an issue seen on all sides of the Committee as a question of academic freedom. I hope he knows that that is seen even more deeply within the academic world. Here, as at Second Reading, I can associate my own university—the University of East Anglia—through the Vice-Chancellor with the opposition given to these two clauses by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
When the noble Lord saw the opposition from all sides of the Committee he produced a list of the changes that he would try to include within the new amendment that he intends to bring forward. It dealt with courses, resources, and so on. As has just been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the list did not refer to interference with staff. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, recalled that Bertrand Russell was prevented from teaching in a university in this country. I can speak from personal experience. My university work was stopped in another continent by state interference with the university.
When the noble Lord gives the Committee some indication of what he proposes to do, can he say that he recognises that in addition to excluding any state interference in courses and resources he should also include the exclusion of any state interference in the appointment or conduct of staff and students?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having heard what Members of the Committee have said, I shall not oppose the Question that Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his very important concession in this regard because although technically it will stand part today, it will not stand part in any statute which receives Royal Assent.
As Members of the Committee have said, there are some very serious difficulties and matters of principle involved with which it would not be possible to deal today until we have seen the draft of the amendment. However, whatever comes forward in place of Clause 77 I expressly reserve the right to move an amendment to remove it at a subsequent stage.
Lord Belstead: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for what he said about his intention concerning the Clause stand part debate. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for not coming to the Chamber with an amendment actually in my pocket, or at least on the Marshalled List. The Department of
1046
Education and Science has looked at the drafting possibilities but it is not necessarily easy to put into legal language exactly what I undertook to do. However, my undertaking remains firm. As I said, it is my intention, and my undertaking to the Committee, to come forward with an amendment of the kind that I proposed.
Perhaps I may make one brief point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the desirability of the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble and learned Lord might consider, on reflection, whether an institution's specific direction—if subject to an affirmative resolution procedure—would have to go through all the hoops of the hybrid instrument procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked whether the undertaking that I gave applied to Part 1 of the Bill. We laboured long and earnestly the other evening on that particular matter. In fact, we had a very long debate indeed. I ended that debate by giving an undertaking that I would discuss the matter with my right honourable friend so far as Part 1 is concerned. That remains my position.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, both pressed me to say more about what I meant about going off the rails. I think I am right in saying that it is a fact that, sadly, three higher education institutions in recent years, all with accounting officers, have got into serious financial difficulties. Therefore, what I am endeavouring to say—indeed, I said it the other evening—is that what can happen buttresses the need for the case which I have sought to make today.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the drafting of the Bill. At the end of a very long debate I do not want to cross swords with my noble friend on his interpretation of the use of the word "each", but rather to give him an undertaking that we are certainly prepared to look again at the wording of that part of the Bill.
That brings me back to the crucial point. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, it depends on what is in the amendment. All I can do today is to say that on Second Reading I voiced my intention to listen carefully to what was said by the Committee. So far I believe I have fulfilled those intentions in the sense that I have given the Committee an absolute undertaking that I shall bring forward an amendment to deal with matters which I believe strike at the heart of academic freedom. I have repeated that twice and it is on record. Therefore, if the Committee will at least trust me to do that, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will take the advice given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, and other Members of the Committee including my noble friend Lord Renton, and see fit to withdraw the amendment so that we may return to this matter after Christmas.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the Minister sits down I should like to ask one question. He did not answer my noble friend Lord Peston on when we shall actually get these amendments. Since the Report stage of this Bill is within two or three days of our return after Christmas, may I ask whether it will be possible

1047
to have the amendments before Christmas so that we can take them away and examine them with proper time?
There is one other point I should like to make in response to what the Minister said about the higher education institutions that have got into financial difficulties. There are, of course, very few and it is a rare occurrence. However, am I right in saying that in all cases those problems have been resolved under existing legislation without the need for the Secretary of State to intervene with these new powers?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend replies, may we have a little longer to consider this matter? Christmas will be here pretty soon. We are dealing with a matter of fundamental principle and anxiety to all sides of the Committee. How on earth are we to give our minds to it immediately after Christmas? There are so many other matters to attend to. Can the Leader of the House perhaps postpone the date for a week to let us regain our breath?
Lord Belstead: The question of the dates for Report stage are a matter for the usual channels. I can only assure the Committee and the noble Baroness that I shall certainly try to produce the amendments as quickly as possible. What I cannot do is give an undertaking that they will be produced before Christmas. We shall certainly do our best and there are ways of sending things through the post direct to Members of the Committee who are interested in the matter. However, with the best will in the world that is as far as I can go this afternoon.
5 p.m.
Baroness Young: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this long and important debate. In particular I thank my noble friend Lord Belstead, who started by saying that he now understood the strength of feeling in all parts of the Committee. If anything has made that clear, it is the debate that we have had this afternoon. He responced, as always, with great courtesy and care. I should like to place on record my thanks to him for his undertaking to bring forward amendments to Clauses 64 and 77. I know how much work he has put into this and I am grateful to him.
I am sure that he will study Hansard carefully as an enormous number of detailed points were raised by among others the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Peston on matters of definition and on what any kind of amendment to secure academic freedom would mean. I am sure that my noble friend will consider all these matters. I do not regard them as matters for debate at this stage across the Floor of the Chamber. I echo what has been said—it would be helpful to have the amendments as soon as possible. I know only too well the difficulties that arise but we shall lose a week because of Christmas and a best part of another week with the New Year. We return shortly after that. These are matters of great importance. Therefore I underline
1048
what my noble friend has undertaken to do which is to send the amendments to all those who are particularly interested. That would be very helpful indeed.
When I moved the amendment I did not say that it was not my intention to press it this afternoon because I felt it was right to listen to what the Committee had to say. However, in view of all that has been said, I shall not press it. That would be quite wrong. We all need time to reflect on the debate. Above all, we need time to consider the amendments that my noble friend has undertaken to bring forward. We shall study them with care, and then we can, if necessary, return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 251A:
Page 45, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 66 (1B) below").
The noble Baroness said: I regret to disappoint the Committee but this amendment was grouped with the first group of amendments. The first amendment in that group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was not moved and therefore my noble friend Lord Pearson and I would like to speak briefly to this amendment and to Amendment No. 268ZA which was grouped with it. We believe that they address the specific procedures with regard to possible mechanisms for quality control and therefore we do not wish this opportunity to pass by. We could not speak to them during the long debate that we have just had because they were not grouped with the amendments under consideration.
Amendment No. 251A is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 268ZA. The amendments attempt to suggest one or two constructive ways in which procedures for an academic quality assurance control might be built into the Bill. In speaking to the amendments we wish briefly to address the concept of academic freedom with regard to accountability and the procedures for quality assurance.
I begin by emphasising that, like every other Member of the Committee, I believe passionately in the principle of academic freedom. That is why I have challenged instances where I have seen it being violated in this country and why I have worked in a small way with colleagues in totalitarian regimes, such as Poland during the dark years of martial law, suffering from systems which tried to crush freedom of all kinds.
Perhaps I may give some examples of where all is not well and where situations have gone off the rails in this country with regard to the track record of academic freedom and academic quality assurance. These are not unproblematic in our own country. I suggest three kinds of violation which we might wish to take into account if we are thinking of building in the safeguards that are implied in our amendment. The concerns relate to violations of freedom to pursue knowledge and truth, freedom of legitimate access to academic institutions and freedom to speak on campus.
My position in regard to academic freedom in education is premised on the belief that education, especially higher education, must enshrine the

1049
principle of freedom to pursue knowledge and truth, wherever that pursuit may lead. In a previous incarnation, when I was head of the department of sociology at the Polytechnic of North London, I consistently challenged colleagues who required students to accept a specific, predetermined, Marxist version of "the truth" and who used tactics of intimidation against students who refused to write politically acceptable papers or to accept Marxist interpretations of their research. These concerns were fully documented in a book written by myself and two colleagues, John Marks and Keith Jacka, called The Rape of Reason. They have never been refuted. I shall always be grateful to Bernard Levin who devoted a trilogy of articles in The Times, one of which summed up in his own inimitable style the essence of our situation at that college, with the heading "In all its brutality, the making of an intellectual concentration camp". I suggest that that may be one example of a situation that has "gone off the rails", to quote the phrase that has been used.
When that book was published my co-authors and I received numerous letters of support from academic staff in other institutions, who were so frightened that they begged not to be identified but who described similar situations. Where were the guardians of academic freedom and quality then? How did the academic community condone such violations of the rights of students to freedom to pursue knowledge and truth, even if it was not the ideologically or politically popular truth? I know that I am speaking about the 1970s, but the issues are timeless and the dangers to academic freedom are still with us. Much more recently Professor David Marsland documented systematic bias in university and polytechnic sociology courses throughout the country in his book Seeds of Bankruptcy, with a comprehensive analysis which has not been refuted. I have a final example. I recently received a letter from a lecturer in English in one of the colleges of London University. He was dismayed by great pressures being applied for Shakespeare to be taught in terms of neo-Marxist political analysis; for example, "The Tempest" was to be taught in terms of political power. In the United States many academies are suffering from restriction of academic activities to those which are "politically correct"—the so-called "PC" phenomenon. This concept is just beginning to appear as a small cloud on the British horizon—at present no larger than a man's hand—but may prove to be a test of British academies' willingness to protect genuine academic freedom.
My colleagues and I were originally goaded into writing our book by grave dismay at seeing the effects on students of the violations of academic freedom incurred by violent occupations of the colleges. Those occupations epitomise my second concern: denial of access by students to the education and other facilities to which they were entitled and for which they, or others, had paid. Many were mature students who had given up careers in order to study and were desperate in their frustration at this violation of their freedom to study. It was disingenuous of student leaders to claim
1050
unanimity of support for their occupations. In my experience, those "unanimous" decisions were often taken at student meetings attended by a fraction of students, while others were working hard or had to leave the college for family or work commitments. I know that there are now students feeling the same kind of frustration about recent occupations, when they have been denied access to their studies. But they are intimidated or too busy with responsibilities in the world outside the academy to be able to challenge the student leadership.
My third concern with regard to accountability, quality of educational provision and academic freedom is censorship. I believe that academic freedom is essential for a free society. The academy must be a market place for the free discussion of ideas. There is legal protection against unacceptable situations such as incitement to racial hatred. Apart from that, there must be freedom for the expression of any viewpoints; if ideas are uncongenial to some, their fallacies should be exposed in free discussion; they should not be censored off the campus. But recent years have seen too many instances where speakers have been refused permission to speak on the campuses of our universities and polytechnics. I am not talking about speakers who might infringe the law; I am talking about democratically elected government Ministers and courageous individuals like Mr. Ray Honeyford. The situation is totally unacceptable. I believe that such censorship on the academies of our campuses is pernicious. It is a basic violation of academic freedom and could be likened, in an embryonic form, to the kind of repression experienced in Nazi Germany or under communism. Yet it has happened recently in this country. I believe that it is a matter for grave concern.
I have spoken about these unpleasant realities because they are not fictitious. They demonstrate the vulnerability of academies to pressures from those who exploit the principle of academic freedom and turn it into a travesty of itself. The colleagues who taught Marxism, to the detriment of any other welatanschauung, claimed academic freedom to do so. I do not begrudge them the right to teach Marxism; indeed, I do so myself as a social scientist. However, I challenge the use of intimidation to require students to accept only a Marxist position. Students who occupy academies claim a democratic mandate; but many students suffer a serious interruption of their right to study. Those who imposed censorship claim a twisted form of academic freedom in the argument that they wish to avoid "offensive" speeches. They set themselves up as judge and jury, with no appeal or redress.
I am deeply concerned about the problems of protecting academic freedom. I know that the issues are complex. But, during subsequent debates at later stages of the Bill I hope to hear advice from those who are more experienced in these matters about ways in which academies may reassure the public about their methods of protecting this fundamental principle.
But because there is public concern, I suggest that the intentions of the Bill in its endeavours to build in mechanisms for accountability and quality assurance

1051
and ultimate safeguards against abuse of taxpayers' money are legitimate and worthy of very serious consideration as the Bill passes through its various stages.
I must express support for my noble friend Lord Pearson who always succeeds in stimulating Members of the Committee with his forthright views. I suspect that he engenders such animated opposition because there is a good deal of uncomfortable truth in what he says. From my own experience, I can vouch for the fact that there certainly were considerable opportunities for, if I may use a colloquial phrase, "ripping off" the system. As head of a department, I remember academic colleagues with salaries which, if not princely, at least compared favourably with other professiols, who had the burdensome load of two hours student contact a week and who did not spend the rest of their time on research, administration or other academic activities. When I made mild inquiries about their right to this way of earning a living, I was reminded of the key words "academic freedom" and "tenure".
I know that circumstances have changed. I doubt if I would find identical situations today. There is much less surplus in the system now; indeed, in many places it may be pared to the bone, at least by British standards. But the point is simply this: the academic community did not call those colleagues to account; external factors and tightening budgets did. Therefore, my concern—and it remains with me—is that I can see no reason why academics should not be prepared to be accountable to the Government and to the society that finances them in very clearly laid out measures of quality control.
I do not believe that the wording of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Pearson is ideal. However, I hope that the spirit behind them will not be laughed out of court. I am of course aware that there is an intention in the Bill to establish a quality assurance committee. But I am worried about potential resistance by the academic community in the name of academic freedom being of such a kind that it may prevent any such committee from doing an effective job.
I know many dedicated academics pursuing academic excellence. I have unbounded respect for them. But I have raised these dreary examples of less-than-excellent situations—situations which I believe have gone off the rails and about which there was some discussion in the earlier debate but which I did not wish to prolong—to explain the rationale for these amendments. They seek to enshrine the principle of accountability at the level of the academies themselves, in ways similar to those which the Government have already enacted, to their great credit, in ether parts of the education system.
I know from my experience of working with the CNAA, and as a governor of a polytechnic, that many academies are operating increasingly stringent quality assurance procedures. I welcome that. I do not envisage any problems of principle or practice if information about the mechanisms and results of these procedures were to be made, and be required to be made, available to the funding council; and, in
1052
appropriate form, to the public who support, use and, after all, finance our academies. Such an approach to accountability would be democratic, it would not violate the fundamental principles of academic freedom to which we are all deeply committed and might satisfy any government of the day that the nation's money was being well invested in the precious resource of our national academies. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these matters. The concerns of which she spoke are indeed timeless. They certainly go back as far as Socrates and, I suspect, if our records permitted us to say so, a great deal further. The noble Baroness is complaining about a form of original sin. I believe that it is as old as humanity. It is at all times objectionable.
What the noble Baroness said about freedom of speech is quite right. The last time the issue came directly my way was at a meeting in an institution to which I belonged. It was to be addressed by Mr. Enoch Powell. We received a report that there was a risk of disruption. I immediately cancelled every commitment I had—they were numerous—and went along to attend the meeting as an ordinary member of the audience. When it is necessary, I shall do so again.
I agree with the tribute that the noble Baroness paid to her noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I do not agree with everything she said about exactly what sort of solution is required. But the general principles are agreed. I hope that we can work together to defend them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for that encouragement. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 251A and 268ZA which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Cox. The amendment is designed to be helpful to academic quality and to academic freedom. Those who oppose Clauses 53, 64 and 77 do so more because they fear interference from the Secretary of State in academic matters than because they fear the proper scrutiny of the use of public funds. Therefore, the amendment deals exclusively with academic quality and, if accepted, would go some way to assuring the Secretary of State that quality control was working and was seen to be working in all our higher education institutions.
The amendment really follows on from what I said on Second Reading when I doubted whether the polytechnics were ready for the degree of academic freedom envisaged by the Bill. I doubted that because the CNAA took much on trust when it granted accreditation. I am afraid that there are current examples, to which I shall return, where that trust clearly has not been justified.
It must also be true to say that the universities have much less obvious quality assurance mechanisms than the polytechnics. On Second Reading I suggested to my noble friend that if the Government got into trouble on these clauses, he might achieve much the same safeguards for academic quality by requiring on the face of the Bill our higher education institutions to continue with perhaps two of the CNAA's excellent

1053
quality assurance mechanisms: first, that institutions should be required to publish detailed profiles of the courses that they offer, together with their reading lists; and, secondly, that they should publish the names of the external examiners for each of their courses and the reports of those external examiners.
The amendment does not go so far as those specific proposals. It certainly cannot be said to interfere with academic freedom. It does not attempt to prescribe what should be in the course profiles. It would merely display the course content for scrutiny by students and the wider public. Such glasnost would make the proposed academic audit unit's job much easier than if it had to deal with the universities' present reticence in that regard.
I fear that noble and academic Lords, particularly those who work in the university sector, may object to such open quality assurance. But I do not see how they can do so justifiably. After all, huge sums of public money are being spent on these courses. It seems perfectly reasonable for the public, and more particularly the students intending to take the courses, to be told what is on offer.
Members of the Committee who work in higher education, and others, may feel that that type of quality assurance can be left to the institutions themselves; in other words, to our old friend self-regulation. My experience tells me that they would be wrong.
My noble friend Lady Cox has explained a number of areas of concern where academic freedom has not led to academic quality, as we in this place understand that concept. I have said that I will give other examples, although for obvious reasons I should prefer not to give the names of the institutions involved. My examples tend to be from the subject areas of the humanities, social science and teacher training which is where the worst abuses seem to occur. The examples also tend to come from the polytechnic sector because that is my area of experience and because in the CNAA the polytechnics have a mechanism which does much to bring that type of problem into the open and so to limit those abuses of public funds and academic freedom.
Indeed, in the first of my examples, I shall not give the name of the institution because I have promised the student who has told me about the teacher training course in question that I shall not do so until he or she has finished the course in July. I respect that, because I know that the hobgoblins who inhabit the secret garden of teacher training in this country can he vindictive against those who challenge some of their cancerous traditions. Be that as it may, students on the teacher training course in question have to put up with a lot in order to be politically correct, and thus be awarded their degree. On their first day they are obliged to join one of the three teaching unions and they are taught that competitive sports breed inequality and are insulting to those who do not win.
The students are forbidden to use terms such as "first" or "second" during games or other lessons, because those terms are elitist. Instead, words such as "cabbage" or "cauliflower" are to replace the elitist
1054
concepts of winners and runners-up. From the start of the course "correct language" is forced upon the students. Students who use terms such as "caveman", instead of the correct "cave person", are marked down and told that they will fail their exams if they persist in using such outrageously sexist language.
My informant was marked down last month for using the term "his" when talking about an imaginary teacher in a presentation. The course is aimed at child-centred learning; children should not have to show their writing to their teachers unless they wish to; children do not need handwriting lessons; and good grammar and spelling are not to be encouraged. When the students come to geography or history, they are told that facts are worthless, and that what matters are "historical concepts" and their relationship to social issues. When they come to mathematics they are taught that children must not be forced to learn anything: outdated multiplication tables have no place in the modern classroom.
As to classroom discipline, the future teacher is taught that any criticism or punishment is counterproductive. Bad behaviour must be ignored because there is almost certain to be a social explanation for it. That course is running now in a respectable institution. It has been validated by the CNAA. It has been accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education; it has been inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and its products are licensed to teach by the Department of Education and Science. That is the type of course that the amendment is designed to display for public comment.
My second example refers to another polytechnic. This time it is a whole institution where the quality control mechanisms have clearly broken down, especially in the area of so-called independent studies. The polytechnic in question has just assured the CNAA that it has,
"initiated major changes to the management and oversight of quality throughout the polytechnic".
The CNAA is to review those changes next February, when all the institutions' quality assurance arrangements, together with their external examiner systems, will be reviewed. That is a case where an entire institution has slipped through the net of the CNAA's accreditation process and our other quality assurance mechanisms. Again, the amendment would help the proposed new academic audit unit to discover that type of problem in a more timely fashion in future. I am sure that there will be other such examples with which to deal.
My third and final example relates to a whole subject discipline. where the present quality control mechanisms do not appear to be working. Apart from teacher training, upon which I have tried the patience of this place often in the past, I should tell the Committee that cultural studies, often allied to media studies, have always been, and are still, far too narrow in their scope. Cultural studies were recently described in the polytechnic which gave birth to that subject as,
"A Marxist critique of British history".
When I visited a well-known polytechnic to decide whether it should receive accreditation from the CNAA, I queried with some members of the academic board whether their system for screening their external

1055
examiners was working satisfactorily. Had it, for instance, I asked, rejected any external examiners proposed by a course team? "Yes", I was told, "there had been an example, but the screening had not worked for other reasons". When I probed further, one of the professors present, who represented a respectable hard discipline—chemistry, I think—confessed openly that they had tried to change an external examiner for their cultural studies course because they wanted someone who was not a Marxist. They had not been able to find any examiners in cultural studies who were not Marxist and so gave up the struggle. I was of course unhappy that that institution should have been accredited. I suggested that they might have found a philosopher, or someone else; but as the lone non-academic voice in the process, I was, I am afraid, easily overridden.
I hope that those three examples add to what my noble friend Lady Cox said, and show why we believe the amendment on the face of the Bill, or something similar, would be helpful to academic quality in higher education. Many Members of this place rightly insist that academic freedom should be defended at all costs. I join them wholeheartedly. But academic freedom can be hollow indeed and may even be used dangerously unless it discharges its sacred duty to academic quality. That is why the amendment should be accepted by all sides of the Committee.
Lord Peston: I believe in freedom of speech. I have believed in it since my mother first told me to shut up and added, "If you do not shut up, I shall smack you". I must say, however, that my belief in the freedom of speech is tested to the limit by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. But those things are meant to be tested to the limit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, eventually reached the amendment which is on the Marshalled List, after making a long speech upon which I wish to make a few remarks. This is a sensible amendment. I see no connection between it and academic freedom. I assume that we are entitled to interpret it as coming under Clause 64, as amended by the Minister when he comes forward with some amendments. But, subject to that, it is sensible that such documents should be drawn up and published. Institutions publish annual reports. It would be admirable if they were to publish annual reports about what they think they are doing by way of education, including the quality of the education, It all sounds fine to me. My only caveat is that in those reports the photographs should at least be true to life and should not consist merely of the one student who was wearing a suit or a dress. Photographs of the building should not be taken on the only day of the year upon which it is not raining. What I mean is that it should be an honest annual report.
I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the amendments, although I guess that he will say, "Why put it on the face of the Bill? I am sure that we can rely upon the funding councils". The spirit of the amendment makes good sense and I see no problems with academic freedom in relation to it.
Let me say on the whole freedom question that I do not believe that freedom is a complex matter. Either
1056
one believes in freedom of speech and freedom of publication, including the freedom of speech of those whose views one finds hateful, or one does not. Those people who try to suppress views that they do not like are mistaken. They are mistaken on other grounds too. I am an optimist. I believe that correct views will out, and I want noble Lords to talk the nonsense that they do. I argue that point with my students when they try to prevent people from speaking on campus. I find such attempts wholly deplorable. I want nonsense to be expressed, so it may be exposed. I believe one should take that position as regards freedom of speech.
I say slightly cynically that I wish Members of the Committee would apply views of that kind to, for example, their friends in the Tory press. They might point out that it is a good rule to give more than one view on a topic. However, I only say that slightly cynically as I know they take the same view themselves.
I believe that the examples given by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are idiosyncratic. They do not apply to the overwhelming majority of cases. It is easy to find cases which may be exaggerated. I would have no difficulty in finding a moderate Left wing economist who would pronounce that every economics course in the country was biased in favour of the market mechanism. He would declare such courses were Right wing and unacceptable. I would argue that such criticism was unacceptable as the speaker did not understand the nature of freedom. I believe the noble Baroness could take a slightly more judicious view of these matters.
I believe the student referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was, to say the least, having the noble Lord on slightly. I could almost certainly find another student on the same course who would give the noble Lord a view at the other extreme. The noble Lord should not be taken in in that way. I am not saying for one moment that there are not courses that are not satisfactory, but the concept of freedom includes the ability to get things wrong. One must face that fact. The concept of freedom includes the ability to make a mess of a course. I might be persuaded occasionally that I have got things wrong, and I am not the only academic who can be persuaded in that way. I did not wish to have a debate on academic freedom at this point. However, I wished to respond to those who have spoken. I wish to support the previous speakers in persuading the Minister that, in my judgment, what they are proposing is neither incompatible with the Bill nor devastating to all the causes of good education we believe in.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has mentioned nearly everything I intended to say so I can make my speech short. I feel bound to say that, although I greatly enjoyed, as I always do, the vigorous and lively speeches of my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the first line of the amendment simply will not do in the light of the discussion that took place in the first hour and a half of the debate this afternoon. If there is to be annual

1057
reporting of the kind envisaged, it should be made to the funding council and not to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether my noble friends have considered that under Clause 66(1) (a) as it stands, a great deal of what they have in mind can already be achieved. It is just a question of how it is done.
Lord Desai: Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I too cannot envisage much of a connection between what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said and the wording of the amendment. I entirely agree with the wording of the amendment. We would be proud to publish reports on the quality of education we provide in universities.
I have written on the subject of Marxism. I might even be called a Marxist economist, at least every other day of the week. I have never considered that the country is terrorised by too much Marxism. Indeed, as has been pointed out, it is hard to find more than about two such people to conduct any examinations in Marxist economics. However, what matters above all is the principle of peer group review. If we are to judge course content, quality of teaching and the selection of examiners, those matters should be judged by the peers of the academics involved. That is an important principle.
If the Secretary of State, the DES or anyone else started to dictate who the examiners should be, whether they be High Keynesians, anarchists, Marxists, or whatever, or if we were told what courses we could or could not teach, that would be the end of academic freedom. Academics have already felt not overt but subtle pressures when we have been told that certain courses are not viable in the marketplace and therefore they should not be taught. I accept that that is not an overt attack on academic freedom but we feel that increasingly economic pressures are being placed on universities—that has been the case for the past 15 years—which make it difficult to teach the kind of courses we have been teaching. I recognise that we are spending public money and that we must be accountable. I ask that the principle of peer group review should be preserved in the context of preserving academic freedom. If we lose that principle, I do not know what will happen.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox will tell the Committee whether she feels this amendment and her comments in support of it conflict with the arguments that were deployed in the previous debate in Committee. She and I listened carefully to every word of that debate as it concerned a delicate matter and we must be realistic about it. I hope my noble friend will be able to say whether she feels this amendment conflicts in any way with the view that was expressed by all but one of the speakers in that debate.
Lord Belstead: This is an interesting debate, but we must begin to look at the clock. My noble friends have introduced an amendment with which—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned this—it is not possible to disagree, irrespective of on which side of the Chamber one sits. The amendment proposes that each
1058
institution should publish its arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the quality of its education and should publish an annual report on that for the appropriate funding council.
I cannot disagree with the general thrust of the amendment. However, I wish to make a point that is similar to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We need to look at the quality assurance provisions in the Bill, both as regards assessment and audit. Those provisions concern the means of achieving scrutiny on the part of external bodies in the public interest. I have no doubt that that aim would be helped by the publication of annual and other reports by institutions. They already publish annual reports. In the interests of not including every provision that we would like to include in the Bill, I believe we must regard this amendment with a quizzical eye. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to Clause 66(1) (a) which provides for assessment facilities. I believe that that goes a long way to satisfying the requirements of my noble friend Lady Cox.
I listened with interest to the example given by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I have no doubt that that example was genuine but—as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said—it was possibly of an idiosyncratic nature. At any rate I trust that such an example would not be found elsewhere. However, I move closer to my noble friend Lord Pearson in saying that it was precisely because there was concern over the kind of example my noble friend gave that the Government decided to introduce the national curriculum and assessment systems in schools, to require in the Citizen's Charter the publication of exam results, and to encourage the production of prospectuses by schools. If a teacher training course arises such as my noble friend described, those who undertake such a course will not last long in the schools of our country where the serious matters of life are taken seriously.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend sits down I should mention that the word "idiosyncratic" has been used by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and—I regret—by my noble friend the Minister. I admit that being in this position is sometimes akin to standing on the shores of Loch Ness and being convinced one has seen the monster. Nevertheless I assure the Committee that, particularly as regards teacher training in this country, the course I have referred to is not as idiosyncratic as should be the case.
Lord Peston: I did not want to intervene, but I must insist on this point. As an academic I have had similar experiences. At my college I have taught graduate students who have had other undergraduate experience and who have said, "Thank goodness we are not being brainwashed any more". I have turned on them in great anger and said, "No, you have had a good economics education by economists I disagree with, but 1 think it has done you some good. Now you are being taught by me as well". I object strongly to the fact that some people whose political views are different from mine cannot distinguish between disagreement and legitimate expression of opinion. I

1059
do not know the case in question, but I say of that particular student that I should be careful about giving such ad hoc examples. That is all I wish to say.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate on these amendments. I am grateful for the support in principle of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
In response to the exchange about the typicality or otherwise of the examples which my noble friend Lord Pearson and I gave, perhaps I may say that in this Chamber we have the benefit of representatives from the very best of academe. It falls to lesser mortals such as myself who have worked in some of the less salubrious areas or who have friends who work in areas where some of those more dubious situations occur and who have had the courage to challenge them, often at great personal cost, to feel it incumbent upon us to raise the issues, which we believe are of deep professional and academic importance and which raise matters of academic freedom.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that censorship on the academy is a serious matter. That has happened. It has happened far too often in this country to be compatible with the principles of a free society. I very much welcomed the reassurances of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the stand which he took when confronted with such a situation. I wish that all our academies and academics had taken that stand. In that case there would have been no academic censorship and the situation would be very much healthier.
I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his wise advice, from which I always benefit, and I accept it. When I moved the amendment I said that we were not sure that the wording was right and that we were not committed to that wording but wished merely to air the spirit of the amendment.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who asked me whether the amendment would be incompatible with the thrust of what was agreed during the debate on the previous amendment, that we see no incompatibility. We are trying to ensure that systematic procedures for quality assurance are generated by the institutions themselves and that the mechanisms and results of those quality assurance procedures will be made available to the funding councils and also to the public, who have a legitimate interest in the matter. Therefore, it is a bottom up rather thin a top down approach. Nevertheless, it relates to the key area of the interface between academic freedom, accountability and academic quality. I1 was in that spirit that we proposed the amendment.
I am grateful for the support in principle from Members of the Committee who have spoken and for the wise advice 1 have received. I can assure my noble friend the Minister that we have no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage, but we may wish to return to the matter with a refined version at the next stage following consultation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): If Amendment No. 253 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 254, 255 and 266.
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 256 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 46, line 8, at beginning insert, ("Subject to section 66(2A) below").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.257 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 272, which I understand is consequential upon it.
Lord Belstead: Amendment No. 257 was grouped with Amendment No. 250. Although no one can fetter the noble Earl in what he wishes to do I ask him to recognise that that is the case.
Earl Russell: I should be grateful for some clarification. I saw the provisional groupings on Sunday. Amendment No. 272 stood on its own. That seemed acceptable. I was teaching all morning but when I arrived here today I saw that that arrangement had been altered. I sent a note to the Minister to ask whether I could speak to the amendments together. I heard of no objection and took it that it was acceptable. However, if it is not, I shall move Amendment No. 272 in its place on the Marshalled List.
Lord Belstead: I apologise if I misled the noble Earl when he passed me his note. I should have thought that the amendment should be moved in its place on the Marshalled List. In a sense the group has been dealt with, but I leave it to the noble Earl to do what he thinks best.
Lord Renton: Both of the noble Earl's amendments happen to be simple paving amendments which do not get us anywhere.
Earl Russell: Has the noble Lord, Lord Renton, any advice for me? If he has I shall take it. I shall move the amendment, as I gave notice to the Minister that I would. I agree with the Minister that we have to watch the clock, but for me this is the single most important amendment to the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take a little time over it.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl so that I know what is happening. Is he speaking to Amendment No. 257 and Amendment No. 272?
Earl Russell: Yes, that is correct. In relation to the amendment I speak also on behalf of your Lordships' petitioners, the students of King's College, who prayed that in any expansion of higher education the quality of degrees be maintained.
When I look at Clause 66, which relates to the quality assessment committee, I am reminded of the 17th century cloth industry. That was a highly cyclical industry which suffered extreme booms and slumps. During slumps unemployment would rise rapidly. The Privy Council, fearing riots, would forbid employers to lay off labour. The employers, whose market had disappeared, would therefore look anxiously for other

1061
methods of cutting costs. The method on which they tended to fasten was reducing quality. They sold the cloth by the yard. The method they regularly used was what was known as "tentering", which involved hanging the cloth from tenterhooks and stretching it so that the amount of cloth which was sold for a yard was a great deal less. The Government, having created the situation which placed the employers under such pressure, then used to submit them to show trials in the Star Chamber.
The Committee will understand why the quality assessment committee, as presently constituted, reminds me of that story for the committee is an umpire which can give only one side out. There are such umpires. I shall not abuse parliamentary privilege by naming them. It would be a mistake to establish one in the Bill.
The central point of the amendment is that it gives the quality assessment committee power to give either side out. Where it observes a decline in quality it is to be given the power by this amendment to decide whether that is or is not the result of a mismatch between the amount of money the Secretary of State has provided and the objectives which he has set for it.
There is a good deal of division of opinion in the academic community about the quality assessment committee. The view is expressed strongly that defining quality is not proper to the Secretary of State. I sympathise profoundly with that view. However, I am not afraid of scrutiny. It appears to me that the threat to university quality comes in the first instance not from direct intervention in the principle of autonomy but from doing the same thing by the rather more effective route of reducing the level of funding and therefore forcing people to take for themselves decisions which they would resist to the death if they were imposed upon them by the Secretary of State. We are regularly—indeed daily—in that position ourselves.
I said last Tuesday in Committee that many of my academic colleagues perceive the gravest threat to quality as being the Secretary of State. I saw in The Times Higher Educational Supplement on Friday that the Secretary of State had chosen to take notice of that. I am glad that he has noticed. I had the impression that I was creating a general surprise in the Chamber when I said that. That perplexed me. I could think of a great many reactions that might have been appropriate—scepticism, dissent and even outrage—but not surprise. That is what we have all been saying for years. If it has not got through, there will have been a real breakdown in communication.
There used to be two among my academic friends who dissented from that view. One of them has changed his mind as a result of this term's unfunded expansion. He is now looking for a non-academic job. So now there is one. People should not have been that surprised. That is the view held by most of the colleagues to whom I talk daily. I ask the Minister in that context—I have given him notice of this question—what is the duty of an academic who believes that he has a choice between voting for the closure of his institution and reducing the quality of the degree that
1062
he has to offer? Many of my friends believe that they face such a choice. Clearly, the Government do not wish us to take either of those options, but, if we believe that there is no other left, we must take one of them. We are entitled to ask which of them the Secretary of State finds less offensive.
In 1985 during university finals, a letter appeared in the Independent from an academic unknown to me, saying in effect, "This year's graduates will have received an education of approximately the quality that we were used to before 1979. They are probably the last year of which that will be true". That seemed to me at the time to be just about right, and it still does. Since 1985, with the squeeze on funding, there has been a steady but at first slow decline in the quality of the degree and this term, with unfunded expansion, there appears to have been a positively precipitous decline. Indeed it seems to be very near the point of no return. All that appears to me and to every colleague with whom I have discussed the matter to be the result of the pressure on unit costs.
I should explain what I mean when I talk about quality. In the first place, I talk of the union of teaching and research. The Secretary of State is mistaken if he thinks that undergraduates do not want that. Those who are concerned with academic freedom are mistaken if they think that it is not essential to quality. As recently as last Friday I was listening to a first-year undergraduate explaining to me with great courtesy why he thought that my book had thrown out the baby with the bath-water. I think that he learnt something out of that process and I am certain that I did. That is part of what I mean when I talk about quality.
When I talk about quality I also mean that teaching must involve a meeting of minds. That means that it must take place in a group small enough for a meeting of minds to be possible. Perhaps I may give an example of why that is so important. I was once listening to an essay on the causes of inflation in the 16th century which, although it sounded a little pompous, appeared to have got on top of the subject. But, listening to it further, I got the smell of reading the brief. The person concerned talked about the circulating medium at great length. I asked him what the circulating medium was and received the reply of disarming frankness, "I haven't the first idea. It's all Greek to me". If I had simply had that essay in front of me on paper, I should have had to give it some kind of second-class mark. It was only by the individual contact and the power of conversation that I was able to find out that that was not the case.
The pressure to reduce unit costs means the pressure to increase teaching groups and to make that kind of encounter more difficult. It means a reduction in the amount of work done. According to a survey published in the Independent two weeks ago, 25 per cent. of undergraduates are now doing jobs during full term. Almost every university in the country is now discussing how far it can, without loss of quality, reduce the number of essays that it requires from students. There is at least the possibility that that may threaten the quality. There is the certainty that it will do so in a case about which I was told last weekend

1063
involving a university department which is considering the possibility of making attendance at all its undergraduate teaching voluntary. Does that shed any light on why I have some doubt whether the money spent on battery higher education is worth the expenditure?
We have talked many times about books. People do not realise the scale of the problem. It is not simply a matter of occasional inconvenience. It is sometimes a matter of sheer basic inability to do the work. I was recently told about another university which has established the rule that people taking out books, which may be up to 400 pages long, may have them only from 9 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. on one day. That is not a quality way of reading a book. Education must involve a critical reading of conflicting written accounts and you must draw the line at the point at which that disappears.
The fundamental point here is that we have a classic distorted market. The Secretary of State quite properly controls the amount that he spends, but he also controls the decision as to how much that money shall buy. That is not a proper decision for him. It creates a distorted market quite as much as the market in Russian airlines and, if we are not careful, it will end up in the same kind of mess. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The noble Earl has given us a wide-ranging insight into aspects of problems in the education system which he has clearly prepared with great care. I am sure that we are grateful that the fruit of his preparations was not lost to us.
As the number of students in the higher education sector increases, we may all worry that there is a risk that quality may not be maintained or may be diminished. It might be helpful if some provision in the Bill would allow attention to be focused on that issue, but the amendment tabled by the noble Earl is not entirely practicable. He asks the quality assessment committee to monitor whether the resources made available by the Secretary of State to the funding councils are sufficient for their purpose. It might haw: been an interesting amendment to suggest an insertion into the Bill for some body—a committee or council—to have that function, but, after all, the quality assessment committee is to be set up by the funding council and, according to the usual convention, it should therefore report to the funding council.
Moreover, provision is made in Amendment No. 272 that all reports by the quality assessment committee should be published. I can well see the merit of advocating that the quality assessment committee should produce reports of a certain kind which should indeed be published. But we must assume that the quality assessment committee on occasion will want to make to the funding council confidential reports which will be personal and critical of the level of quality in certain departments. It may wish to indicate in personal terms some of the reasons why that quality is not what it might be. Clearly such reports should not be published if they are to be framed with the candour that would be useful to the funding council.
I feel great sympathy with the noble Earl's
1064
observations. I understand that he is rightly concerned about the risks of reduction in personal contact if the unit of resource is diminished. However, I feel that it might be more appropriate to set up a mechanism by which the unit of resource could be in some manner reviewed. But this is too heavy a burden to put upon the quality assessment committee as it is framed within the context of the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Desai: I support the spirit in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, moved the amendment. As a practising academic I have no doubt in my mind that over the past 10 years the quality of education that we provide has declined. I am sorry to say so, but it has declined.
It strikes me that there is a paradox. The public at large have not understood a very simple proposition. Perhaps the unit of resource used by the universities—that is the only system that I know—was thought to be rather high; but people did not see the quality of the output. At the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that when Professor Robin Marris examined the quality of output in relation to the cost, he found that the university system funded on the old rules (somewhat more generous than they are now) was a highly productive system and that cutting the money would make it less productive.
It is a false economy to believe that to cut the unit of resource in higher education will improve matters. Yes, it would save money; but it is false economics to consider only the money spent and not take into account the quality of output obtained. At the time I pointed out that I am teaching twice as many tutees as I did when I first came to this country. I support what the noble Earl said. I see less of them and speak less to them; and they have no time to talk to me.
We shall end up with the Continental system of education: not much money spent, lots of students, ostensibly undertaking higher education, but far fewer of them finishing that education and a large degree of wastage. The quality of education will be poor. The students will take much longer to finish. That is what will happen. When people say that they want to look at quality, they mean that they want to minimise the amount of money spent, regardless of the quality of output.
The noble Earl talks in paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 272 about:
"the likely effects of any terms and conditions imposed by the Council … on the quality of education".
Unless we examine that question, we are heading towards a situation in which the universities will not only be as poorly funded as the polytechnics have been in the past 15 years but they will be funded as are the Continental universities and we shall lose the one critical edge that we have, which is the production of high quality graduates.
Lord Renton: I must apologise to the noble Earl, and do so gladly, for saying that the two amendments were paving amendments. The truth is that I misheard him. I thought that he referred to Amendment No. 273 whereas he spoke of Amendment No. 272. I agree

1065
very much with my noble friend Lord Renfrew on Amendment No. 273. I should like to add that Clause 66 (1) (b) states that:
"Each council shall … establish a committee, to be known as the 'Quality Assessment Committee', with the function of giving them advice".
In the amendment we find that the committee is to report to the Secretary of State and Parliament on various matters concerning the work of the funding council; in other words, the noble Earl wishes the quality assessment committee to become a watchdog instead of an advisory committee.
The noble Earl nods his head in agreement. That would be a fundamental change and one which would require very careful consideration by this Chamber and especially by the Government. I should not have thought that the amendment could be made as an addition to Clause 66, as that clause stands at the moment. However, in any event, although I understand and to a great extent agree with the views expressed by the noble Earl about improving the quality of legislation—that is what everyone is trying to do—I am doubtful about having that body in effect to report to politicians, the Secretary of State and Parliament.
I believe that it is much better that the people who are given the statutory responsibility—the funding councils which are responsible to the Secretary of State who, in his turn, is responsible to Parliament—should act in the way envisaged by the Bill and not in the direct way suggested by the noble Earl's amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I should like to return briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and challenge one or two of the assumptions that he made. Although there is a limiting point at which the funding per student in higher education becomes too low to preserve quality, we are a very long way from that point. Nor is the direct relationship which the noble Lord suggested between a diminishing unit of resource and the quality of higher education at all proven. Indeed, it would be most unfortunate for the generation of graduates of the past few years should this House go on record as believing that they were of any lower quality than any of their predecessors. It would be no justice either to them or to the teachers who worked hard to teach them.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I did not say that the students were of lower quality but that the education that they were receiving was of lower quality.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the noble Earl for his interruption. It was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who mentioned that the quality of education had declined in the past few years.
Lord Desai: I did not say that the quality of students had declined; I referred to the quality of the education that we are providing.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: The Committee will forgive me but I believe that if the quality of the
1066
students' education has declined, that must say something about the quality of the graduates. Otherwise, why are we in the business of educating them? In that case the education that we give them bears no relation to the quality of output. I find that a very strange thesis.
I should like also to take issue with the comparison made with our Continental counterparts. It would be extremely arrogant if we in this country were to claim that our graduates were somehow innately superior to the graduates of our European partners. They have produced a magnificent record both in their scholarship and their contribution to the economy. To say that our higher education system is moving in the direction of the European system might indeed be considered a compliment rather than a criticism.
Lord Beloff: I am afraid that the noble Baroness mistakes the point made by the two noble Lords opposite. It is not a matter of the merit of the graduates produced by either system. Because most of the students who begin also graduate, our system is economically and socially superior to a system in which every young person registers at a university and intermittently attends it without ever graduating. It is a point about the economics of education. It is no reflection on the product of Continental systems which we all know and admire.
Lord Belstead: I understand from the noble Earl's amendment, Amendment No. 272, that he is asking the quality assessment committee to monitor whether resources are efficient in various different ways—there are about five indents to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Renfrew was right in his intervention. There will be scope, through the publication of quality assessment reports and quality audit reports, for quality to be monitored.
Unit costs and the relationship between funding and quality are reviewed each year as part of the public expenditure survey, with all the external advice which is offered and all the reporting that goes on when the announcement is made.
The noble Earl was good enough—I thank him—to give me notice of the specific question that he would ask about the straight choice, as he sees it, between lowering standards of a degree and closure of a college. I do not accept that that choice faces a university. Without being boring about it, public funding for higher education is at record levels. The latest settlement gives the Universities Funding Council £144 million more in fee income and capital in recurrent grant for 1992–93 than the estimated out-turn in 1991–92.
One could go on about it, but I bring the matter to a conclusion by saying that available recurrent funding for the two sectors in 1993–94 and 1994–95 will be £4.2 billion and £4.4 billion-17 per cent. and 22 per cent. more than they were in 1991–92.
Earl Russell: With respect, I did not ask the Minister to accept that the choice faces any academic. I did not ask for miracles. I asked the correct course of conduct for an academic who, rightly or wrongly, believes himself to be facing such a choice.
Lord Belstead: The answer is to consider the facts which I give the noble Earl. The fact is that universities are enrolling more students than ever, thus indicating their confidence that they have spare capacity. I realise that there are those who believe that more always means worse. However, HMI has reported that the quality of education in polytechnics and colleges, where growth in student numbers has been more rapid than in universities, has been maintained and advanced. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Desai, protesting that it is easy to say these things from this Box. However, the noble Earl has to explain why, in the light of the figures that I have given him, he believes that that choice faces a particular academic.
Earl Russell: I am happy to do so. The unit of resource per student since 1984 has fallen by 12 per cent. There is, I admit, more money. However, the number of students grows above that proportion—and that is what the Secretary of State means by efficiency!
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for his support. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Desai, for the point they both made about the Continental system. I agree with them both. My college teaches, either on a visiting basis or on a more permanent basis, large numbers of students from countries in the European Community. Many of those students have told me that they have come to the college precisely because the quality of teaching that they receive is so much better than that available to them in their own countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that we continue the system envisaged in the Bill. If I had believed that that system had shown the least sign of working effectively I would not have put down what I agree with him is a rather unusual amendment. However, I believe what I said about the decline in quality having been precipitous this term. I speak on the matter from personal experience. We cannot simply wait and allow a mechanism which has failed many times to continue to do so.
I listened with a great deal of care to the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Renton, about the technicalities of the amendment. I confess that I am not wedded to every detail of the drafting of the amendment. However, my objective in putting it forward in this way is to find a body to which one can appeal in which the Secretary of State has expressed confidence. That was precisely the advantage to me of the attraction of the quality assessment committee. The Secretary of State cannot say that this is a packed jury. It is a jury in which the Secretary of State has expressed confidence and to whose finding, therefore, he should be prepared to listen.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about the possibility of constructing an alternative mechanism for a review of a unit of resource. If the noble Lord were to offer to get together with me before Report stage to draft such an amendment and to find ways of picking a body which the Secretary of State would accept, I would not press the matter to a Division. If he can find a better way of
1068
doing that, I shall listen. I have not found a better way. The matter must be accomplished in one way or another.
The Minister spoke of spare capacity. I have had discussions in many places in the past two weeks where expansion has already reached a point which is illegal under the Factories Act 1961. If the noble Lord speaks of spare capacity he is giving an incentive to break the law. I thought that that could only be done on Sundays!
We referred to books. I was told today of an institution in London where the teachers have taken the books into protective custody. They allow them out only to selected students whom they trust to look after them. That is a degree of unfair advantage that I do not believe we should accept. I heard of another institution which has given up teaching from books. That is the point at which we should draw the line. Where that happens we should recommend closure. Rather than wait until that point, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 257) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Avebury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Desai, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Grimond, L.

Zuckerman, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Annan, L.

Elles, B.

Arran, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Flather, B.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bethell, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Limerick, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Long, V.

Cox, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Dainton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

1069

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Macfarlane of Beardsden, L.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rodney, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Mancroft, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Marlesford, L.

Sharples, B.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Stockton, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mountevans, L.

Swansea, L.

Munster, E.

Swinfen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teviot, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Trumpington, B.

Newall, L.

Ullswater, V.

Norrie, L.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Waddington, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Warnock, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wharton, B.

Pender, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wise, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Supplementary functions]:
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 46, line 19, after ("require") insert ("and in such manner as he may determine, and").
The noble Lord said: Recently we have heard a great deal about quality assessment and how it should be dealt with. At the end of the day the funding councils will proffer to the Secretary of State any observations which arise from their experience of assessment if the quality of higher education is diminishing. My amendment is intended to liberate the councils so that they may offer advice of any kind in any form that they wish.
Clause 65 states that each funding council:
"shall provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice … as he may from time to time require",
and in the form in which he requires it. The clause further states:
"Each council … may provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice relating to such provision as they think fit".
However, it does not state that it should be in the manner that each council thinks fit. My amendment is intended to make it possible for the councils to proffer such advice in any manner that appears reasonable to them.
The obvious point is that the Secretary of State cannot know the precise form in which the information or advice from the funding councils should come forward if he is not the originator. It is right that when seeking advice or information on particular matters the Secretary of State should prescribe the form that that should take. However, I submit that if there were such a degree of freedom on the part of the councils they could raise any matter which appeared to them to be germane and necessary to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State.
I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to the amendment. It will free up the system in the manner that I have described and enable an easy interchange between the Secretary of State and the funding councils in both directions. That is the sole purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment which is also tabled in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has put forward the main points and I wish to add only two. First, anyone who has had any experience of the government machine would wish to see the provision as a possibility without necessarily encouraging the councils continually to take such action.
Secondly, I believe that the addition of the words in the amendment will solve the problem about which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was so exercised; that is, about unitary resource, total resource and so forth. I notice that the noble Earl is not present in the Chamber. However, under such a heading the councils might feel obliged to say to the Secretary of State, "We do not believe that the financial problems of the institutions with which we are dealing are being tackled properly on your side". They will also be able to say that in public.
This amendment appears to be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. I hope that the Government will take it seriously. It is not a matter that can be taken for granted. It is an amendment which, correctly, should appear on the face of the Bill; those words should certainly be there.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Both the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Peston, are persuasive in the way in which the amendment is tabled and supported.
Clause 65(1) preserves the balance struck after considerable debate in your Lordships' Chamber in 1988 in providing for a free flow of advice to the Secretary of State from the funding councils, but for the Secretary of State to be the final arbiter as to the manner in which the advice is conveyed. The amendments seek to alter that balance.
A successful partnership between the councils and the Secretary of State must be based on mutual confidence. There will certainly be some examples of advice which is properly made public. But in other cases it will be sensible for advice to remain confidential.
The report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, was surely correct in its analysis of the role of an intermediary funding body such as the higher education funding council. The committee rightly said that the Government need independent advice on policy objectives, on the capabilities of higher education institutions and their capacity to meet those objectives, on the level of funding which would be required, and on the consequences for higher education of different levels of funding. It is precisely that sort of independent advice which the funding councils are equipped to provide.
But the committee went on to say that,
"Any advisory body will retain the Government's confidence only so long as it is seen to be both competent and

1071
independent; its usefulness vanishes if it acts, or is thought to act, as a stalking horse for special interests … In the political sense of lobbying, petitioning for public funds and seeking to influence public opinion, it is for higher education institutions, individually and collectively, to make their case".
I do not think that the difference between political lobbying and independent and objective advice can be exaggerated. Both have a role to play in the annual consideration of higher education funding. Giving the funding councils discretion over whether to publish their advice would inevitably mean pressure from institutions to do so. That, in turn, would inevitably place the councils in the position of having to justify to the institutions either why they did not propose to publish the advice or the nature of that advice if it was published. In the latter case, the advice would be bound to be affected. I believe that the funding councils welcomed the protection from lobbying that the Education Reform Act provisions gave them, and I suspect that their advice has been more effective for that.
Clause 65(1) strikes the right balance between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the funding councils, whereas Amendments Nos. 259, 260, 262 and 263 would upset that balance. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for sounding trenchant on the issue. But on behalf of the Government I feel that in this case the amendment is not acceptable.
Lord Dainton: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, introduced the word "publishing" which I refrained quite deliberately from using. I always envisaged that, as in my time as chairman of the University Grants Committee, 90 per cent. of the advice—indeed I cannot recall 1 per cent. myself—to the then Secretary of State (and I believe I served three) was proffered by the funding council, if one can call the UGC that, on a non—publishable basis, unless the Secretary of State declared otherwise. Therefore the question of publication is a red herring.
I find quite shocking the suggestion that a funding council should be a lobbying device. Its duty is not that of a lobbyist; its duty is, as part of the machinery of government, to do the job laid down in whatever Bill ultimately becomes an Act. I cannot accept the notion that it is a lobbying body and I hope that we will clear our minds of that. It is obscuring the straight issue in front of us; that is, that the flow of information and advice between the Secretary of State and the funding councils, in both directions, shall be on the basis of complete trust on either side so that nothing shall be lost for reasons of lack of trust or the feeling that one partner is able to constrain the advice and the form of it which it receives from the other. That is the simple point at issue.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble Lord if I have got the wrong end of the stick. As I read Amendment No. 260,—it is talking about the power—when it says information and advice shall be provided "in such manner" as the funding councils think right, it presumably means, among other things, to decide either to publish or not to publish.
Lord Dainton: Of course that must come within it. Presumably the same applies to the Secretary of State. But I doubt whether the power would be used by either side. In the light of what the noble Lord said I find it difficult to withdraw the amendment and therefore will not do so. I beg to move.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 259) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 67; Not-Contents 89.

Division NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Adrian, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Annan, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Dainton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Sherfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wharton, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Bauer, L.

Flather, B.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bethell, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Harrowby, E.

Blyth, L.

Haslam, L.

Borthwick, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brentford, V.

Holderness, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Limerick, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lyell, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Craigmyle, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

1073

Marlesford, L.

Renton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Renwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Rodney, L.

Milverton, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Mottistone, L.

Sharples, B.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Stockton, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Nelson, E.

Swinfen, L.

Newall, L.

Teviot, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Vivian, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
[Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 261 I must inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 262 or 263.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 262 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 263.
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 263 and 263A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 264 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 47, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("following consultations with the organisations representing higher education institutions").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 297. Clause 66 deals with the duty of the funding council to make provision for assessing the quality of education in institutions which they fund. As the previous debate made clear, the assessment of quality is a matter of great importance to the health of the higher education system, to the freedom of academics within it and to the aspirations which students in the wider community have as regards the nature of teaching and research in higher education. I welcome the consultation which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already undertaken with higher education institutions about quality assurance and the plans for auditing the quality assessment. Amendment No. 266 asks for an assurance that this consultation will continue and specifically will take place in relation to the detailed arrangements for the assessment of quality in individual institutions.
Amendment No. 297 relates to the provision in Clause 78 of reserve powers for the Secretary of State for the assessment of the arrangements for quality assurance within institutions. I find it reasonable that
1074
such reserve powers should be available to the Secretary of State as a last resort, if there were evidence that existing alternative arrangements had broken down. However, again, I seek reassurance that, before such powers are used, appropriate consultation will take place with the higher education institutions. In the light of the length of the debate so far, it is not my intention to press the amendment, but I ask for that reassurance from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I wish to support Amendment No. 266. It seems to me desirable to continue a practice that has been going on for some years that the CVCP and the CDP should be consulted on these matters. In future, we expect there to be a single organisation representing higher education institutions. We on this side of the Committee hope that consultation on these matters will take place with whatever the organisation may be.
Baroness David: As my name is on Amendment No. 297, I wish to express my support for the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Belstead: The difficulty with Amendment No. 266 is that it would focus the scope of consultation on the handful of organisations which represent further education institutions. My understanding is that the practice of both the UFC and the PCFC has been to consult each and every institution on major policy issues before reaching a view. In that way the voice of the smallest as well as the largest, the minority as well as the majority, is registered and considered. I think that the new funding councils would want to carry out a similar widespread consultation process with all institutions on the procedures for quality assessment.
The voice of the institutions will also be heard by virtue of subsection (2) of this clause which requires that the majority of the members of the quality assessment committee will be experienced people from higher education institutions. Therefore, the PCFC and UFC are already involving representations from institutions in arranging pilot assessments in universities, polytechnics and colleges next year. At each level of decision making, institutions will be fully involved, therefore. I hope that that is a reassurance, although I resist the amendment.
I am a little unsure of my ground on the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that it had been normal practice in the past for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the CDP always to be consulted. I wish to take advice on that and perhaps write to the noble Baroness. If there is something which we or I have got wrong and on which I should have given a different reply, I shall write to the noble Baroness and also to my noble friend Lady Perry.
In addition my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 297, the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, being attached to that amendment. That is covered. The only circumstances in which the Secretary of State will use his reserve power to issue a direction to the funding councils to establish quality audit arrangements is if for some reason the institution's own efforts

1075
fail. I know that very considerable efforts are being made at the present time. If that were to happen—it is very unlikely to come to pass—consultations with the institution would have already taken place to establish that failure had occurred and the reasons for it. There would be no point in having a statutory requirement for yet more consultations. I hope that the noble Baronesses will not think that I am in any way brushing the matter aside. It is important, but I believe that it is covered by what will happen in real life.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply and for his assurance that the practice of consultation with the individual institutions and, as is currently the case, with the bodies representing the institutions, will continue. In the light of my noble friend's reply I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 47, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) establish such expert competent committees as they think fit to give them advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above and such other functions as may be remitted to the committees").
The noble Lord said: We have already heard a very great deal about Clause 66 and the assessment of quality. It has been a theme running through our debate. Curiously enough, the aim of my amendment is not to oppose what the Government propose in the sense of insisting that in the Bill there should be something which refers to quality assessment. On the contrary, it is to strengthen the means by which that should be done. I attach enormous importance to the maintenance of quality, as I imagine do all Members of the Committee and the Secretary of State. The poorer the information available to a council on this score the lower will be the quality of its decisions.
Moreover, the range of educational activities of any higher educational institution is now so vast that I do not believe that any single committee such as that specified in Clause 66(1) (b) could, unaided, possibly arrive at reliable judgments on the relative educational qualities of different institutions. What is needed are several committees of the council, each dealing with a major faculty area—for example, medicine, dentistry, the arts, humanities, science, engineering and so forth—and each acquiring information from every university possessing such a faculty and meeting the representatives of the universities, including students, at each university.
As I know from experience, this is very sensitive work requiring vast experience and the good judgment of knowledgeable people who are respected—that is enormously important—by those with whom they have to deal and who can penetrate the mass of opinions, statistical and quasi-numerical data with which they will be confronted and perceive the inwardness of opinions and data and thereby arrive at sound judgments.
The councils will need those judgments not just once in a single quality assessment but will need them to be available to inform many of their decisions whether concerned with general policy matters or, and most importantly, with resource allocation. I do not
1076
see how the councils can possibly succeed in their duty or command the respect of the universities without such a strong committee infrastructure. One quality assessment committee alone cannot possibly suffice. Many committees are necessary; hence the need for this amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Ideally, and in order to ensure the closest possible connection between the council and its committees, the chairman of a subject committee should be a member of the council. However, I recognise that however important the principle, the small size of the committees, limited to between 12 and 15 members of the council, may preclude that from always being the case. For that reason I did not extend the amendment to include the point. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My name is attached to the amendment. There are two things I want to say. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, but I am not certain that he will agree with what I shall add although he cannot be held responsible for the remarks that I make. As a matter of good practice it seems that the noble Lord is entirely right in what he says and that the amendment is also right. The correct statement to be on the face of the Bill is contained in the amendment; namely, that the council shall set up all such committees as it thinks will help it discharge its job. I have no difficulty with that at all, and that is why I am glad to support the amendment.
I wish to take the opportunity to express my doubts about the particular role given in the Bill to the quality assessment committee. That is not because I do not believe that quality is important, quite the contrary! My doubts arise, first, because the implication seems to be that somehow the universities have failed in the past as regards quality. Why is this committee being put forward? Is it because we have not met the quality standards required? The Government cannot have it both ways. Only a few moments ago they argued, in attacking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there has been no decline in quality and that there is no resource problem. The same point was made to my noble friend Lord Desai.
If there has been no decline in quality why are we suddenly being directed to that subject? I can only say tartly that perhaps the Government themselves know that their own future policies will lead to the danger of falling quality and that they had better see to it that a committee is set up to prevent that. I do not believe that the central quality assessment committee is the way to ensure quality. As I have argued before, the people who assure quality are the academics who teach in the institutions. They do not need to have committees to tell them about such things or to prompt them to deliver the quality of higher education that is required.
There is a difference between saying that quality is important—I am certainly happy about setting up the relevant set of committees and the funding councils asking them questions about quality—and the Government or more generally outsiders and taxpayers believing that the setting up of a committee of this kind achieves anything in the way of quality. To believe that is not to understand how any institution works let alone a higher institution.

1077
My final point is a party political one. My view and that of my noble friends is that what is absolutely vital in quality assessment is that it should be undertaken by an independent body. One of the reasons why I had some difficulty with the earlier amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that I wish the quality assessment body to be independent of the body that deals with resources. I want an outside and independent body to say that something has gone wrong or, more to the point, that higher education teachers in both the existing and the new universities are having enormous difficulties in delivering quality because of the pressures put on them. I want that undertaken as an independent exercise.
I emphasise that that is a party political point. It is the view of my own party and that of my noble friends. It is not the view of the Government. That is why I was very careful to say that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, would not necessarily agree with everything I said. I do not want that to detract from the merits of the amendment as it stands. I simply thought that Members of the Committee would like to know where I and my noble friends stand on these matters.
Lord Annan: I am sure that the noble Lord remembers how these expert committees arose. When Sir Edward Parkes was chairman of the University Grants Committee, for the first time he really had to make some decisions about priorities between universities. He had to say that certain universities should have their grants cut and others should perhaps have their grants augmented. There was a furore. As a result, his successor, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, as I remember, set up expert committees to, as it were, rank departments in all universities and say how they stood in relation to each other. That was a defence which the UGC had to make so that it retained the confidence of the universities.
The committees made their reports and again there was a furore. It was argued that this department had been totally underestimated; that that department was living entirely on its past and that anyone who knew about these matters realised that it was on a downhill path and so on and so forth. Two or three years later Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer did the exercise again. It bore a remarkable resemblance to the one before it. This time there was comparatively little dissent. He could not have made the allegation that he did without the advice of those expert bodies. However, it was not one body which was there, as it were, to put a facade before the public. These were expert bodies composed of people whom everyone respected. Pretty well all the academics were respected by their peers. I should like to ask the noble Lord why the Government have decided that the system which was used successfully by Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer is to be replaced by something which has no possible hope of success unless it reproduces the same system as a series of sub-committees?
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When my noble friend the Minister speaks on this amendment I should like him to tell me whether Clause 6 as it stands would enable the funding councils, United Kingdom-wide, to have a common assessment of quality and, if it does not, whether the amendment would help. I spoke about this at Second Reading. I know that the principals of the universities and colleges in Scotland are anxious that it should be possible to make a common assessment of quality so that quality does not vary too much across the United Kingdom. I wonder whether this amendment may be one way of achieving that in specific areas. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, probably knows the answer to that. I am sure my noble friend does, too.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may respond now to the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 295 is directed, among other things, to enabling funding councils in Wales, Scotland and England to combine, if they wish, in exercises of this kind by appointing the same person.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: So the noble Lord's amendment would not preclude that.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Clearly assessment will be of great importance in the new system. Many of us would acknowledge that that is necessary while not welcoming the enormous amount of labour that it will involve both for the universities and for the committee structure that is set up. It might be argued that the clauses in the Bill relating to assessment are perhaps more concise than one might have anticipated in the light of the considerable attention devoted to the subject in the White Paper where the quality audit unit is explicitly spoken of which is different from the quality assessment committee. I was a little surprised not to see the relationship between these two bodies more clearly set out in the Bill.
I have a specific question to ask the Minister. I rather suspect that given the emphasis on assessment the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—although I am happy with the sense of it—may scarcely be necessary. I assume that a quality assessment committee would indeed set up sub-committees in the various subject areas. I believe that it is useful to have a quality assessment committee which will regulate the work of those sub-committees. One would not want different sub-committees or different committees going off in different directions, as it were, without some unity in their approach. It makes perfect sense to me to have a hierarchical system with the quality assessment committee, as the Bill proposes, with its subcommittees very much along the line suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. However, I am not sure that it makes sense to demolish the quality assessment committee, as his amendment proposes, and set up a multiplicity of other committees. I believe that a central committee with subcommittees would be the ideal arrangement.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the quality assessment committee will

1079
be in a position to set up sub-committees that would operate much as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, suggests.
Lord Annan: May I ask why tier upon tier is necessary
Lord McCarthy: I intervene now because this is the first opportunity we have of asking the Government what they mean by quality. I understand what the Government might mean by standards—maintaining and improving standards—and I understand what the Government might mean by ranking universities in order of excellence, but what is a "quality" committee?
In the world outside academe total quality management is a "buzz" phrase. Everybody is after total quality management. It is a new word for a new form of participation by small groups consulting small numbers of people. It is all very Japanese. It is very fashionable. I cannot think that that is what the Government mean, so why do they call it a quality committee?
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches I should like to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is quite right. Quality assessment is a more expert matter than many suppose. What the noble Lord is much too modest to tell the Committee himself was that the system described is one he worked when chairman of the University Grants Committee. I still remember as a junior lecturer being ushered in, much in awe, before him. It worked very well and since it ceased to operate decisions have much more often been made in ignorance than they were before.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I should like to support the amendment. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, may I comment upon the fact that in my view it will be the responsibility of the higher education funding council to ensure that the quality of education provided throughout the higher education sector is sufficient and indeed of a very high standard.
A few years ago, in a notable lecture, Professor Ralf Dahrendorf talked about professional self-regulation. He said that professional self-regulation was one of the glories of a free, learned and civilised society. He pointed out that in his view the alternative regulation of professional activity and education by the state was fearful. He spoke with some authority having been, as he then was, a German citizen and having seen the effects of the regulation of professional activity by the state.
Certainly my belief is that the universities and other higher education institutions of this country have increasingly in recent years embarked upon what some call audit, some call quality assurance and others call performance review. It is vital that all such institutions embark upon such activity not only in order to examine their own procedures but to ensure that they are producing the highest standard of education which this country and its people deserve. Having made that point, I believe that there must be—as the Government suggest—an arbiter to examine those
1080
institutions which may be achieving high standards and those which may be falling below the standards that the country expects of them.
My anxiety is, as also pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that a single quality assessment committee, answerable only to the higher education funding council in question, simply could not conceivably undertake the task that this Bill as it stands would remit to it. For that reason I support the amendment. It will clearly be necessary to have a range of committees examining the subject areas throughout the whole sector of higher education. I believe that it would then be unnecessary to interpose between those subject committees a single quality assessment committee and the higher education funding council. I believe that they should report directly to the higher education funding councils in question. For that reason I warmly support this amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: From the other side of the binary line I should also like to support the concept of this amendment. In the CNAA we certainly found it essential to have, first, subject committees and then, later, widening more generally into faculty committees. It is very hard to see how the work of the quality assessment committee—or possibly the quality audit unit—could work without splitting itself into subject or faculty committees.
Depending on the final shape of the quality audit unit, and how it organised itself, it might be that the quality assessment unit could actually rely on and refer to the faculty or subject committee set up by the quality audit unit. However, that remains to be seen. I can certainly say from my experience that one needs expert people in the subjects concerned who are respected by their peers throughout the system.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether there was a definition of what we mean by quality assessment. Of course there is no absolute definition—certainly not in the Bill. However, we are talking about quality audit, by which is meant scrutiny of institutions' own internal systems. We are talking about process, the quality of teaching and learning, its management and organisation and accommodation and equipment; and we are talking about output. There will be statistical indicators in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why the Government had suddenly alighted on quality assessment. Clause 66 of the Bill places on the funding councils the duty of securing assessment. We believe that the quality assessment responsibility should lie with the funding councils because it is they who have the duty to secure that money is spent where it can achieve the best results. As we have already discussed, the councils will be advised by essentially independent committees on how they should exercise their responsibilities and the actual assessments would be carried out by experts.
That leads me to the amendment and to how one does this. I realise from what has been said that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has great experience of this matter. Perhaps I may set out briefly how the Government feel. The assessments will need to be

1081
carried out by experts in their field. They must include full-time professional staff with suitable academic backgrounds. Assessors will be recruited initially in part from staff with responsibility for higher education in the inspectorate, of which a proportion has a background mainly in the university sector. The remainder of the staff of the units will be recruited mainly from the academic world. In addition to permanent staff, the councils would be free to make arrangements for bringing in experts at particular times for particular purposes.
The Bill is deliberately non-prescriptive—this is the difficulty so far as concerns the noble Lord—about how the councils should fulfil their role of securing arrangements for assessment. But they can certainly set up sub-committees in subject areas, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Under the Bill as drafted they can do so. But having said that the Bill is deliberately non-prescriptive about how the councils should fulfil their role, the Bill is rightly prescriptive about there being quality assessment committees, comprising a majority of institutional representatives to advise on those arrangements. How those committees are constituted will be a matter for the funding councils, which will want to consult institutions. But securing an institutional voice in this way is the paramount requirement. If, over time, further committees or sub-committees are felt to be necessary, the funding councils will be perfectly at liberty to establish them. And that is how it should be as the duty to establish proper mechanisms for carrying out assessment rests with the councils.
I find this difficult, possibly because I do not know enough about it, but what I am trying to say is that the Government are wary about setting up in statute what could become a huge bureaucratic structure. That is why Clause 66 as drafted facilitates a variety of possible approaches to assessment, with a core staff employed by the council but with a range of alternatives available to the council as advised by the quality assessment committee if that is considered necessary. Undoubtedly there will be areas—shortage areas—where the funding councils will have to make the proper arrangements for proper advice. I know that that sounds a little as though we are advancing without preplanning but I say quite openly to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that it is because we are wary of setting up in statute what could be a large bureaucratic structure when we feel that the councils should be at least able to decide how they should plan this themselves that I do not support the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify the point made by his noble friend about sub-committees, a point with which I have considerable sympathy. Is he prepared to say whether he approves of sub-committees? The clause states that the committee—the one committee—will have the function,
"of giving them advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above".
1082
One Member of the Committee said that he would prefer the committee to report direct to the council. That is somewhat different. As I understand the position, a number of sub-committees would have to report to the main committee. It would put its own interpretation on those reports, add to them or subtract from them before reporting to the council. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he approves—I repeat myself for emphasis—of the setting up of sub-committees as he also said that the Government are against a large bureaucracy. I suggest to the noble Lord that he cannot have it both ways.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that I would want to move from what I have already said. It is perfectly open under the Bill as drafted for sub-committees in subject areas to be set up. Let us not forget that there is the advice from the quality assessment committees, comprising a majority of institutional representatives, to advise on what the right arrangements ought to be.
Lord Dainton: I find myself with a problem—not being a philosopher I do not know whether it is Occam's Razor or some other problem which philosophers face—in that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Government were anxious to be non-prescriptive. What could be more prescriptive than one quality assessment committee. My problem is that it is too prescriptive. I understand perfectly that the funding council can establish any kind of committee it wishes to look after particular subjects. But what I am anxious to achieve by this means is that those who are chairmen of these committees, if they are set up by the funding councils, will then become the advocates of the arguments and the transmitters of the information from those committees at the meetings of the councils. That was the point which I particularly stressed. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can give me an assurance that every encouragement will be given to the higher education funding councils to establish a form of assessment by the subject areas which will find its way to the main funding council, I shall be content. The other could be left to evolution. Necessity will force what I have recommended in this amendment and experience will ensure that the funding council will have to go down this route.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that I can go as far as that on my feet this evening. I wonder whether I might write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Dainton: I thank the noble Lord. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: This may be a convenient moment to break for dinner. Perhaps I may suggest that we return to the Committee stage at 8.15 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Disability Working Allowance (General) Regulations 1991 Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1991 Social Security (Introduction of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1991 Social Security (Contributions) Re-rating (No. 2) Order 1991 Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 1991 Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) (No. 2) Order 1991
7.18 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, rises to speak, I wish to raise a point of order. The Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"No Motion to approve an affirmative instrument (as defined for this purpose in S.O. 69) may be moved until there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and, in the case of a hybrid instrument, the proceedings under S.O. 216 or 216A have been completed".
I have checked with the Printed Paper Office and the Minute Room. The Joint Committee reports have not been published and laid before the House, although I gather that they have been reported on. Is it in order for us to debate these measures tonight?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that it is entirely in order to debate them. I understand that there was some query about this in another place when they debased the regulations last week but that largely related to the negative instruments. All these have been laid before the House. All of them have been before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Four of them have been reported on by the Fifth Report of the Joint Committee and the others by the Sixth Report of the Joint Committee. Therefore, I hope that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will bear with me in debating these orders on this occasion.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord give me a definition as to the meaning of the words "laid before the House"? Should not the reports be available to us in the Printed Paper Office?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that the fact that the Joint Committee has reported on the orders is sufficient and that it is perfectly in order for the House to debate them on this occasion. I intend to move the Motion standing in my name at this present time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, what the noble Countess said is correct. I have been to the Printed Paper Office. Usually, if the Joint Committee's report has not been printed there is a typed script copy available. In neither case—that is, in respect of the fifth or the sixth report—is there even a typed script available to us. As I said, I believe that the noble Countess is quite correct. According to the Companion to the Standing Orders, I do not think that we should be debating these regulations.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is simply not the case. The noble Lord will know that it takes some time for the Joint Committee to produce its reports. I understand that it is the practice of the Printed Paper Office to prepare, as the noble Lord said, an extract from the report but only when an instrument has been drawn to the special attention of both Houses. None of today's instruments have been so drawn to the attention of both Houses. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not proceed with the business and debate these orders this evening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is not the first time that this has happened. The point was been drawn to the attention of the House by my noble friend Lord Airedale in respect of an order dealing with the growing of mushrooms. I drew it to the attention of the House in respect of the student loans regulations. Reports from the Joint Committee can be of great assistance to the House. I think that they should be made available. But they have not been in the past. As this is not the first time that this has happened, I do not know what we must do to ensure that such reports are laid before the House in future.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only return to what I have already said. The Joint Committee did not think that there was anything that needed to be brought to the attention of both Houses. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Printed Paper Office to prepare an extract from those reports. In the circumstances, I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to debate the orders on this occasion.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the report is not brought to the attention of both Houses, which I believe is what the Minister just said, what is the purpose of it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are occasions when the Joint Committee wants to bring the attention of the House to certain comments it may have made about the statutory instruments put before it; for example, as to whether they are ultra vires, and so on.

1085
If the committee felt that there was nothing which needed to be brought to the attention of the House there would be no need for a report. Of course, there may be other comments not relating to ultra vires, and so on. On this occasion the committee felt that there was no need for a report to be brought to the attention of the House. In the circumstances, therefore, I think that it is quite legitimate—
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, surely this is a matter for the House to decide. There may be certain points for consideration. The Joint Committee may feel that there is nothing upon which it wishes to comment, but I am sure that the history of both Houses of Parliament has shown that such reports have been subject to comment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is the purpose of debating these orders this evening. If the House wishes to make comments on the eight statutory instruments on the Order Paper, as I said, that is the purpose of the debate. Members of the House are quite at liberty to make any comments they wish. That is why I intend—that is, as soon as the House is prepared to listen to me—to move the eight instruments tabled in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench. As I understand it, the Joint Committee exists only to act virtually as a watchdog to alert either House if a statutory instrument is proposed which is ultra vires. There is not much point in the committee reporting every time that nothing is ultra vires; but there is every point in it reporting when something is ultra vires.
We need some procedure whereby your Lordships can be reassured, before an intervention occurs on the Question as to whether an order should be discussed, that no report has been made by the Joint Committee but that it has considered the matter. I am sure that the usual channels will take note of these exchanges and ensure that that is done in the future. I do not think that we should further delay matters this evening.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Order Paper actually refers to the fifth and the sixth report "from the Joint Committee". Therefore, they are connected to the regulations. I suppose that we must take the Minister's word—which I am sure is correct—that there is a fifth and sixth report. But do they actually exist? Is the noble Lord saying that there is, or that there is not, a fifth report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am prepared to give the noble Lord the assurance that there is a fifth and a sixth report.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do they both say nothing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, neither of them made any comment on these particular regulations which needed to be brought to the attention of the House. Obviously, if the House is unhappy with what is happening here I am quite prepared to suggest that the matter should be reopened with the Procedure
1086
Committee. However, in the meantime I think it would be far better for us to continue with the business. Perhaps I may now move the eight Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we are in the hands of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I congratulate her on bringing the matter to our attention. But, for myself, I am prepared to leave the matter where the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short exchange. I have done a great deal of chasing around this afternoon. Can it be made clear in the future in respect of any such debates that, where such reports are required, they are made available to us? We should at least know that we are in the clear, so to speak. I am quite happy now to allow the noble Lord to continue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I repeat the assurance that I gave earlier that the matter can be brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee so that it may examine such matters.
I now beg to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th November and the draft orders laid before the House on 4th December be approved [5th and 6th Reports from the Joint Committee].
I start with the SS (Contributions) Re-Rating (No.2) Order 1991. For the ninth year running we do not propose to increase the rates of Class 1 contribution but, as usual, the lower and upper earnings limits will be raised to £54 and £405 a week respectively. The effect is that most employees will pay a little less in Class 1 contributions. I am sure that the House will welcome that. For employers, we propose as usual to increase each of the earnings limits for employers, below which they pay lower contribution rates.
For self-employed people, we propose to increase Class 2 contributions by 20p to £5.35 a week from next April. Once again, we do not propose any change to the profits related Class 4 contribution rate paid by many self-employed people; however, the profits limits between which contributions are payable will be increased to £6,120 and £21,060 respectively.
I turn now to the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) (No.2) Order, which provides for the lower rate of SSP to be increased by £1.80 a week from £43.50 to £45.30, an increase of 4.1 per cent. in line with the movement in the retail prices index over the 12 months ended in September 1991. The higher rate of SSP remains unchanged at £52.50 per week. The order also proposes that the earnings threshold, which governs when the higher rate becomes payable, is increased from £185 to £190 per week.
Even though the higher rate of SSP remains unchanged, the vast majority of employees will receive no reduction in the total amount they receive when sick because the difference will be made up by their employers occupational sick pay scheme. Those who

1087
are not covered by such schemes are mainly those low paid and part-time workers who will be fully protected by the RPI increase in the lower rate of SSP.
Before I tell the House about the uprating order and the regulations prepared for the new disability benefits, I must briefly mention the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No.2) Order 1992. It requires occupational pension schemes that are contracted out of the state earnings related pension scheme to provide post award increases of GMPs earned on or after the 1988–89 tax year by 3 per cent. with effect from 6th April this year.
I turn now to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No.2) Order 1991, which follows the announcement made in October by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on the social security rates payable from next April. The order provides for increases of 4.1 per cent. in retirement pensions and most other contributory benefits. The increase reflects the low rate of inflation in the year up to September of this year.
I shall now say something about child benefit, which remains a strong element in our policies for family support. From next April each of the rates which came into force in October will rise by the full 4.1 per cent. RPI increase. These increases—the third in a year—mean that the rate for the eldest eligible child will rise to £9.65, and the rate for other children to £7.80.
Many of those on benefits are keen to work, and I am happy to announce some useful changes to assist such people. The earnings limit for invalid care allowance will be increased from £30 to £40 per week, which means a further significant improvement in the opportunity to combine working with caring. From next April we shall introduce a disregard of the first £15 of any maintenance received in calculating entitlement to most income-related benefits which reduces the amount of take home pay needed to make them better off in work.
I move now to income related benefits. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated last month that the Government did not propose to make a reduction in the value of income related benefit recipients because they will no longer have to pay the 20 per cent. minimum contribution to local taxation when council tax is introduced in 1993. That will mean that from April 1993, income support levels will be at least £1.40 a week higher for single people, and £2.80 a week higher for couples than they might otherwise have been. Those benefits will therefore be worth some £680 million more, in 1992–93 terms, than already provided by normal upratings since 1989.
I should like to briefly touch on the Rossi index, which is used for uprating the main income related benefits and is based on the RPI figure less certain items relating to housing. That has long been accepted as a fair method, as housing costs are provided for elsewhere in the benefit system. In this uprating, for the first time, the Rossi index will take into account the effects of water and sewerage charges, 20 per cent. of the community charge, and certain other miscellaneous housing costs. At next year's uprating, the Rossi index will need further adjustment to reflect
1088
the fact that there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. Water charges and miscellaneous housing costs will of course continue to be taken into account in that uprating.
Income-related benefits will be uprated next April by 7 per cent., nearly 3 per cent. more than the current increase in the RPI over the same period. In addition to that increase, the level of benefit provision for those over 80 years old, and disabled pensioners over 60 will be increased to the tune of £60 million in a full year with more than 1 million pensioners gaining from the proposed increases. The total expenditure for all income-related benefits will rise to more than £22 billion during the next financial year.
The draft up-rating order re-enacts the current rates of non-dependant deductions in housing benefit and income support for housing costs where a claimant shares his or her home with another adult who may reasonably be expected to contribute to the cost. As the House will recall, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in his uprating statement that he proposed to lay separate amending regulations to introduce a new structure for those deductions from April 1992.
Separate amending regulations introducing a new structure will shortly be laid. They provide for the existing two rates of deduction, set at £5.70 and £13.50, to be replaced with four, ranging from £4 to £18. There are also some minor beneficial changes. The regulations provide that where a non-dependant is temporarily absent in prison, and therefore unlikely to have any income from which to contribute to housing costs in his normal home, no non-dependant deduction is to be made. The same will apply to non-dependants who have been in hospital for more than six weeks.
Overall, those changes will reduce benefit expenditure by about £50 million. However, they establish a more equitable structure and respond to criticisms about the level of contributions assumed from those on low incomes. I believe that those changes should be welcomed by your Lordships' House, and indeed the Social Security Advisory Committee decided not to consult formally on the draft regulations.
I turn now to the social fund. Since the initial allocation of funds to the discretionary social fund in April the Government have added £43 million to the budget. That additional funding has taken the total budget for the loans and grants element of the scheme to £271 million for this year. This means that the money available to the fund is over 21 per cent. higher than last year's expenditure and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced that the budget for next year will be in the order of £300 million.
I know that the House will want to hear about the financial help given by my department to people in residential care and nursing homes. For both residential and nursing homes the majority of limits will increase by £15 a week, well ahead of inflation, but will be even more for those in residential care homes.

1089
For the very dependent elderly and the mentally handicapped in residential care homes, the increase will be £20 a week—more than a 10 per cent. increase on the current limit.
The limit available to those who claim the terminal illness level of care will also be increased, this time by £5 a week, bringing that limit to £280 a week, reflecting an emerging concern that the terminal illness limit is often not helping those who are terminally ill within the accepted definition of this term. Further to help that group of people, £1 million from the social security budget will be transferred to the Department of Health for the direct funding of hospices, which will ensure funds are specifically directed at those who are terminally ill. That is in addition to the £17 million already announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The supplement in Greater London will go up to £25 for residential care homes and £35 for nursing homes on top of the applicable limits.
The new limits will range from £175 to £245 for those in residential care homes and from £270 to £305 for those in nursing homes, plus any Greater London addition, making an extra total annual cost of £190 million. That underlines the Government's unswerving commitment to those in the community requiring residential or nursing care.
I turn now to the four orders which pave the way for the introduction of two new disability benefits next April. The House will recall that these new benefits are DLA and DWA. I shall deal briefly with each of the four sets of regulations in turn; first, the two more technical sets—the adjudication regulations, and the DLA introduction regulations. Those are, I am afraid, necessarily difficult for the House to follow: the adjudication regulations, because they amend heavily an existing order; and the introduction regulations, because the transition from two old benefits with entirely different assessment systems to a single new benefit with a completely new method of assessment, is not a simple matter.
The key part of the adjudication regulations is the introduction of new appeal rights to a new form of tribunal—a disability appeal tribunal. Those tribunals will stand at the pinnacle of the new adjudication system. The House will recall that the whole emphasis of that system is on self-assessment. Disabled people will be given for the first time an opportunity to tell us about their everyday needs and to enlist in support of their claims evidence from people involved in their care who are best placed to know about their needs.
Those new tribunals too put the emphasis on practical experience and knowledge of disability. Every tribunal will include a person with experience in the needs of disabled people, and we hope that many will include a member who is himself or herself disabled.
The DLA introduction regulations are also complex, but the intentions behind them are simply expressed. The regulations enable us to transfer people who are already receiving one or both of the existing benefits automatically onto the new benefit. There is
1090
therefore no question of us reviewing, removing or down-rating people's benefit because of the changeover.
The key sets of regulations are of course in many ways the DLA and DWA benefit regulations. The DWA regulations do, I am conscious, look like a formidable bundle of paper. But I hope that the House will be impressed by what it finds, because much of the space is devoted to the radical new functional disability test which underpins DWA. That test covers a comprehensive range of difficulties which will qualify people for DWA. I should of course remind the House that the majority of claimants will not even have to fill in the claim form which sets out that test, because someone who is on a disability benefit, or who has recently been getting an incapacity benefit, will be accepted automatically as being at a disadvantage in getting a job.
The disability living allowance benefit regulations are much shorter than their DWA counterparts, largely because the conditions of entitlement are clearly set out in the primary legislation which the House debated extensively earlier in the year. We shall need to see how each of the new conditions for the new lower rates of DLA come to be interpreted in practice, but I can of course undertake that the Government will be monitoring closely to assure ourselves that the substantial number of people to whom we wanted to see this new benefit go do in practice gain from it.
The Government have again fully backed their social security commitments to the community. We have not shirked our responsibilities. The total expenditure in the next financial year will be £67 billion. We have honoured our pledge to uprate long-term benefits for the elderly, the long-term sick and widows. Once again we have directed funds at those in need. Next April two new benefits, both aimed at helping disabled people, will become available after careful consideration and consultation. In this country we have a social security system which is fully resourced and carefully targeted to those in need. We can all be proud of that system. I commend all the orders and all the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th November and the draft orders laid before the House on 4th December be approved [5th and 6th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have heard an important statement from the Minister tonight. It is important in so far as it affects 17 million people. It would be churlish for us on this side of the House not to recognise some of the improvements in the benefit system that are proposed for April 1992. There is the useful addition to the income support level for residential care. That is up by £15 or £20, even though, following the Price Waterhouse report, there remain real fears that that increase will be inadequate to cover a shortfall which that firm estimates to be something closer to £60 in many parts of the country.
We also welcome the principle of self-assessment in the disability living allowance highlighted by the Minister. In the light of the disability living allowance and disability working allowance debates, we welcome

1091
the extension—this was not mentioned by the Minister—from four to 12 weeks in the payment of the care element when disabled children go into hospital. However, we wish that was longer. Following those debates, we welcome the extension of the higher mobility component to people with severe learning disabilities and challenging behaviour.
We also welcome the increases to the Independent Living Fund. Drawing on other reports and the comments made by the Minister this evening, we welcome the news that, when the council tax replaces the poll tax, there is to be no withdrawal of the deemed 20 per cent. contribution. Perhaps the Minister would care to make it clear that income support levels will be fully upgraded in future years and not frozen, either in whole or in part, until the older benefit catches up in real terms.
I wish to discuss national insurance and pensions. As the noble Lord has said, they are up by 4.1 per cent. or £2 a week. That is pitifully little and it is less than the underlying rate of inflation excluding mortgage costs—I understand that that rate is currently running at 5.7 per cent.—although, as few pensioners pay mortgages, they would not have gained the financial benefit of the reduced mortgage interest rates. What is perhaps more significant, they have received far less than would have been the case had this Government retained the link made by the previous Labour Government which ensured that pensions should rise in line with earnings, or the retail prices index, whichever was the higher. I am sure my figures are known to the Minister, but they are worth restating. Had that been the case, the state retirement pension for a single pensioner in April 1992 would be not £54 but nearer £70. For a couple, it would be not £86 but nearer £111. In other words, it seems clear from everything that researchers into poverty have estimated, that two-thirds of the Government's income tax cuts have been paid for by the breaking of the link between pensions and the rise of earnings.
As the Minister has said, unemployment benefit is up by £1.80 for a single person and by £2.85 for a couple. That increase is considerably lower—by one-quarter to one-third—than would have been the case without the 15 cuts in benefit, worth £1.5 billion a year, that this Government have introduced since 1979. That is before one takes into account the narrowing of eligibility, whether that concerns the 26-week rule or the cutting out of student eligibility. Now, at one-seventh of average earnings for a single person, unemployment benefit is one of the lowest in terms of its ratio to earnings to be found anywhere in Western Europe.
In the context of Maastricht it is clear that the British Government have rejected any support for the Social Charter. Therefore I believe we shall see sweated wages and in that case it is even more important to ensure a floor of adequate benefits. After all, these are contributory benefits to which people have rights and for which they have contracted. The temporarily unemployed and the retired elderly are entitled to a share of the country's prosperity through their contributions, but that is being denied.
1092
It is the same story as regards child benefit. We have seen that with pensions the Government have broken the link with wages. As regards unemployment benefit, there have been cuts in eligibility and rates. Child benefit has been frozen for three of the past 12 years and has not been properly upgraded for a fourth. As with pensions and unemployment benefit, the average family has lost out. In the case of child benefit the average family has lost £2 a week per child, or £6 a week for three children. That again means that, compared with the situation in 1979 or compared with the situation in the rest of Europe, we have one of the least generous and most impoverished child benefit systems. The system offers the least to the largest families—that is, the families in greatest need.
Worse still is the case of the 200,000 families where a parent is widowed, sick, disabled or retired and eligible for the child dependency addition. Here in 12 of the past 13 years—I know a Labour Government did this once—what should have been an addition for vulnerability has been offset at every increase in child benefit. But for such straight cuts, the level would have been £6 per child a week higher. It would not have been £19.40 but £25.50. In the October increase the Government said for this round the increase would not be deducted. Will the Minister say whether the same undertaking will be observed in April 1992?
I now wish to discuss the disabled. As these are new benefits, it may be worth exploring them a little further. It is already clear that some of the worries expressed in previous debates on DLA and DWA have been met in part, while others have not been met at all. We all accept that being disabled is the point at which extra costs and lower income intersect with higher need. There are extra costs, whether these be costs for housing, for aids and appliances or for diet, heating and laundry. The Spastics Society has estimated that even at the lower levels of disability the costs are worth at least £25, and rising. There are costs for those disabled people who have to employ someone to do what they cannot do for themselves, be it hiring taxis, cleaning, household maintenance or changing a plug.
Disability involves real extra costs estimated at some 10 per cent., or higher, than those of the average family. We also know that two-thirds of disabled adults live in households where there are no earners; in other words, they are households on benefits. Therefore, on average, the disabled family has only 70 per cent. of the income of, and 10 per cent. higher costs than, the average able-bodied family. Therefore there is an intersection of needs, costs and low incomes.
The passport to DLA is the attendance and the mobility component yet the disability lobbies are rightly worried that the benefit levels for those eligible for DLA and DWA are low. The lower level for DLA starts at £11.55. I understand that that will only pay for three hours of care, or possibly two taxi rides. Many of the more costly items such as additional heating and laundry needs are not reflected at all. Therefore people whose disability is based not on the need for personal care and not on the need for mobility have no passport access to further additional income.

1093
I do not believe anyone would begrudge the estimated further 300,000 people brought within reach of DLA. That is a total of 1.9 million in all. However, the OPCS has estimated that, of the 6.5 million disabled, less than one-third will receive that allowance. The disability groups are also concerned about a residual unfairness, in that DLA will not apply to those over 65 for whom attendance allowance will continue. I know that the Minister will perhaps argue—possibly correctly—that there is a greater income gap between the younger disabled and those not disabled than there is between older folk. However, I rather doubt whether that applies between the ages of 64 and 66. It is surely not right that the level of entitlement depends not on the degree of one's disability but on the timetable of that disability's occurrence.
Every Member of the House must surely accept that the disability working allowance was well intentioned. We welcome, for example, the two-year link and self-assessment. However, there are real fears that the intention of DWA cannot be realised within the financial and technical regulations as so far determined. It is, after all, meant to be a benefit to aid by virtue of their disability those who are disadvantaged when they are seeking employment.
However, the definition of that disability, as was insisted in Committee, has been too narrowly drawn. It excludes those with respiratory problems—and approximately one in 10 of the unemployed suffer from respiratory problems. It excludes those suffering from urinary and incontinence problems, which are also very real disabilities in certain forms of employment. It excludes disfigurement and other forms of disability. As a result, although it is estimated that 3 million disabled people are capable of working, DLA will probably reach only 50,000 of them.
The second problem which DWA will engender is that of the poverty trap. With the loss of housing benefit, poll-tax and related benefits it appears that there will be a marginal tax rate for those moving on to DWA of 94 pence in the pound, possibly rising to 97 pence or 99 pence in the pound once the taper comes into effect under the council tax. Those claiming the new allowance will immediately become ineligible for other benefits such as mortgage interest payments, free prescriptions and free school meals. Therefore, couples with mortgages, those with children and those receiving invalidity benefit may well be worse off claiming DWA under the present regulations. The disability groups would have much preferred a proportionality arrangement rather than the taper system.
We all know that the greatest problems in relation to benefits are the adequacy of levels, the complexity of the scheme and therefore the poor take-up rate, and the problems of the poverty trap and taper. We fear that both DWA and DLA fail all three of those tests.
I turn finally to income support and means-tested benefit. On this side of the House we are obviously pleased that for once the ROSSI index works in claimants' favour. I should like to raise five points with the Minister. First, will Ministers reconsider their
1094
denial of benefit to 16 and 17 year-olds? Only 30 per cent. of them now have access to benefits. There are 115,000 who are not receiving education or training and who are without jobs or income support. They are on the streets, sleeping rough, they are sexually vulnerable and are begging and thieving. Many have no homes to return to. They have come out of care and too often have been damaged as a result, for reasons which the courts have so recently explored. Their income support is not an insurance benefit. It is not contributory. It is meant to relate to need. The needs of those 16 and 17 year-olds are acute and urgent and are sharpening every night of this year.
My second point to the Minister concerns the ROSSI index and water rates. I notified him of the point in advance. It is a problem which I believe will loom ever larger. The old supplementary benefit included an element of £1.65 for water rates. What is the assumption within income support? Already water rates are running at between £3 and £4 a week and are rising by between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. a year—several times faster than the rate of inflation. That is before taking into account the environmental clean-ups which are to be expected. It is before the introduction of metering, which will fall very heavily on the disabled, families with large numbers of children and families in which the wage-earner has a physically laborious and dirty manual job. It is estimated that in a couple of years' time water rates will top-slice approximately 15 per cent. off income support. What does the Minister propose to do about that? Clearly the ROSSI formula cannot take account of water rates which are rising so sharply in excess of the rate of inflation.
My third point stems to some degree from the previous point. Does the Minister accept that top slicing is leading to increasing problems, as a result not only of the recovery of water rates, of poll-tax arrears, of fuel arrears, of housing benefit and of the recovery of social fund loans but also, from April 1992, of fines—all at £2.15 a time. Together they can take £15 or more from the single person's income support of £33.60, pushing those people well below the poverty floor—the minimum amount needed in order to survive—and thrusting them further into debt. As we know, 44 per cent. of those serving prison sentences of less than six months have defaulted on fines. Such people fell into debt because their income support level was inadequate for their needs. By top slicing to recover those debts the Government are ensuring that they create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fourthly, I should like to comment on the reduction from 24 to 16 in the number of hours worked for employment to be regarded as full time. Under the old supplementary benefit system an individual was regarded as being in full-time work for benefit purposes at 30 hours. In 1988 that was reduced to 24 hours. From April 1992 that will be reduced to 16 hours. Incidentally, that is regarded as full-time work if one is able-bodied but part-time work if one is disabled, which is a somewhat perverse reading of what constitutes full-time work.
That means that single people and childless couples who are not eligible for family credit will lose their

1095
right to income support at 16 hours of work a week, whereas if they are low paid they will be better off on income support with the £8.15 disregard. Many of those who are eligible for family credit—those with children—will lose their rights to mortgage interest relief: the current figure of 90,000 repossessions is already a matter of anxiety to us all. They will lose their passport to free school meals, prescription charges and their access to the social fund if they claim family credit at all. Unlike income support, which has a claim rate of almost 100 per cent., for family credit the rate is barely 50 per cent. I acknowledge the existence of transitional arrangements, but can the Minister tell the House how many people will lose entitlement to income support under the 16-hour rule and what assumptions about take-up he is expecting to make?
Finally, is the Minister satisfied with the working of the social fund? I noted the extra sums being paid into it, but what would he say to a diabetic of my acquaintance receiving unemployment benefit who, presumably because the local office was running out of funds, was refused a grant for a fridge in which to keep his insulin and refused a loan because it was estimated that he could not pay?
The Prime Minister has said that benefit claimants must know where they stand and what service they have a right to expect in terms of the Citizen's Charter. What would the Minister say about the uncertainties, inconsistencies and sheer random cruelties which too often underlie the effect of the social fund as presently constituted?
This is not the time to talk about patterns of poverty and pathways out of it, but, some minor and welcome improvements aside, this package, together with the rejection of the social charter, means that low-paid and part-time workers will continue to be underpaid and exploited in the labour market; the benefit levels which should help to underpin a wage floor will continue to drop further below average earnings; major areas of need are inadequately met on income support or denied altogether to 16 and 17 year-olds; and modest gains such as the higher pensions premium are simply recycled from other means-tested benefits. There is no new money and the poor are helping the poor.
Harold Macmillan said:
"It is only so far as poverty is abolished that freedom is increased"
The evidence is around us. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the poorest 10 per cent. had seen a rise in their living standards of only 2.6 per cent. through most of the 1980s—half the national average. By European definitions we now have more poor people than any other European country. One in four of all EC households defined as poor is in Britain. That is either a comment on the Government's economic record of the past 13 years or a comment on the level of social security. Which alternative does the Minister prefer?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, as the Minister is probably aware, in the normal course of events his noble kinsman Lord Russell would respond and would comment on the orders and regulations.
1096
However, my noble friend is busy on the Further and Higher Education Bill and even he has to eat. I feel particularly inadequate to replace him and the noble Lord may feel that he is to have an easy run. I am therefore particularly happy and relieved to follow the noble Baroness, who has covered very many of the points most eloquently and comprehensively, and perhaps I may be forgiven for concentrating my remarks mainly on the plight of the elderly, of which most noble Lords have some knowledge.
Were we in a position to do so, we on these Benches would immediately raise the pension by £5 for a single person and £8 for a couple. The noble Baroness mentioned the problem of average earnings rising faster than inflation. The gap between pensions and average earnings grows daily. Average earnings are currently £263 a week. Even after the increase, pension rates are, by comparison, at a derisory level: £54 a week for a single person and £86 for a married couple. No one would disagree—I am sure that the Minister himself would not disagree if it were not for the constraints of being in government—that it is not a happy position for an elderly person in the community today, no matter what his or her means, and particularly in the present climate.
There is great hardship for those people who are short of money, and that means the great majority of elderly people. It seems to us on these Benches that we should be ashamed that so many of our old people live in poverty. Given the present severe weather, surely the Minister's department could do more about severe weather payments and heating allowances for the elderly. The noble Baroness referred to the 20 per cent. poll tax payment. I am sure that that should have been abolished completely this year. It is an extraordinary position and an extraordinary penalty to impose on the elderly at this time.
From my experience of elderly relatives, I know that standing charges are one of the most punishing costs that old people have to bear. I do not seek to make a political point—the noble Baroness showed great restraint in not saying this—but, given the extreme hardship faced by elderly people and the higher standing charges and bills, it is almost insulting to read in the newspapers about the astonishing rises in the remuneration of chief executives of newly privatised companies in the energy field. The press has quite rightly taken up the matter and more and more people in this country are feeling uneasy about it. We are told that it is to ensure that the people in charge of those important services are paid the market rate. We are not entirely convinced by that when we see, at the other end of the scale, the hardships suffered by people having to pay the increased charges. As everyone knows, the cost of living today—the cost of food and heating—has grown to such an extent that it is extremely difficult for anyone on limited means to live, let alone the elderly.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the disability living allowance regulations. I agree with the noble Baroness that one should not be churlish—I think that that was the word she used—and that one should graciously welcome any increase in benefits. However, knowing that I would have to deal with the matter this evening,

1097
I grappled with the disability living allowance regulations. It was a hard job. I do not know how an elderly or handicapped person would deal with the complexities of the new regulations or how they would avoid being discouraged from claiming by not knowing whether or how to claim. There have been attempts to make matters simpler. In the Social Security Act of 1986, the Government attempted to make it simpler for people to claim those sums to which they were entitled. But it is extremely daunting for people to work out how to claim and to know, if they claim, whether they will prejudice certain other benefits to which they would be entitled. That is a worry shared by many elderly people.
I have here a letter from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Blindness and partial sightedness is an area covered by the new disability living allowance regulations. There are particular features about being blind or partially sighted which make the disability living allowance inadequate. Certainly, the lower levels are much too low. The matter has been discussed in this House. I remember a point being raised about the allowance being applicable only to people under 65. There was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the legislation in that respect. Most disabled people tend to be over the age of 65 and there are many people, particularly partially sighted or blind people, who are over 65 and are living on very low incomes. The range of costs in relation to disability do not appear to have been taken fully into account by the people who have drawn up the regulations. For people who are blind or partially sighted, some simple functions of everyday life are extremely difficult. Understandably, there is concentration on care and mobility needs, and areas of additional expenditure which are often of importance to blind or partially sighted people appear to have been underestimated. As to the disability working allowance, I am particularly anxious about people's ability to understand what is now happening and to know how to claim.
Having said that, I should like to associate myself and my noble friends on these Benches with all the points made by the noble Baroness. I wish also to make a particular plea that the Government should, either themselves or by seeking outside help, urgently try to find a way of making matters simpler and more easily understood. I have concentrated on that issue today. I put all my Christmas cards and other worries aside and tried to understand the matter, but I found it extremely complicated and daunting. I dread to think how someone much older and in pain would have coped. I therefore make a plea to the Government to find a way of making the system much more comprehensible and easier to use so that the right people may claim and understand what they are claiming rather than being put into a state of anxiety as to how to proceed.
8.7 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I heartily endorse the closing remarks of the noble Viscount. Matters seem to become more and more complicated as time
1098
goes on. We are discussing a diverse range of social security regulations. I shall touch on some aspects of the administration of two of them: the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance.
I read the Hansard account of the debate on these regulations in another place on 11th December 1991. Questions were asked that I wish to raise with the Minister. I did not find the response given by his right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People entirely satisfactory. I understand that new applicants for disabled living allowance complete what is known as a filter form which they send to a warehouse in Heywood, Lancashire. A full claim form is then sent to the applicant, stamped with the date of receipt of the filter form at Heywood, and another date, six weeks' ahead, by which time the claim form must be returned to the claims office in Blackpool.
Will the Minister explain the necessity for a filter form? What claims are being filtered out? As there is apparently to be no record kept of filter forms received at Heywood and no advice of their receipt is to be sent to Blackpool, why cannot the full application forms be made available to all the specialist workers who deal with the disabled, including local social security offices, instead of just to citizens' advice bureaux which have comparatively limited contact with the disabled in that context? I am thinking of social services departments, hospital social workers, special schools and advice agencies. Does the Minister realise that, under the system as currently set up, specialist workers will need to see their clients twice—once to complete the filter form and again, within six weeks, to complete the main application form? Many of the applicants will have learning difficulties and will need help to complete the very daunting forms. It is widely known that claimants often do not return to their advisers. The drop-out rate is likely to be enormous, unless the advisers make a note of each person to whom a filter form has been issued and follow it up with a personal visit within the six weeks. That seems to be a ridiculous waste of scarce resources.
I believe that both the policy division of the DSS and the benefit agency are aware of the possibility of fraud open to claimants because of the lack of recording the receipt of filter forms at Heywood. What is the Department of Social Security doing to prevent it? What will happen if the main application form goes astray in the post between Heywood and the applicant or between the applicant and Blackpool, and the six-week claim period is exceeded?
I understand that application forms are to be made available in January for claims to be processed from February onwards. As the training by the benefit agency at Blackpool of DSS supervisory staff does not commence until January and of clerical staff in February and March, how are the claims to be processed efficiently? Will there be an initial backlog? Social security officers at local benefit agency offices will receive little or no training, despite the inter-relationship between disabled living allowance and income support premiums. Social security officers will not be able to give local assistance. Will the Minister look into that matter?

1099
I now turn to disabled working allowance. This new allowance is very welcome in theory but I believe that there are a number of practical difficulties. Again, the advice agencies are finding it very difficult to train their staff because the department has made so little information available. Disablement resettlement officers employed by the employment agency have no information to enable them to advise disabled, unemployed people whether and how to apply for disabled working allowance. The allowance is plagued with the problem of complex "better off' calculations. Each potential claimant will need personal advice on the effects of obtaining work which relies on DWA to make up his or her income.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, a disabled person currently on invalidity benefit may lose free school meals for children of the family, entitlement to free prescriptions, and travel and local authority concessions. I understand that Ferret Information Services are writing a computer software program which will assist disablement resettlement officers and employment agency staff with those "better off' calculations, but the program will not be available until March 1992 and may not be enough to meet the individual needs of each client. There is a danger that disabled people will not discover that they are worse off until it is too late.
If a disabled person gives up invalidity benefit, accepts a job supplemented by DWA and then finds that, because of his disability, he cannot cope with the job, he will have no difficulty in returning to his former benefit status. Can the Minister give an assurance that claimants who give up employment because they are worse off will have their previous benefits reinstated? Or will they be penalised because an adjudication officer has decided that they are capable of work and must therefore continue in employment?
I have asked a number of quite complex questions. If the Minister finds that he is unable to answer them all this evening, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly with regard to the mobility component. The noble Lord will know that I have taken an interest in this matter almost since I have been in the House in order to secure an extension of the mobility allowance, as it used to be, to the deaf and blind and the severely mentally impaired.
I congratulate the department on the drafting of Regulation 12 of the disability living allowance regulations. In the light of the drafting of that regulation, which is very comprehensive, what is the department's latest estimate of the numbers likely to qualify for the higher and lower rates of the mobility component? If the Minister does not have the answer now, perhaps he will write to me.
Lord Henley: My Lords, certainly I shall start by promising to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He will be aware that a great many questions have been put to me and, bearing in mind the time and the demands of other business, it might be better if I press on.
1100
I very much welcome to social security debates the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I was surprised when he told me that my noble kinsman needed to eat. I was not aware of it, but if that is the case, so be it. Perhaps I may also say that I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, finds the whole of social security very complicated, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Necessarily the administration of the social security system must be complicated but we do our best to keep it as simple as possible. Certainly in terms of the changes that we have made to DLA, we have taken great steps forward in simplifying matters whatever people might say or whatever the noble Countess, Lady Mar, might have said. It may be best if I write in some detail to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about her detailed questions on the administration of DLA and the claims for it. I can assure her that there are very good reasons for it. In writing to her I shall certainly make copies available to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and either to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, or possibly to my noble kinsman.
I am glad to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, welcomed the improvements for income support for those in residential care homes. She went on to say that they were not enough, which is what I should have expected of her. She cited the recent report by Price Waterhouse which followed the report that we commissioned from Price Waterhouse some time earlier. The report that she mentioned was a much smaller one than the report that we commissioned. We feel that the selection and size of the sample means that the information that it produced cannot be accepted as a fair reflection of the costs across the country, compared with our document which was a fully comprehensive report into the costs in some 700 homes of all types in all areas. The results from the second report gave higher capital costs than in the earlier report but that may easily have been caused by the distortions inherent in the small selective sample. That has to be considered alongside the more stable running cost figures at which we looked in the report that we commissioned last year. I must also suggest that interest rates have fallen since that date.
The noble Baroness went on, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to complain about the level of pensions. She said that we must restore the link with earnings and prices rather than continuing to maintain our promise to upgrade pensions in line with prices. What is relevant is not the level of the state retirement pension but the growth in the pensioners' total income. Since 1979 the average total net income of pensioners has increased by some 34 per cent. That is over 3 per cent. a year. Under the last Labour government pensioners managed just 3 per cent. in Labour's entire five years of office. That is 0.6 per cent. per annum. Along with that, savings have increased by 110 per cent. Under the last Labour government they fell by 16 per cent. Seventy-four per cent. of pensioners now have savings or occupational pensions and the average income from occupational pensions has nearly doubled. Overall, expenditure on benefits for the elderly has risen by some 29 per cent. in real terms.

1101
Moving on briefly to income support, I was glad that the noble Baroness welcomed our announcement that changes would be made to take out of it the community charge. She asked for an assurance that in future years income support would be uprated. I can make it quite clear that we have promised that future upratings will be revised on the basis of the Rossi index.
Again, the noble Baroness welcomed the increases in unemployment benefit, but again predictably she said that they were not enough. I should like to know from the noble Baroness or her party whether they want unemployment linked with earnings. Is that another Labour promise? If it is another Labour promise, does the noble Baroness have permission from her honourable friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to make such a promise in the run-up to the election?
I reject totally the allegations from the noble Baroness that our child benefit is the least generous in Europe. That is simply not true. To start off, the rate of child benefit for families with just one child is at the moment the highest in Europe. If one takes the average child benefit payable for those with two children under six years of age, we are the fourth highest, and so it goes on. Different countries take a different approach to their child benefit in terms of where they put their money.
On disability, again the noble Baroness said that she did not wish to be grudging about the extra £300 million that we promised. That was exactly what she then proceeded to be—grudging. She said that needs other than care and mobility should be taken into account. We have always made it clear that DLA will provide help to people with a very wide range of needs. The OPCS surveys showed that entitlement tests based on personal care mobility problems were a simple way of targeting all those with the most commonly occurring and most costly disabilities.
She also suggested that there are disabilities which will be excluded from the disability working allowance tests. Most people with respiratory problems or urinary disorders will be picked up by one or other of our tests.
The noble Baroness asked about Rossi. She asked whether Rossi could have water charges excluded so that water could be included in housing benefit. The new Rossi includes the appropriate amount for water charges. Any increase in the cost of water, as with any other goods and services, will now be fully reflected in that new index. We see no reason to allow housing benefit to move on to cover those costs, just as costs for other utilities are not included. I stress that the weight attached to water in the Retail Prices Index is 0.8 per cent. In Rossi the figure is slightly higher at 0.9 per cent.
I turn to the question of alleged high marginal tax rates in DWA and the taper. I stress that the important point is that disabled people will be better off for every extra pound that they earn whereas at present disabled people have to choose between total incapacity for work or finding a job which will pay
1102
them enough fully to replace their benefit. That is the problem which we hope that the disability working allowance will remove.
The noble Baroness raised the question relating to 16 and 17 year-olds and the changes in the hour rates for income support and other benefits. I prefer to leave the changes in hour rates to another occasion. We have no plans to reconsider our position on 16 and 17 year-olds. The issue was debated in this House some months ago, and the House came to a conclusion.
I apologise to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for not being able to answer her detailed points on the procedures relating to applying for DLA and DWA. I assure her that they are not complicated. They are as simple as possible. I assure her that I shall write in some detail to her on the matter.
I believe that I have made it clear that the Government have made great steps forward over the past 12 years in social security provision. They have protected the very obvious interests of the taxpayer. However, at the same time we have been able to increase expenditure on social security by about 40 per cent. in real terms. Spending on the elderly has increased by about 29 per cent, and spending on the long-term sick and disabled by far more than 100 per cent.
The orders, in particular the uprating order, exemplify our commitment to the less well off in society. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
8.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 66.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 47, line 21, at end insert:
("(c) provide for that committee terms of reference which take into account—

(i) the need for higher education to enhance capability in the application of knowledge, and

(ii) the importance of ensuring that the quality of educational outcomes is assessed.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment again addresses the quality assessment committee. There are no terms of reference for that committee on the face of the Bill. I understand that any such amendment at this time is inadequate because if it were to contain terms of reference, they would have to include many more items than I suggest. This is a probing amendment in the hope that the Minister will give some reassuring replies on the two items included.
The first asks that the committee's terms of reference should include,
"the need for higher education to enhance capability in the application of knowledge".
Having spent many years of my life involved in the assessment of quality in higher education as one of Her Majesty's inspectors, and now as a member of the steering group for the pilot assessment of quality in universities and polytechnics, I am conscious that it is vital that those assessing quality should have a broad definition in their minds of what quality consists of. It is not sufficient that it should be defined only in terms

1103
of intellectual and academic excellence but also of the capability of students to apply that excellence in a practical way in the world of work. It is a frequent criticism of the higher education system made by employers that its products are ill equipped for employment. I hope that the need for the higher education system to enhance capability will be agreed by all Members of the Committee. I hope that we shall hear a reassuring reply from the Minister on the importance of this enhancement of capability in application.
The second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that the assessment process also addresses the importance of outcome from the higher education system. It is all too easy within the system of care assessment, and indeed of professionals assessing the quality, to concentrate on the excellence of the input and of the process and to forget to ask whether the outcome is of adequate quality. There are various morals about the proof of the pudding which I need not quote in this context.
I should like to hear some assurance from the Minister that when the committee sets about its work, it will bear in mind the importance of the quality of the final output; and that the work of the assessment committee will not concentrate too much on an assessment of the professional processes—the sitting in classrooms listening to lectures, and so on—but will consider the end result of the process. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The Government envisage that there will be full consultation by the funding councils over arrangements for assessing the quality of education in institutions. Among the issues to be addressed will be how assessment for quality can best take account of the wide variety of institutions in the higher education sector. Pilot assessments will be carried out next year jointly by the UFC and the PCFC which will provide a first opportunity to consider those matters. In the longer term the funding councils will look to their quality assessment committees to advise them on a wide range of quality issues.
Once the system is up and running, in addition to the reports of assessors on their visits to institutions, the Government will look to the councils and institutions to develop a variety of statistical data which will indicate the success of institutions both against the performance of others and in relation to their own missions.
As my noble friend Lady Perry knows from her extensive experience in this area, quality in education is a difficult concept to define. It has many strands. Those may evolve over time. For that reason it is difficult to accept the amendment because we should be putting in the Bill almost in concrete form matters which are being considered at present. As my noble friend rightly said, the two particular terms of reference for assessment could be interpreted as excluding other particular terms of reference. However, the two important aspects that she has identified will be among those which need to be considered.
I hope that answer provides the reassurance for which my noble friend is looking. I recognise the
1104
validity and importance of the two particular terms of reference which she has chosen and hope that she will not mind if I do not at the same time accept the amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for his generous reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 268ZA not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 268A:
Page 47, line 22, at end insert ("currently engaged in the provision of higher education or").
The noble Lord said: The Committee has already covered much of the ground in debating other amendments and I do not need to comment too much. If the committees are to persuade people working in the higher education sector of their validity the most sensible way of doing so is to have as some of their members people involved in the provision of higher education. I appreciate that the Bill as drafted does not rule out the membership of such people. Nonetheless, if the Government wish to emphasise their commitment to the higher education sector, which remains somewhat in doubt, that would be a good way of doing so.
I believe that my amendment is important but it is nowhere near as important as an amendment which has yet to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. Independence of the councils is one of the most important criteria of membership and one that I raised earlier. I hope that my amendment will not be taken as an alternative to others but merely as a gloss upon what is needed. It is important that members of the committees are independent of the councils because I do not see how they can do their job otherwise. However, that comment is not meant to undermine my amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Seear, who I hope has gone home to bed, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The wording of Clause 66(2) requires that a majority of the members of the quality assessment committees shall be persons with experience of, and a capacity in, the provision of higher education institutions. A person currently engaged in the provision of higher education, and of sufficient standing to merit his or her inclusion on the committees, will clearly have experience of, and a capacity in, the provision of higher education.
It is not in doubt that the quality assessment committees will have members from institutions currently engaged in teaching and lecturing. Funding councils will want expert advice from their assessment committees and the views and experiences of those currently teaching in institutions will be especially valuable.
Last week my noble friend Lord Belstead told the Committee that he was prepared to consider a similar amendment as regards the membership of funding councils. Perhaps it would be less than fair if I did not

1105
do likewise and therefore I undertake to do so. With that reassurance I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that reassuring answer. He is in no doubt that I am highly critical of large parts of the Bill. However, if we are to have the Bill as an Act I, as someone committed to higher education, want it to work. I am trying to persuade the Government that this is the kind of change that will make the Bill acceptable to the people who eventually must make it operational. I hope that was what the Minister had in mind when saying that he would think about the matter. The amendment does not endeavour to damage the Bill nor to send it in a different direction; it simply puts forward a sensible way of doing things. I am happy with the Minister's positive response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert ("in this country or overseas. Not less than a half of the members shall be members of learned societies from overseas, to be nominated in equal numbers by the Royal Society and the British Academy.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I should have grouped the amendment with Amendment No. 272 because it would have answered some of the points then made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Throughout the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and I have exchanged ideas. I have argued that whoever carries out the assessment must be competent to do so and understand what it is about. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has replied that the committees cannot be self-regulated and that an outside person must be involved. I hope that in tabling the amendment I may have squared a circle and gone some way towards meeting the anxiety of the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, which I share, in proposing a body independent of the council.
If we are looking for people who are academically competent to carry out the assessment but who are not assessing themselves the obvious place to look is outside this country. The affect of the amendment by a mechanism which I am sure can be improved—I shall listen to any suggestion for improvement—will put the composition of at least half of the members of the quality assessment committees in the hands of representatives of learned societies from outside this country. I hope that their independence will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Their competence will certainly be sufficient to satisfy me.
That would make the point that, in the end, the judgment that is made of us is that of an international market. We publish our books to be read internationally. Our Ph.Ds look for jobs internationally. People come and go internationally. One of the ways in which one judges the standing of any university is by the number of people attending from other countries because they have heard of what happens there and they want to be part of it. If we are talking about the quality of British universities as it
1106
has been during the past years I do not believe that in the eyes of universities in other countries our standing suggests that all the anxiety that has been expressed is altogether justified. If one wanted even a quantitative measure we should not come out badly from an assessment of what British universities contribute to our balance of payments. I know that most of that income is classified under tourism and it appears to be something quite different but if the figure could be isolated it would be considerable.
Another effect of the amendment would be to meet the anxiety of Ministers that committees would answer, "We have always done it that way". Academics in other countries, as I know from experience, often proceed in different ways. Therefore, under the amendment we should have to defend a great deal of our teaching practice to people who have employed different practices. We should have to make a case, and we are quite ready to do so. We are ready to accept the umpire's decision and all we ask is that the Secretary of State should do likewise. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: As the noble Earl has kindly sought to involve me in the amendment, I must say that I do not have sufficient experience of the academic quality of members of learned societies from overseas. My own experience in this sector leads me to believe that the academic quality of the best academics in this country is probably second to none.
The only area in which the noble Earl and I have been sparring is perhaps the proportion of academics in this country, no doubt of high quality, who should be balanced by people in this country who are not academics, but who know where the committee is trying to go. Therefore, although the amendment is ingenious, I cannot support it as fully as the noble Earl may wish.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I feel some reservations about the amendment based partly on my experience a few years ago when I was privileged to take part in an inspection of a university in the Netherlands alongside the Dutch Government's arrangements for the inspection of universities there.
It is important to remember that the assessment committee will need two separate arms; one for the assessment of the quality of research and the other for the assessment of the quality of teaching. Those are different areas of specialism requiring different kinds of people. If we are to bring in overseas academics—as I am sure we should—it will be important to use societies which, by their nature, are qualified only to speak of the quality of research rather than about the quality of teaching.
Although I sympathise with the noble Earl's interest in bringing in overseas academics—I support that and I am sure that it will eventually be part of the methodology which emerges—I must resist the idea that those specific learned societies should be the only competent bodies to declare an interest. The quality of teaching is a much more home-grown and specific area which would not be within their competence.
Lord Beloff: One's attitude to the amendment must depend on what one thinks the committee or its sub-committees will do and how much time they will be asked to devote to these tasks. Anyone who has had anything to do with international academic activity will know that there are vast logistical problems. When does one call a meeting? It may not suit the member from Vancouver. We shall be practically confined to people from the English-speaking world. If the time suits the member from Vancouver, it is hopeless for the member from Adelaide. That is the kind of Eurotalk that ignores the essentials.
With regard to research, there is international assessment. Our books are reviewed or referred to. Learned journals are read in other countries and a reputation is built abroad as well as at home. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, where teaching is concerned, it requires attendance at the institutions; it requires things which I cannot see any foreign academic easily accepting.
The amendment suggests that the idea is merely window dressing. There will be a lot of foreign names and it will sound good. I thought the intention was that it should be a serious body assessing what goes on.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: As so often happens the noble Earl's amendment contains much of interest to commend it. It is an interesting and constructive suggestion that one should look for an international dimension to the enterprise, and excellence would certainly be assured by his provision. It is not unwelcome to hear the Royal Society and the British Academy mentioned in this Committee. It is the first time that they have been mentioned in the entire deliberations of this Committee.
However, as my noble friend Lord Beloff says, there are practical difficulties. The main difficulty is suggesting that as many as half the members of the assessment committee should be from overseas locations. It will be a working committee which will have to assess many matters. I do not see any objection to nominees of the British Academy or the Royal Society assessing teaching as much as research; I find nothing shocking in that proposal. But what seems to make it not feasible as it stands is that there should be so high a proportion as a half. Had it been one-quarter or one-fifth it may have added a useful dimension—and still might—to the proceedings. However, to rely on a committee more than half the members of which will be from overseas is impractical. I do not believe it will work.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Amendment No. 270 stipulates that a quarter of the membership of the quality assessment committee shall be members of learned societies from overseas, nominated in equal numbers by the Royal Society and the British Academy. Clause 66(2) already provides that the majority of the committee's members shall be experienced in the provision of higher education, and I cannot see that the law should be more prescriptive
1108
than that. As the committee is a committee of the council, it seems entirely right that the council should be the appointing authority.
My noble friend Lady Perry raised a number of complications that she foresaw, with which I have some sympathy, as I do with the practicalities raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am sure that the Committee is aware that there is no reason why the funding councils should not seek the services of learned councils overseas, if that is what they want on their committees, or at least take account of practices that take place overseas. With that argument I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank all those who have spoken. I paid close attention to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Renfrew. They are right about the practical difficulties. I had hoped to overcome some of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am sorry that I have not done so. That was what I was concerned to do; to square the circle between competent assessments and the objection to self-regulation.
As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, regarding different people to assess research and teaching, I agree on the whole with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I see no difficulty in the same people doing both. My recollection of the days when, as fashionable idiom now has it, I was a consumer of teaching is that those I thought taught best were also those whose research reputation was highest.
My real object was simply to bring into the debate the fact that in the eyes of most of us the international community of scholars is the jury we recognise, and we are quite prepared to be judged by it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The committee shall annually publish a report giving such information as may be prescribed as to how it has fulfilled its duty under subsection (1) above, and in particular what provision has been made for students with learning difficulties.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 271 is rather humdrum after the last rather exotic amendment and the noble Earl's appeal to an international jury. The amendment serves two purposes. One is that the quality assessment committee should issue a report. The other is that the report should include what provision has been made for students with learning difficulties.
We have discussed the question of reports and will discuss them again in the next amendment. But the quality assessment committee, quite apart from anything else, cannot perform its function without reporting to the council. I should like to hear how the Government envisage the council will be reported to, the frequency and form of those reports and whether they will be published.
That is one anxiety. My other anxiety concerns students with learning difficulties. A number of amendments were grouped together, one of which was

1109
Amendment No. 269 under Clause 66. That is kindly to be considered by the Government. It arises at page 47, line 25, and inserts the words,
"at least one member [of the quality assessment committee] shall have experience or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties".
My amendment is simple. It is concerned that the quality assessment committee should first report, and secondly that its report should state what provision has been made for students with learning difficulties. I could illustrate this with examples, but I have said enough to indicate the purport of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the spirit of the amendment but I am not too sure about the drafting, even of Amendment No. 269 which bears my name. I am asking whether the Government, as with the other series of amendments, could take this on board and consider it sympathetically. The reason, as I see it, is that there is nothing like making such an institution publish an annual report to ensure that it does its job a little better. It is in the interests also of open government. It is not a matter on which I wish to divide the Committee but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to take this amendment on board without commitment.
Lord Addington: I wish to support the amendment for a simple reason. When it comes to special needs, the field is wide and a great variety of needs are covered by the term "special needs". For example, there may be someone who is dyslexic or who is in a wheelchair. I have used the example before of the person who cannot get to a lesson and the person who cannot understand what is going on during a lesson. Would they have the facility of a tape recorder, for example? If people with those types of incapacity attend a higher education institution, facilities should be made available for them and should be made known to people recommending the institution. Reporting by the quality assessment committee is something which I cannot fault.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As I put my name to this amendment, perhaps I may briefly support it. Humdrum though it may be, I believe it is very necessary, as other Members of the Committee have said. It is particularly useful to have a report which considers the range, provision and quality of support for students with learning difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that the range of disabilities is varied. At present the range of quality of provision varies between universities and between departments of the same university. There is now some information available on performance from the disability organisations. For example, the RNIB is aware of several universities and polys which work well to support students. However, the RNIB says it also receives regular referrals where a crisis has developed because of the lack of adequate awareness and support.
If the amendment or something similar is written into the Bill, the funding councils will have the information needed to help them ensure that
1110
appropriate provision is made for students with learning difficulties. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging about the amendment.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Henderson. An annual report would help. An institution may provide excellent teaching and facilities generally, but may not look at access to facilities for students with learning difficulties. I am thinking, for example, of deaf students who may find no loop systems in lecture halls. Some tutors may not be prepared to make their lecture notes available to these students.
Baroness David: I also support the amendment, very much for the reason that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), gave. There is a certain amount of information showing that some university departments do much better than others. There should be information generally so that those students with learning difficulties will be aware of what is going on and where they may receive help.
It is important that we should have further information on this and that the quality assessment committee should be aware of the need.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for introducing the amendment and other noble Lords for taking part. I am not entirely happy with the amendment, but I feel it deserves to be given a considered and full reply.
The amendment would require the quality assessment committees of the higher education funding councils to publish annual reports on the discharge of their functions, and to include in those reports information about the provision made in higher education institutions for students with learning difficulties. The Government do not believe such a requirement to be necessary.
The amendment contains two propositions: that there should be an annual report; and that it should contain particular information. In the interests of clarity, it will be helpful to consider those two propositions separately.
First, the idea of an annual report from the quality assessment committees; the Government's intention is that there should be an annual report from the higher education funding councils themselves. Those annual reports will cover all the activities of the funding councils. This will naturally embrace the findings of the councils' quality assessment units, alongside their other activities over the year. The reports of the assessors on individual institutions will also be published, much as reports from Her Majesty's inspectors are published now. However, we do not think that it would be appropriate to require in legislation a separate annual report from the quality assessment committees themselves. They are committees of the funding councils, and their function is to advise the councils.
The second aspect of the amendment is the proposal that information should be published about the provision for students with learning difficulties. From the drafting of the amendment it is not clear

1111
whether that would be information about the nature and availability of the provision, or about its quality; or perhaps it would be both.
I do not wish to disagree with the principle that such information should be available. At this point I need again to distinguish the two categories. Information for the individual about access to courses for students with learning difficulties, and advice about the suitability of particular courses in individual cases, is currently available. In the first instance, it is a matter for the institutions themselves to make information available about what they offer and its suitability. Information and advice about provision for students with disabilities is also co-ordinated on a national basis by many agencies which take an interest in these matters. The charitable bodies do excellent work in this field. There is also SKILL, formerly the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, which is grant-aided by the Department of Education and Science for precisely this purpose.
The second type of information covered by the amendment relates to the national monitoring of provision for students with disabilities. The Government accept the importance of monitoring this provision. I entirely agree that in assessing the quality of education provided in the new sector, the higher education funding councils will need to consider what is provided for disabled students. Where we do not agree, I have to say, is with the proposal that the point needs to be enshrined in legislation by this amendment.
It really goes without saying that the councils cannot discharge their duty of securing the assessment of quality without taking account of the provision made for students with disabilities and I do not think it necessary to single out this particular aspect of provision for specific mention in the Bill. The councils will no more forget to consider provision for students with disabilities than they will forget to look at provision for mathematics. We do not need to single out particular aspects of provision for the councils to scrutinise, because the requirement is that they scrutinise all provision.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I raised the possibility of issuing guidance on this topic. As the Committee knows, the Government plan to issue guidance to the higher education funding councils about the way they should approach their duties. It is possible that the need to monitor provision for students with disabilities will be included in the guidance. I hesitate to say more definitely that it will be included for the reason I have just given: it is unthinkable that this aspect of provision would be left out of the councils' monitoring systems. That is a point that we are considering further.
It may also help the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when I tell him that Ministers share the Committee's concern that provision for students with disabilities should be adequately monitored. In the past, special surveys have been used, but they have their drawbacks. The DES is considering whether more information can be built into the existing routine statistical returns. That will need discussion with the new funding councils. I hope that the Committee will
1112
be satisfied by my assurance that improved monitoring of the provision for students with disabilities is under active consideration.
I have set out the Government's position in some detail. Perhaps I may summarise it. I do not believe that the Committee should put into the Bill unnecessary provisions. The Committee can be assured that monitoring of the provision for students with disabilities is part of the government's thinking for the new sector. We believe that the duty to assess the quality of all provision is a sufficient statutory basis to secure that monitoring. It is on that basis that I hope Members of the Committee will feel they do not need to press the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I accept with gratitude the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness. It is very heartening to hear that the Government have this matter under active consideration. I t is also very heartening to hear that it is possible that monitoring will be included. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord said that it should be included in the ministerial guidance. These are very important assurances. That the Minister should actually accept the importance of monitoring only short of enshrining it as a provision in the Bill is an important assurance. That is all very heartening. I am very glad to hear those words.
I fully accept that the charitable bodies, and SKILL in particular, have a function now and that they might still have one in the future. My amendment was in a way the braces of a belt and braces exercise. The belt was really the first amendment that we came to. My second amendment concerning the report represented the braces. I know that I described the amendment as humdrum, but it is of supreme importance to those with learning difficulties and disabilities of one sort or another. In that sense, it is not right to describe the amendment as humdrum. I have received a far from humdrum reply and one which I am very happy to have received at this moment. Together with the other raft of amendments about those with learning difficulties, I hope that this is one of the matters we can also discuss when we meet again in a few days' time. With that very promising reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 272 not moved.]
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 272A:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The majority of members of the committee including its Chairman shall be persons independent of the council.").
The noble Earl said: Many views have been expressed already this evening on the composition and duties of the quality assessment committee which is set up under Clause 66, but none quite addressed the point that I have in mind. If I have been encouraged by the interest which has been expressed in advance by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so also has my nervousness in introducing the amendment been increased.
There are two obvious criteria to look at in examining the make-up of the committee. The first is that the people serving on the committee should be qualified to make their judgments. That is addressed by Clause 66(2) and no voice of dissent has been heard concerning that principle, which clearly seems right. There is a second criterion which one might apply. That is the degree of independence which the committee has of the council to which it is answerable. It is certainly arguable that, in reporting to the funding councils on the assessment of quality in particular institutions funded generically by those councils, the committees could with advantage have a degree of independence from the funding councils.
That is a point to which the CDP attaches some importance. If I were in the position of chairman of one of the funding councils I should be insistent that advice coming to me came in good measure from people who were not themselves members of the council. That said, I would see no requirement to have a total divorce of these bodies merely to ensure that there was a sufficient degree of independence in the committee.
What are the requirements of the Bill in that regard? There are none. Clause 66 is silent on the size and composition of the quality assessment committee apart from the question of the majority of its members having expertise in education, which has already been referred to. We then have to turn to Schedule 1, paragraph 8, which is to be found on page 65 of the Bill. The only relevant passage is in subparagraph (3), which states,
"Such a committee may include persons who are not members of the council".
The word is "may" and not "must" or "should".
Perhaps I may illustrate briefly what I have in mind. If a council were set up with a membership of five, three could be educationists and two could be lay people. That would satisfy the criterion. If there were 15 members, eight could be educationists and seven would not be required to be so. In either case all of them could themselves be members of the funding council. Therefore there would be no necessity for an independent voice which seems to be desirable. That is the point addressed by the amendment.
The other matter referred to in the amendment is the proposal that the chairman should be one of the independent members of the council. That again is a debatable point. I believe that all Members of this Committee must have had experience of working on committees. They will know that the tone of a committee is set in the main by the chairman and that it is he who normally has the most influence. So in order to ensure the necessary degree of independence it can be argued that the chairman should be one of the independent people.
I am sure that some sharp-eyed Members of the Committee will have noticed that, by a quirk of the printer's trade, my name was deprived of the letter "l" on the Marshalled List. Whatever may be the impact of the "Ear of Limerick", I hope that the voice of Limerick may elicit some sympathetic response. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to support this procedural amendment which in principle, if carried, will save a great deal of trouble in future, especially in the courts on judicial review. One of the problems under the 1981 Act is that on a statementing process from the local education authority the appeals committee is often comprised of people who actually made the decision as to the statement. That is very unsatisfactory. It is causing practical problems in the courts. It is a matter which I hope my noble friend the Minister will think is not a question of criticism but a matter to which he might give his attention with a view to dealing with a difficulty, having taken advice.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should also like to support this amendment. It seems to me to make the essential difference between those who are advising on quality and those who are actually giving out the funds. One says that while still not being sure of the role of the quality audit unit. Even so, I am sure it is right to hope that the voice of Limerick will have the ear of the Minister on this occasion.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The purpose behind this amendment is to secure the position of the quality assessment committee as a strong body able to offer objective advice to the funding council on quality issues. The Government are at one with the mover of the amendment. That is why the White Paper indicated that a majority of members of the committee will be representatives of institutions, and it is why subsection (2) of Clause 66 provides that the majority of the committee's members shall be persons with experience of, and capacity in, the provision of higher education. Without this, the committee's work and advice would have little force with the council and carry little credibility with the institutions. However, I am not at all sure that it makes sense for legislation to require that a majority of the members, including the chairman, should be independent of the council, by which I understood the noble Lord to mean not members of the council.
The funding councils need to have the best possible advice from their committees on quality issues; and it is equally important that the views of the committee are registered at the highest levels of the council's decision-making processes. If the committee's voice is to be heard strongly at the times it matters most, at the full meetings of the council, it may well be in everyone's interest if there is some—possibly a great deal—overlap between the membership of the committee and that of the council.
This argument would apply particularly to the question of the chairman. On the one hand, it has been argued that an independent chairman would go some way towards guaranteeing the independence of the advice provided to the council by the committee. I can see the force of that point. On the other hand, barring the chairman from being a member of the council, as this amendment would do, would prevent the chairman participating directly in council debates, including those on quality. I am not sure if that is the best way to secure a high profile for quality issues in the new arrangements. Indeed, I rather suspect that if the Government had required in the Bill that the

1115
chairman of the quality assessment committee should not be a member of the council we would have been criticised for marginalising the issues of quality in general and the position of the chairman of the committee in particular.
Until the councils have had the chance to consider these important issues I do not think that this Committee should reach a firm view which is then placed in legislative concrete. Subsection (2) of Clause 66 provides the institutions the majority voice on the committee as my noble friend said. That is the guarantee of independence of thought and the objectivity of advice which is so important and which will he spelled out in the Secretary of State's guidance to the funding councils. Questions of the relationship between council membership and that of the committee are bound to evolve over time with experience. At this stage, before the councils have even been formed, I doubt that it would be right to place the sorts of restrictions contained in this amendment onto the face of the Bill.
My noble friend has spoken very persuasively on this amendment and I should like the opportunity to study the matter further. In the light of that I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Limerick: I shall gladly do that, acknowledging gratefully the helpful comments that have been made by my noble friend. I think it is possible that seeking to put into an amendment that the chairman should be independent of the funding council could be said to be one bridge too far. One knows all the arguments for having a chairman who is close to the work of the body to which he reports. Obviously I have no intention of pressing that point but I am glad to hear that it will be thought about again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 272B:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Higher Education Standards Council
.—(1) There shall be established an independent body to be known as the Higher Education Standards Council.
(2) The Higher Education Standards Council shall have responsibility for monitoring quality in higher education and for advising each funding council, institutions (as set out in section 65(7) above) and the Secretary of State.
(3) The member of the Higher Education Standards Council shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after appropriate consultation.
(4) The Higher Education Standards Council shall produce reports on its findings and such reports shall be referred to the Select Committee on Education and Science, to institutions, to the Higher Education Funding Council, to the Secretary of State and to other parties as deemed appropriate by the Higher Education Standards Council.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should point out one or two printing errors. We not only have the "Ear of Limerick" on this page of the Marshalled List but subsection (3) of the amendment refers to "The member of the Higher Education Standards Council". It should read "members". In subsection (4) the word "Council", in line 4, should read "Councils".
Maintaining high quality provision should be at the heart of everything we do in higher education. Every institution, whatever level of qualifications is being offered, should adopt a clear and well thought out system of quality assurance. While a more diverse system of higher education is certainly welcome and is something for which many of us have argued for some years, greater diversity makes quality assurance all the more crucial. It is vital then to have in place procedures right across the higher education system which will sustain quality in the post-binary era.
While not going quite as far as the noble Earl, Lord Russell—I see he is not in his place at the moment—in suggesting that the quality of most degrees is going down, I argue that pressure on funding, which has been increasing every year with demands for lower and lower unit costs, also means that we must monitor the system properly to ensure that quality is maintained as new and probably even tougher funding methodologies are introduced.
I regret to say that the proposals in the Bill for quality assurance are deeply flawed. I have grave doubts that they will safeguard quality. My main reason for saying that is that leaving responsibility for quality assessment and quality assurance with the funding councils poses a threat to objective analysis. That is why the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, was right to suggest that if we are to have quality assessment committees appointed by the funding councils at least some of their members should be independent. I want to go further than that.
Inevitably, the funding councils will be under considerable financial pressure to keep costs down. Clause 66 gives the funding councils too prominent a role in quality assurance, leading to the danger that quality may be sacrificed for crude considerations of cost. In speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the White Paper. He was surprised that there had been so little development in the Bill of some of the ideas in the White Paper on quality assurance. I share that view. There is no reference in the Bill to a United Kingdom-wide quality audit, a point to which some significance was given in the White Paper. Nor is there any mention of the role of institutions themselves. That is why we on these Benches would be able to support a perhaps revised version of the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
It should be a central feature of any system to maintain quality and standards. There is no doubt that the prime responsibility for both quality and standards must rest with the universities themselves, both new and old. However, institutions will need support, guidance and advice as well as some monitoring. This amendment goes a step further than the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. It proposes the establishment of a Higher Education Standards Council to undertake this work. I therefore believe that it meets the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in regard to an earlier amendment.
The council should cover the whole of the United Kingdom. It is unnecessary and undesirable to have separate standards councils or, indeed, quality

1117
assessment committees for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The council should cover all higher education institutions, including those which are privately funded. It is essential that their students should not end up buying something of inferior quality even though it might have the title of "degree". The standards council should advise on a range of matters, including how institutions might set up their own quality assurance provisions, student evaluation of courses, staff appraisal and career development, courses for the training of staff in teaching methods, the development of credit accumulation and transfer schemes, and external examining—indeed, all those matters that make up and secure high quality. But, above all, it should be independent and have the right to criticise the funding councils. Any committee set up by the funding councils seems very unlikely to do so. Its independence should be guaranteed by the right to publish reports on its findings. Such reports should go to various bodies, including the higher education funding councils. It should also go to the Select Committee on Education and Science, to the Secretary of State and to individual institutions.
The amendment does not specify in detail what the membership should be. However, it does say that the membership of the standards council should be appointed by the Secretary of State, in particular after consultation with the CVCP and the CDP or its successor body. Its members should largely be drawn from people with appropriate and relevant experience in higher education.
The amendment is designed to ensure that a proper system of quality assurance is established, with the setting up of an independent UK-wide body with duties to undertake this work and report on it, rather than tagging on a responsibility for the funding councils to set up committees. That is a totally inappropriate mechanism for carrying out this important work. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask a question for the sake of clarification. Is there not already the machinery for harmonisation in the Bill? Further, does that not lie within the remit of the Secretary of State? Therefore, is the amendment really necessary? I do not understand the position. I merely ask these questions for clarification.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I also seek clarification on this point. There is a risk of some confusion in this respect. We have the insertion after Clause 66 of the proposed new clause which would establish an "independent body" that would have responsibility for monitoring quality in higher education. But, with the quality assessment committee, Clause 66 sets out to secure that provision is made for assessing the quality of education.
Given the fact that we also have a quality audit unit, shall we not, therefore, have a plethora of organisations all of which have almost the same terms of reference? I should have expected the noble Baroness to suggest the deletion of Clause 66 before introducing the new organisation which may indeed have its merits.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may also ask the noble Baroness for clarification, especially as regards the quality audit unit. I do not know how that unit is developing. As I understand it, it is a matter of negotiations between the CVCP and the CDP at present. Is there any reason why everything that the noble Baroness suggests in the amendment should not in fact be subsumed by the quality audit unit? Therefore, might it not be an alternative arrangement to have that on the face of the Bill rather than another body?
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that there is any reference in the Bill to a quality audit unit. There was extensive reference to it in the White Paper. It is partly because there is no such provision—and that answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that we believe we need a higher education standards council.
As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I entirely accept that it would make much more sense to delete Clause 66 so far as concerns reference to the funding councils setting up quality assessment committees and to put in its place the proposed new clause.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I urge Members of the Committee not to accept the amendment. I say that because it brings together in one what I believe to be two essentially separate operations. The quality audit unit is quite properly not included in the legislation. That is because it is something which is to be under the control, and reporting to, the higher education institutions. It is a very important part of the academic freedom which we have sought and which the Committee has discussed at great length today. It seems to me to be an absolutely key part of the retention of that academic freedom that it should be separate and seen to be separate from academic assessment.
The work of the academic audit unit will be, above all, to monitor and validate the internal quality assurance arrangements which exist within institutions. It will report to the heads of the institutions; it will publish its reports; and it will make it clear that we are all above the threshold necessary to ensure that there is academic quality, and that academic quality assurance mechanisms exist within the institution.
Quality assessment is quite properly part of the funding councils' responsibility for ensuring that quality has an important influence on how funding is provided to the institutions. Part of the funding councils' remit is that they should have quality assessment committees and ensure that there are adequate arrangements for the assessment of quality. It is important that the work of that external body, reporting back to the funding councils, which is looking at the range of quality and making judgments well above the thresholds, should be separate and distinct from the audit unit which is within the control of the institutions themselves. I therefore strongly resist uniting them in one committee in the way suggested by the amendment.
Lord Addington: We on these Benches support the amendment and feel that it covers important ground.
Lord Flowers: I wholly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, said. I shall not support the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I hope that the Minister will take on board what my noble friend Lady Blackstone said: that this proposed new body is a replacement for the quality audit committees. Whether the Government accept it, its attraction is that it has certain features which the quality audit committees do not have. One of the attractions is that it talks about standards and not quality. Quality is what motor cars and clothing have and not what universities have; but that is a small point.
The amendment has two characteristics. First, it wants the members to be independent from the funding councils. That is right because from time to time the funding councils are bound to feel that they want increased output without it having an impact on standards. I mean, "Don't worry about the quality, feel the width". The second aspect is that one must also have independence from the universities. That is what the proposal has, because it will be the universities or the colleges which will tend to feel that any increase in output will have an impact on standards. They will say, "Don't worry about the width, feel the quality".
The only way to achieve the right balance is if the quality assessment committee, the standards committee, or whatever it is called, is, in its composition, independent of both those bodies, although it will have a great many experienced academics among its numbers.
Lord Peston: I am now totally mystified. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, obviously knows about the audit unit, whereas the rest of us have not been given that information. There is nothing in the Bill about the audit unit. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, supported the noble Baroness; so he must know about the unit. The Opposition do not know the details of the unit. In particular, we do not know whether it is independent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about the unit since it is being used in relation to an amendment. I object strongly to being told something about which I know nothing and which is not in the Bill.
This is a serious matter. What is especially serious is the independence question. There is no evidence that the audit unit will be independent in the way that the amendment provides. We need to know about it.
Having listened to the noble Baroness—I assume that since she sits on that side of the Chamber she has been briefed on these matters—I am beginning to wonder what the quality assessment committees will now do. They are clearly not going to be independent—at least we do not yet know whether the amendments tabled by the noble Earl will be accepted. They will advise, but they will not be advising the institutions. What are they up to then? From where will they obtain their information?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The White Paper made reference to the quality audit unit and correctly stated that it was under the supervision of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I am not familiar with the detail of its working, but the White Paper makes that matter clear. I believe it to be accurate in that respect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hope I may take those comments a little further. The unit to which my noble friend refers is the academic audit unit, which is the body at present existing at the universities. The quality audit unit which we are considering at the moment will constitute a kind of merger between what exists at the end of the term of the existing body and what is acceptable to the Committee of Polytechnic Directors.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: At the moment we do not yet know what the quality audit unit is or what it will be doing, as the polytechnic directors and vice-chancellors have not yet decided that issue.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. It appears there are two of us who do not yet know what this body will consist of. Some of us are trying to deal with this Bill. My noble friend has introduced a sensible set of amendments and I do not believe they can be rejected on the basis of bodies that we as yet know nothing about. Given the importance of independence, a fortiori, one would like to know about this matter simply in terms of the rules of the game when one decides whether or not one agrees with interventions on amendments.
My noble friend will decide what she wishes to do with the amendment. But what worries me is that I am beginning to wonder whether I understand what the quality assessment committees are and what their function will be. I also wonder whether anyone else understands what they are and what their function will be. Normally I make the assumption that, if I do not understand something, no one else does either.
The two essential points are as follows. First, there is the matter of how the council will be advised on assessment. Secondly, how will the institutions be advised on quality or, better still, standards? My noble friend's amendment deals with precisely those matters by guaranteeing independence of advice. However, I doubt whether my noble friend will wish to pursue this matter much further at this time as normally we like to proceed on the basis of knowledge rather than lack of knowledge. I also await the Government's response to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, as that is tremendously important in this regard. I do not believe one can simply accept a wave of the hand—I say with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that that is all we are offered—as an assurance that these units will do the job they ought and allow ourselves to be told that we shall just have to wait until they are in place to see how they are operated. That is not the way legislation should be carried forward.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I fully understand that the noble Baroness, quite rightly, wishes to ventilate

1121
the policies of her party. However, the Government consider that her proposals are—to use the expression of the noble Baroness—seriously flawed.
I shall try to dispose of one matter—that of the quality unit. This is mentioned in the Bill and there is no need for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to rage at me that he has no knowledge of that body, as I am advised that it is referred to in Clause 78(2) of the Bill. Although there is no specific reference to the unit—the noble Baroness mentioned this—the Bill refers to the reserve power of the Secretary of State to require such a unit to be established if necessary. He does not expect to use that power.
The function of the quality audit unit is to assess the arrangements that institutions have in place to ensure that the quality of their academic work is maintained at a satisfactory standard.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry but I am not sure about this matter. Perhaps the Minister can help me. I see no reference to this point in Clause 78(2). Will the Minister guide the Committee on that matter?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Reference is made in Clause 78(2) to the reserve power.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord McCarthy: Clause 78(2) states:
"Any two or more councils shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, jointly make provision for the assessment by a person appointed by them of matters relating to the arrangements made by each institution in Great Britain which is within the higher education sector for maintaining academic standards in the institution".
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The sentence begins:
"Any two or more councils shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State".
That is a reference to those powers although, I agree, not a very clear one.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord is pulling our legs, is he not? I was going to say that I appreciate that it is late, but it is not very late. I can read words such as "audit unit". I assert as an empirical proposition that no rational person could interpret those words as meaning audit unit.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It has now been read out twice. It is subject to a certain amount of interpretation. That is the reserve power that has been requested.
Returning to the amendment, I said that I believed that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness was flawed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am sorry to labour the point but the noble Lord is insulting the Committee with those remarks. By no means can the point which my noble friend made be interpreted as being included in Clause 78(2). Why does the Minister not withdraw what he has said and say that he will return to the matter at a later stage with the important information which my noble friend has correctly requested?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am not pulling anybody's leg. The reserve power is contained in the first part of Clause 78(2), and the second part of the subsection relates to the audit. That is my submission.
The amendment would be rather better if something had been done about Clause 66, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged. The proposal for quality assurance outlined in the Government's White Paper set out a framework for considering quality in institutions which I consider would be equally rigorous but also far more appropriate, than that put forward in the amendment.
It is recognised by the White Paper proposals that it is to institutions that the task of setting up an organisation to scrutinise internal quality control systems and ensure that they are working should be remitted. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals have responded quickly and positively to the Government's invitation to say how such a unit would operate. They propose visits to each and every institution to examine quality assurance systems and structures, together with ongoing monitoring. The reports of those visits would be published, and the three bodies have accepted that an institution's public funding could ultimately be affected by an unsatisfactory report if adverse aspects were not corrected.
In addition, the organisation would be given other functions —to promote and disseminate information about best practice; to oversee the external examiner arrangements; and to continue the essential work now carried out by the CNAA in respect of credit accumulation and transfer schemes and the recognition of access courses. Finally, the institutions have accepted that the organisation should have lay members and outside observers and assessors.
The amendment would appear to provide for the function in question to be carried out by a council appointed by the Secretary of State. It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness does not appear to share the view of the Government and those working in higher education that institutions have earned the right to regulate themselves on this matter. The Government see no value in a quango appointed by the Secretary of State monitoring quality assurance systems in institutions but lacking the power, or self-interest, to improve them where necessary.
The other side of quality is, of course, assessment of work actually carried out in institutions. Clause 66 places the duty of securing assessment upon the funding councils. The Government believe that the quality assessment responsibility should lie with the funding council because it is the council which has the duty to secure that money is spent where it can achieve the best results. As we have already discussed, the councils will be advised by essentially independent committees on how they should exercise their responsibilities, and the assessments themselves will be carried out by experts.
By transferring the quality assessment function from within the funding council apparatus to the standards council the amendment of the noble Baroness would make it far harder for funding

1123
decisions to be influenced by quality considerations and far more difficult for the councils to ask for specific reports on aspects of institutions' provision which are of concern. Once again, the amendment would provide a monitoring body without the responsibility or self-interest to improve matters.
The fourth indent of the amendment would require that the reports of the higher education standards council be made available to Parliament and in particular to the Select Committee on Education and Science in another place. As we said in debates on previous amendments, all reports of the assessment units and all those of the audit units on quality issues will be published and available to Parliament, and to all others with an interest.
The Secretary of State's responsibility is for the funding of institutions as a whole. Parliament has already taken, and takes advantage of, opportunities to question Ministers on their funding of higher education. The noble Baroness's proposal would not therefore provide any greater powers for Parliament than already exist.
The various responsibilities for maintaining and enhancing quality have been carefully considered by the Government and their proposals follow consultation with representatives of higher education. The amendment would stifle the various arrangements under the dead weight of an all-embracing quango which would have power to monitor but little real interest in achieving improvements where they are most needed, at institutional level; or it would impose another and wholly unnecessary layer onto arrangements which the Government consider will provide the necessary rigour. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain why specific reports would be more difficult under the amendment? I do not understand that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am not sure that I can. I am advised by those who have experience in these matters that that would be the logical conclusion, but that is a challenge that I am not able to defend and I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord for at least agreeing to write to me. He has mentioned a number of points this evening on which I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I do not accept them and I believe that he is wrong. He suggested that if the amendment were accepted the institutions would be less likely to regulate themselves. That is not what it is about.
I made it clear when moving the amendment that we regard it as of the utmost importance that institutions should regulate themselves and carry out much of the work to maintain quality and standards and to institute procedures to ensure that that happens. However, I went on to say that in our view it is highly desirable to have an independent higher education standards council to ensure that things do not go wrong and to help institutions by providing some guidance, by undertaking research, and so on. I
1124
was surprised that the Minister suggested that the council would not have the responsibility or self-interest to improve matters. Again, that appears to be an assertion rather than something that he has demonstrated by what he said.
Finally, it is a little steep for the Government to suggest that we are stifling arrangements under the dead weight of an all-embracing quango. Part of the Bill is about setting up an all-embracing quango with respect to the further education funding council rather than continuing the more pluralistic arrangements that we have at present. However, I acknowledge and accept that, if the amendment is to stand, Clause 66 must be deleted. I should therefore like to withdraw the amendment, consider with some care what the Minister said and come back at the next stage.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, will she tell us whether a government led by her party would cease to reduce university unit costs any further? I cannot take seriously any concern for quality that does not give that.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not believe that that question has any relevance whatever to the amendment and I certainly could not agree to answer it at this time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 67 [Higher education corporations; constitution and conduct]:
[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 273 A:
Page 49, line 18, after ("Authorities") insert ("and the National Health Service").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. The present wording in Clause 67 does not give the full title of the Audit Commission. The wording as revised by the amendment will do so. It is a technical amendment. I hope that the Committee will approve it. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I did not listen very closely and missed the point. Am I to understand that this amendment shows the correct title of the Audit Commission and that there is nothing at all substantive in the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: As I said, it is a purely technical amendment. It is indeed just the title that is amended.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 274 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 275 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 275 A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 50, line 3, leave out from ("apply") to ("as") in line 4,
The noble Lord said: This is a matter of student representation and indeed representation of the staff on all new committees from which they have

1125
effectively been removed. When dealing with further education I suggested to the Government that, as students were the consumers and without them all institutions in the education field would be totally irrelevant, students should be consulted as often as possible. I did not receive a very satisfactory response.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has stated that the Government think it desirable that staff and students should be a party to decisions that affect them. Also the former Under-Secretary of State responsible for higher education, Mr. Robert Jackson, said in another place that the Government valued enormously the participation of students in the governing bodies and institutions. In three and a half years we seem to have done a volte-face. I ask the Government why that has happened. The simple fact is that we are talking about the people who are directly involved in consuming the product of education. If they are the consumer and not the product, as I said before, and if they are not being produced merely to go and do a certain number of jobs, they should have a say in the product. Moreover, the people who prime them with information—to continue in this rather mechanical vein—should surely be consulted as well. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I wish to add just one sentence in support of the amendment. In my experience student representation is often of conspicuously high quality and we benefit from it.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am entirely in agreement with his observations, though not necessarily with the precise form of the amendment. Over the years in this country we have become used to the participation of student representatives or student nominees in the councils and governing committees of our universities and polytechnics. The matter was hotly debated in this Chamber when the 1988 Bill was under consideration. The burning issue then was whether one student or two should sit on each committee or council. Despite the wishes of most speakers in the debate, the Government's view prevailed that one—or to be more accurate at least one—would be enough rather than two.
It is with concern that one finds that the present Bill removes the obligation that at least one student should be included. Most unfortunately it also lays down that any students whom the governing body or corporation consents to admit will not be selected, elected or nominated by his or her peers (if I may use that term in this Committee) but will be co-opted. That is to say, the student nominee will be nominated by the senior members of the governing body. That cannot be right. On Tuesday last many Members of the Committee on both sides spoke in favour of the inclusion of students on the boards of further education institutions. Only one noble Lord rose to oppose that aspect of the amendment then proposed.
In this country we have in large measure a system of government within higher education based on trust and mutual respect. I can think of no case where a student presence on the governing body would be
1126
inappropriate. The concept of reserved business can always be invoked, and properly so, when the affairs of individuals—whether of staff or students—are under discussion. It is in the interests of all that students be encouraged to participate in the affairs of our universities. The suggestion that students be tolerated rather than admitted of right is unfortunate. The provision that, when students are tolerated, the nominees should be chosen not by students but by senior figures is simply obnoxious.
I therefore have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, I regret that he has allowed the argument for student representation to be linked with other categories of representation. Had his amendment referred only to students I would have supported it unequivocally; but it refers also to teachers. Schedule 6 already makes provision for two teachers to be on the governing bodies. The amendment also refers to non-academic staff. That argument may have its merits, but they may be felt less keenly by some Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber than those relating to students.
In my own college—it will not fall within the purview of the clause—the statutes speak of the college as comprising the master, fellows and scholars of the college. That is as it should be. Students sit by right on the council except when areas of reserved business are discussed. They are not representatives. They are elected by other students, just as Members of Parliament are elected by their constituents. The term "representative" or "nominee" can be taken in precisely that sense.
I hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration to student representation and to inform the Secretary of State about what I predict will be the overwhelming feeling of the Committee on the issue. If my noble friend gives such an undertaking I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I endorse what my noble friend said and to an extent support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 277B does less than justice to students. As my noble friend said, the question as to whether their presence on the governing body should be mandatory is buried under the different issue of whether governing bodies would work better if members were representative of, for example, teachers' unions and other unions to which staff belong.
The balance of the governing body would best be obtained by appointing people with a variety of experience, not elected as representatives. We have discussed that argument in relation to further education colleges. The position is not all that different when one considers higher education institutions.
The issue of whether students should be present, and whether such presence should be mandatory, should be an entirely separate matter. There is at least a case for including students within the scope of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said when we discussed further education, students are the institution. They should take an interest in what the

1127
governing body does. They should be aware that they are playing a direct part in the decision making and that it is part of their education to do so. I recognise that there are problems in some institutions and that it is extremely difficult to ask busy businessmen and academics to sit through prolonged political manoeuvring and wrangling which some students feel is their role.
There are some areas of discussion in which students should not be involved. Any amendment to introduce student representation on to the face of the Bill would have to be accompanied by a provision that governing bodies could stipulate aspects which students would not be able to discuss or vote upon. For example, I refer to staff conditions of service, staff discipline, salaries, and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made no such provision in his amendment relating to FE colleges. I did not then speak but I voted against his amendment for that reason. There is no doubt that should the presence of students be made mandatory the ability of governing bodies to disallow their presence when certain business is discussed must also be made mandatory. It may be that there should be a balancing clause by means of which compulsory membership is brought to an end. But that is for another stage and for another day. The amendment, which merely argues for a representative governing body and suggests that student representatives are the same as union representatives and people who work in the college, is not valid. I cannot support it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is a short issue and can be dealt with briefly. An overwhelming case has been made for reconsideration of subsections (4) and (5) in the light of the recent discussion in the Committee. The point of student representation has already been accepted in the Committee. The only dispute related to the quality of mandate, being mandated by a trade union and so forth. Let us not go over that ground again. There is no question of "mandatory" in the true sense of the word. Merely because a student is a member of the body does not mean that he must turn up in order to make up a quorum any more than must anyone else. The issue of whether students have the right to be there is for decision. It is an issue that the Government have already viewed with sympathy and perhaps we can leave it to them to sort out the drafting.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 276 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 277, 277B and 277D. I wish to speak to them as a group. Members on this side of the Committee are worried by the fact that the Government are changing provisions that were made in the Education Reform Act 1988. These amendments preserve the status quo established under that Act. The Act specified that the instruments of government should include in the membership of governing bodies a local authority member, a teacher, a general staff member and a student. Under the Bill they will be specifically excluded unless invited to rejoin as co-opted members. The Government have
1128
not given a satisfactory explanation as to why they should be excluded. I should like to hear such an explanation from the Minister.
If the Government wish to have a smooth transition into the new system there appears to be every reason for retaining on the new governing bodies categories of people, apart from the individuals who happen to fill such slots, who have considerable knowledge of the institution and expertise in how it is run.
I wish to demolish the argument that may be put forward by the Minister in reply. It is that the size of governing bodies is such as to preclude those people being represented and continuing to be represented. The Bill specifies that governing bodies can have up to 22 members. The number would be larger if the amendment soon to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, were accepted. That kind of number is large enough to allow for the inclusion of a student, a member of the teaching staff and a member of the support staff.
We had a long debate in Committee when discussing the further education part of the Bill in regard to the question of representation concerning whether or not these people had been mandated to argue a specific point of view. I believe it was agreed, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, that a student representative need not be somebody who has been mandated by students to take a specific line. As other Members said—the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in particular made this point—it is preferable that any student should be elected rather than nominated by the governing body.
Perhaps I can go on to say that the argument that such people only pursue their own vested interests is absolutely absurd. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' Committee with any experience of higher education will deny that that is the fact; whether it is students or staff representatives, they all play a part in the discussions. My experience is quite the opposite; that they do not come representing a specific point of view which they are then determined to pursue.
I should also like to dismiss the argument, again put forward when we were debating further education in Committee, that some of those people operate as trade union representatives. There are many other ways of negotiating, discussing and consulting open to trade unions in higher education institutions. It is not done on governing bodies. Although it is possible that some staff representatives who are elected may be involved in trade union activities, many others have no such involvement. Indeed, in my experience the majority have no such involvement.
Perhaps I can again anticipate what I suspect the Minister will say in reply. He will argue that it is possible for a governing body to co-opt students or members of the staff of institutions. Earlier in the debate reference was made by one of the other speakers to the fact that the schedule already says that two members of staff may be included. The crucial words are, "may be" included. We argue that members of staff "should be" included. When one looks at Amendment No. 277B, it says,
"the following representatives shall be included",

1129
rather than "may be" included. That is a crucial and important difference. However, if it is right that both staff and students should be represented, that they do have something to add and that the smooth running of an institution is helped by bringing them into the decision-making process—which again is certainly my experience and the experience of other Members of your Lordships' Committee involved in higher education—then those people should surely be represented on governing bodies as of right. That should be written on to the face of the Bill. Not to do so leaves open the possibility that a poorly-managed or poorly-run institution could exclude them. No well-run institution will want a governing body without at least one teacher, without a representative of the other staff and without at least one student representative.
Perhaps I can ask what has happened since 1988 to make the Government change their mind and exclude those groups from statutory representation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, perhaps I can remind the Minister that with respect to students there was a debate only three-and-a-half years ago in which it was made clear that those speaking for the Government thought it essential that students should be represented.
Since 1988 I know of no evidence that either staff or student representation has been detrimental to any institution, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, seemed to imply. I argue that institutions have positively benefited from the involvement of staff and students. Students have a unique perspective within higher education and it would be both wasteful and counterproductive to ignore it. I support the amendments and look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Baroness referred to Amendment No. 277B. I can do no other than oppose it. I have in my hand the parliamentary briefing from NALGO and no doubt the noble Baroness has received it. It supports the amendment and gives its reasons. At this hour of night I shall not go into them but reserve my position. The document raises the kind of problems about which I have spoken concerning trade union representation. Although I do not resile in any way from students being represented, I reserve my position on the basis of the parliamentary briefing on the amendment from NALGO.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wish to add a word on the question of students. I have sat on the hebdomadal council in Oxford for six years with them and in that time they never put a foot wrong. They were responsible, thoughtful, they did their homework and never regarded themselves or behaved as though they were mandated by anyone. They were independent, free-thinking members of the council. They brought to it a dimension which we did not have before and which we found extremely valuable.
Lord Desai: I support the amendment which appears in my name as well as that of the noble Lord,
1130
Lord Addington. At my place of work we have found student representation not only necessary but valuable. I believe that we should be positive about it.
Lord Adrian: Perhaps I may say that, no less keen than Oxford, when I was vice-chancellor at Cambridge I found the presence of students on the council of the senate to be enormously valuable and supportive.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As there has not yet been a contribution from the Cross Benches on this subject, perhaps I may recall that I was, I believe, the first person in the Committee to draw attention to the undesirability of the use of the word "representative" in another context. I find the word unattractive and unacceptable in Amendment No. 277B.
The whole business of whether someone is mandated or not when he is a representative has been discussed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. In this case, as in another with which I was concerned, the Government are regressive in their drafting. One has only to go back to the debates on the 1988 Bill to substantiate that remark. The wording is regressive and clearly needs amending in respect of student representatives, if not also, as I should like to see, teacher and general staff representatives.
In 1988, Mr. Robert Jackson, memorably described in this House at the time as the "Pol Pot of higher education" said that the Government valued enormously the participation of students in governing bodies of institutions. That was not in question, he said. We must at least go back to the position as stated by Mr. Jackson in 1988. If the Government do not do so willingly, they are spoiling for a fight.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may repeat briefly what I said earlier in Committee. I fear that we are getting a slightly one-sided view of this matter. Certainly in 1988, with the passage of the Act at the time, a large number of polytechnic directors were nervous particularly of the appointment of the local authority teacher and general staff nominees to their governing bodies. The nomination of the student representatives is somewhat more controversial. But all my information is that those fears have been confirmed in the minds of the polytechnic directors. I feel sure that they will welcome the Bill as it stands. I imagine that they would oppose Amendment No. 277. The question of student representation is perhaps more difficult. I cannot help feeling that perhaps it might be achieved in some other way than necessarily putting them on the governing bodies themselves.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Baroness asked me twice about what has happened since 1988. The governing bodies have had three years of operational experience and that is what has happened. The Government have sought to increase the flexibility of governing bodies to determine their membership by removing some of the prescriptive elements of Schedule 7 of the Education Reform Act 1988. As the Committee will know, this schedule acts as the instrument of government for higher education corporations. The Bill provides that local authority nominees, teacher nominees, general staff nominees

1131
and student nominees, shall not automatically be members of a governing body, but may be co-opted as members if that is what the governing body wants. That reduction in prescription has been welcomed by the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals.
My understanding from the consultations on the proposals is that the majority of governing bodies will wish to retain representatives from some or all of those sectors as co-opted members because that provides an effective means of securing views from those communities. From all sides of the Committee noble Lords have said how valuable various representatives, particularly student representatives, are. As their contribution is so universally acknowledged, it will follow that most of the institutions will have them on their governing bodies.
Lord Peston: I may have missed what the noble Lord said and I need to know what is being said. Did he say that the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics has written to the Government saying that the particular change as regards students is something that it wants? I understood the Minister to have said, when he answered my noble friend as to what has changed in three years, that that is something that the CDP had asked the Government to do. I very much need to know that in terms of deciding our position on this matter in future.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Of course the noble Lord wants to know and I shall tell him what I said. This reduction in prescription has been welcomed by the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord specifically mentioned students. Did the CDP actually say that it did not wish to be obliged to have students on the governing bodies? It is enormously important that we know the answer to that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I do not have anything to add on that point because I do not know anything more at the moment. I shall consider what the noble Lord has said.
Lord McCarthy: If the noble Lord says that the majority of the governing bodies wish to retain students, but that the majority of the directors and principals were in favour of what the Government want to do, is the Minister saying that those directors are unrepresentative of their governing bodies? They seem to be saying different things.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I cannot have been clear. There was a reduction in the prescription which was welcomed, and not anything else. I have just told the Committee who can be co-opted onto these bodies, and that may include students. I imagine that that view will be reflected and that in consequence they will come onto governing bodies. There are other ways of securing such views. It is right to allow governing bodies themselves to determine what method to adopt. The Bill at present provides for the nominee members to cease to hold office at the point when the Privy Council draws up a new instrument of government for
1132
a higher education corporation. The amendments remove this provision, and restore the prescriptive elements in relationship to the membership of teacher, general staff and student representatives.
I do not quarrel with anything that has been said about the value of students and the contribution they make. In fact, I do not believe that it is for me to comment, as people have done, on the value or otherwise of individual people. We are making this less prescriptive so that people can judge for themselves. However, where I cannot move at the moment or help in any way is in allowing anything in a representative capacity. Having said that, I know that we debated this matter and argued about what "representative" meant. However, if in this case, for instance, I were to move on students as representatives it would unquestionably allow in the other categories who believe they are representative.
I cannot agree tonight to anything beyond promising, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew asked, to convey to my right honourable friend the force of the arguments put forward on behalf of student representation. Following that argument, I have to tell the Committee that I must resist this amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the Minister sits down, in arguing against these amendments he has made a great deal of the Government's wish to be less prescriptive. However, the Government do seem to be a little inconsistent. On the one hand, they want to be less prescriptive about categories but on the other they are being extremely prescriptive about the size of governing bodies. They are actually reducing the size of these bodies from 25 to 22. Can the Minister explain why the Government are being inconsistent in that respect? It seems to me that regulations are only too prescriptive when they guarantee proper representation for staff and students; but when they start getting into the question of precise size then they are not prescriptive.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I think there has been fairly general acknowledgment from within the Committee that a small body works better than a big one. We have made a slight movement in that direction. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, laughs. He may find it funny. I remember the noble Baroness herself saying that she could "handle a large body". I believe those were the words she used last week. Strong arguments were put forward to back up the Government's view that a small body runs these things best.
Earl Russell: I think we are forgetting one argument for this amendment. It is a purely prudential argument and is the same for which King Edward I summoned representatives of the Commons to Parliament, which was then a dangerously trendy thing to do: that is, that it is quite important when things are being done—some of which may be unpleasant—to gain consent to their being done. To do that it is sometimes necessary to have people in the capacity of representatives.
The Earl of Limerick: Perhaps I can help the Committee on one point, having studied these provisions rather carefully over the past three-and-a-half years. There is a difference between appointment, nomination and representation, which is spelled out if one looks very closely at the fine print. The appointing authority for governors is, in the main, the board itself. In certain cases it is a power reserved for the independent governors, but only in certain cases—usually if appointments are running tight to their date to within three months. That may be on nomination.
I believe that perhaps a point has been missed by a number of those noble Lords who intervened to say that the purpose of this amendment would be merely to restore the balance of the board to what it was before, because these are exactly the same categories of people and the same numbers that we already have on our boards. However, by using the word "representative" there would be an implication that they arrived by a different route from that of being nominated by their constituencies and then appointed by the board.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I have received advice. On the sentence that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was worried about, the bodies I described have not written to ask for it but they have said that they would find the change helpful. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave an historical illustration. I cannot match his erudition and therefore cannot comment on that at the moment. I shall read carefully what he said.
Lord Addington: I listened with great interest to the many points raised. We seem to have a general
1134
consensus that student involvement in the governing bodies would be a good idea. There is another important argument here about staff. The two are related but are not one and the same. That is why I agree that they could be separated. I feel that students are the more important of the two. If the students feel that something is wrong with the staff they will probably represent that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, felt that students should be excluded from certain matters. When it comes to staff discipline, one or two offences come to mind in relation to which all those affected at universities will agree students should be the first to be considered.
Lord Peston: I cannot believe that a member of the academic staff could ever do something wrong!
Lord Addington: The Minister has said that he will convey the feelings of the Committee, especially on the student issue, to his right honourable friend. With that assurance, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment at this stage. I fully reserve the right to come back to it in order to clarify the edges of the issue so that we can start talking about student representation. As I have said before, if the students are represented, most of the other problems will be taken care of through them. They are the responsive body within the university or at least one through which the staff and even the non-academic staff can act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [New Schedule 7A to the Education Reform Act 1988]:
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 277A:
Page 73, line 27, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-four").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 277C. After the previous debate it may be that a simple numerical question will come as some relief. My amendment seeks simply to retain the maximum number on the governing bodies at 24–25 including the chief executive—rather than having it reduced to 21 plus one as is proposed in the Bill. The first of the amendments seeks to leave the numbers as they are on the ground that it is too soon to be seeking to change something which in many cases has been seen to work rather well since the number was introduced in the Education Reform Act three and a half years ago.
Many years ago I inherited a board of 44. We had the task of getting it down to 25. That was achieved not without difficulty and now, after three years, I have the board that I believe I want. It has the right balance of skills and the range of experience that is required to contribute to three faculties which are wide in their scope and it also has the places that under the present provisions we are required to provide for our staff, our students and our local education authority representatives.
As regards the latter, I shall say only what I said on Second Reading; namely, that, while I do not resist the idea that the removal of the prescription would be helpful to some, certainly in the case of my own board I do not intend to make any use of it. We have already decided that we should like to keep the balance of the board as it is. But, of course, if we were obliged to reduce the size of the board, it would be most difficult to do so.
These matters are quite complex. There are many interlocking provisions in Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act 1988 and Schedule 6 to this Bill. I believe that there would be other consequential requirements if the idea were to find favour that we should keep the maximum number. Certainly that would have been the case in the instance of the amendment which has just been withdrawn.
We have taken three years to get our present board. I believe that somewhere there is lurking the suspicion that now is the moment when the change needs to be made. There are a number of people whose appointments are about to come to an end and which therefore would not be renewed. I can only speak for what we did. We said that we did not want governors to retire at the same time. Therefore, on initial appointment, having first agreed that we should work with a three-year rotation, we drew lots to determine who was to serve one, two or three years in the initial period. It is a rolling renewal which we go through each year. We take much time to decide what is required to fill the place of the retiring governors; in other words, whether there will be reappointments of those retiring or whether we have a higher priority to look for someone else.
After three years, I believe that it is too soon to be seeking a change in the number. In moving the amendment, I repeat the phrase I used on Second Reading:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".—[Official Report, 21/11/91; col. 1076.]
I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken note of various representations made to him, including those by my noble friend Lord Limerick in this House, about the proposal in the Bill to reduce the maximum size of the governing body of a higher education corporation, not including the principal of the institution, from 24 to 21. He accepts that this may cause difficulties for some corporations which have a particular need for a wide spread of interests on the board. Therefore, he is prepared to table an amendment which will restore the maximum size to its present level, and make consequential changes to the permitted number of co-opted members.
When I was discussing the matter in regard to an earlier amendment, I did not think that I could anticipate my noble friend's amendment. But I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will acknowledge my flexibility and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Limerick: I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. In the circumstances, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 277B to 277D not moved.]
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 277E:
Page 73, line 47, at end insert ("which is a local education authority").
The noble Earl said: We come now to a simple question and one which I believe has only been raised in the course of consideration on this schedule. The question is: when is an independent director not independent? In the clause which is sought to be amended, we read that a governor shall not be independent if he or she is an elected member of any local authority. I stress the word "any". I suggest that that goes wider than is reasonably required. We can all understand that we should not consider someone who is sitting on a local education authority as an independent director. Currently there is a reserve place for two or three such local education authority nominees on our boards. We would not wish others to come in by another route.
Arguably it could be said that someone who sat on some other education authority would not be truly independent; indeed, he or she might be indirectly funding students who were receiving their education at the institution in question. What about the man or woman who is an elected member of a parish council, let us say in leafy Berkshire, having no concern with education at any level in that capacity, who is admirably suited to be an independent governor of an institution in every respect, except the disqualification by membership of that parish council? Why should that person be so disqualified? The wording of the

1137
amendment may be defective, but I hope that some response can be given which indicates that the point is accepted in principle. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The amendment seeks to narrow the category of persons who may not be independent members of higher education corporations from elected members of local authorities to elected members of local education authorities.
It is the function of the independent members of a higher education corporation to guide the corporation, using their experience of and capacity in industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession. That is not a party political role and they will be able to serve the corporation best if there is no prospect of their independence being fettered by any party political allegiance such as may possibly occur in the case of an elected member of a local authority.
It is not material in that connection whether the elected member is an elected member of a local authority, as the Bill currently has it, or is an elected member of a local authority which is a local education authority, as the amendment would have it.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the Bill does not disbar an elected member of a local authority from being a member of a corporation, only an independent member, so if there were an individual, as described by my noble friend, whose expertise was greatly valued by the corporation, that person could be co-opted as a member. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Earl decides what to do, it seems to me that this proposal brings out the heinous nature of the Government's whole approach to the subject. Apart from the use of the word "independent" in that pejorative fashion, as if a member of a local authority is incapable of being independent - something which I regard as insulting -the Minister should reflect upon the fact that one or two of those industrial, commercial, and employment people might one day wish to stand as members of a local authority. It is not unknown in our democracy, even under this Government, that such people would wish to do that type of thing.
It appears that one of the prices those people would have to pay is that, having been an independent member of such a body, they would then be disqualified. That brings out even more clearly how poorly the Government have behaved with regard to such a matter.
The noble Earl will decide what he wishes to do. The Opposition are occasionally asked to make clear what our policy will be when we are in power. If there is one area in which we shall distance ourselves from the Government, it is with this type of amendment. That is not just in this case, but in many other cases. An amendment of this kind is disgraceful. That it should be a Member of this place attacking such people is even more of a crime. I can say nothing stronger than that because I have spoken in the
1138
strongest terms that I can. This is the most appalling approach to these matters, particularly in the use of the word "independent".
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made an important point. He raises in my mind another, rather more technical point. We have a list of disqualifications for local authorities in the Local Government Act 1988. It is my recollection that that Act is not included in the Bill's repealing schedule. Do we here have a conflict between two statutes? Should that point be addressed before the Bill leaves this place?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has ever been elected to a local authority.
Lord Peston: I have never been elected to anything. That is why I am cautious about criticising anyone who has been elected to anything. People are told that they have behaved wrongly because they have been elected. It is because I have never been elected to anything that I am rather more careful in my approach to elected people.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am sorry that the noble Lord chooses to speak like that of elected people. The function of someone who has been elected, whether they belong to a party or not, is still political. There is nothing sinister about that. That does not alter the fact that it is a political function. If the noble Lord had been listening, he would have heard me say that we are looking for persons who have experience of and,
"have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession".
I also reminded the Committee that the Bill does not disbar elected members, who, no doubt, will be welcome on the boards.
The Earl of Limerick: I shall certainly not seek to divide the Committee on this matter, especially as my noble friend was indulgent as regards my final request. However, I found his response strange. There is nothing in the process of being elected to a parish council that should prevent a person who has relevant industrial or professional experience from being a member of a board of an institute of higher education. There is nothing to suggest he would not be an admirable member simply because he has succeeded in his ambition to be elected to a parish council, which is not concerned with education. I shall read carefully what has been said to discover whether it gives me more enlightenment than I have derived so far. I shall consider whether to return to the matter at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 277F:
Page 74, line 19, after ("terminate") insert ("in less than one year").
The noble Earl said: This is the final amendment that I shall introduce. It is really a request for clarification. It has become almost a full-time job for

1139
a member of the academic secretariat to ensure that the composition and exact means of appointment of each and every member of the board conform precisely to Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act as it would be amended by Schedule 6 to this Bill. Let us suppose we were required—I am happy to think that that is a possibility which has receded in the light of what my noble friend has just said—to reduce the size of the board or to change the category in some way. There are matters in that regard that are unresolved. We are told we have to make a determination in respect of the numbers.
Sub-paragraph (4) of Schedule 6 states:
"Such a determination shall not have effect so as to terminate the appointment of any person who is a member of the corporation at the time when it takes effect".
If we determined to reduce the size of the board, and were then told that what we determined would not have the effect of terminating the appointment of any person who was a member of the board, how are we to achieve this? I strongly suspect that I shall be steered to the small print somewhere in Clause 67 or thereabouts, but for the moment that is not clear to me. If we decide to make such a reduction, for how long does an individual have a guaranteed tenure of office notwithstanding that determination? Is it for the unexpired balance of his individual term, or for as long as that individual shall be re-elected, or until he dies, or until he reaches the age of 70? It is merely to elicit a response that I have suggested there should be a limit of 12 months. I await enlightenment. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It would appear that the purpose of this amendment is to enable a governing body which has determined that it should reduce its size to attain the reduced size in a shorter time. While one can see that this has attractions, this has to be weighed against the rights of a member appointed to a corporation to serve the full term for which the member was appointed. It is always open for individual members of a corporation to resign voluntarily in order to assist the corporation to reach its desired size. The Secretary of State considers that it would be preferable to approach the question of achieving the required reduction by voluntary action rather than through forced reductions in terms of appointment. I hope that that brief explanation will satisfy my noble friend.
The Earl of Limerick: I did not fully understand that reply. Am I to understand that, if a determination to reduce the size were made, it would await natural attrition resulting from the expiry of the term of an individual member?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Either that or voluntary action by the individual.
The Earl of Limerick: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Further power of designation]:
[Amendment No. 278 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Transfer of further education institutions to higher education sector]:
[Amendment No. 279 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 54, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Where an order is made under this section, section 26 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 shall apply as if any reference in section 26 shall be a reference to a Higher Education Corporation.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 280, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 281 and 282.
We now move to Clause 70, which deals with the transfer of further education institutions to the higher education sector. The purpose of all three amendments is to improve the degree of protection given to the employees of those corporations, who could find themselves at a disadvantage as a result of such a transfer when they are directed compulsorily towards a new employer. That is not a new problem. It is endemic in the private sector whenever there is a merger and in the public sector in cases of privatisation. It is increasingly common in the education field as a result of the 1988 Act.
There is a series of possible transfers, which we attempt to deal with in a series of amendments. For example, staff could be transferred from an LEA college of further education to an independent college in the further education sector, creating a new employer. An independent college in either the higher or further education sector might be dissolved under powers contained in the Bill and the employees directed elsewhere. Alternatively, it could be that the college of further education was upgraded to the higher education sector. If the institution is promoted the employee will find himself or herself with a new employer. In principle, I suppose, a higher education institution could be relegated to become a further education institution and, again, the employees would find themselves with a new employer.
We seek to improve what is provided in all those circumstances. Amendment No. 280 deals with those in institutions which are promoted from further education status to higher education status, as they could be under Clause 7. We give them the protection of Clause 26. That protection should apply to those who move from LEA FE colleges to the new corporations. At present, the staff covered by a transfer from further education to higher education do not appear to be covered by the Bill. We believe that that must be an oversight on the part of the Government. It cannot be the Government's intention to apply a set of protections in one circumstance but, in another set of circumstances when the institution is promoted from one sector to another, to provide no protection whatsoever. We propose that the protection which would have applied under Clause 26 should apply in both circumstances.
Amendment No. 281, which is in the form of a new clause, deals with the future position in which a higher education corporation might be dissolved, presumably because it did not satisfy an audit committee, the

1141
council or some other provision. In those circumstances, these provisions should apply rather than the provisions of the 1988 Act, because they are not as good as these provisions.
Amendment No. 282 deals with the upgrading of an institution from FE to HE. In those circumstances, not only the individual contracts but also the collective agreements should be protected. That point was debated on an earlier amendment, so I shall not repeat the arguments at any length. As a result of the application of the protections in the 1988 Act, it has been made clear that the present protections for maintaining the terms and conditions of employment do not apply to any advantages that derive from collective agreements—grievance procedures, negotiation of new agreements and so on. We have put forward these three amendments in order to complete the protection which it must be assumed was intended in the Bill to all categories of transfer. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to seek to ensure that the position of staff at further education corporations is not affected should those corporations become higher education corporations under Clause 70.
However, we believe that Amendment No. 280 is unnecessary. The authority employing the staff is the corporation and the corporation remains the employer throughout the transition. The corporation does not cease to be the employer because its nature undergoes a change from being a further education corporation to a higher education corporation. The Government recognise that there is a need to put beyond doubt that orders made under Section 128 of the Education Reform Act 1988 are able to transfer contracts of employment. However, Amendment No. 281 is unnecessary because the Bill makes provision to do that in paragraph 31(c) of Schedule 8 which I did not hear the noble Lord mention.
Amendment No. 282 is not desirable either. As a consequence of the provisions in paragraph 31(c) of Schedule 8, any order made under Section 128 may apply Section 127 of the Education Reform Act 1988. Section 127 of the 1988 Act provides for all the employee's legal rights under his contract of employment to be maintained when the employee transfers to the transferee institution. If rights under a collective agreement have been incorporated in the employee's contract of employment, those rights will transfer and, looking at the position from the new employer's point of view, become an obligation on the employer. If there is a collective agreement but rights under it have not been incorporated in the contract of employment, it would be an undesirable extension of the scope of the Bill to transfer those rights.
I find these complicated questions, and I hope that I have understood the noble Lord correctly. I hope that the explanations have satisfied him and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I suppose that I should give the Minister one and a half out of three. I am not sure that I understood what he said about Amendment No. 281, but I shall consult Schedule 8. It is possible that he is right and that the point is covered. Amendment No. 280 states that the authority is a corporation, so I suppose that he means that there is no transfer of the contract at all. That is not what I have been advised. I have been advised that there is a change in the contract and therefore there is need for a provision. On the other hand, in the case of Amendment No. 282, the noble Lord did not offer anything at all. We know of cases in which the courts have said, particularly with regard to the 1988 Act, that certain aspects which are derived from collective agreements are not transferred. It is in order to transfer those aspects of the contract that we put forward the amendment. However, it is now 10 minutes to 11, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 281 and 282 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Variation of trust deeds]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 282A:
Page 54, line 33, at end insert:
("(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any trust deed or other instrument which—

(a) by virtue of any other Act or of any Royal Charters may be modified by or with the consent of the Privy Council, or

(b) relates to any institution which is not in receipt of grants loans or other payments from either of the Higher Education Funding Councils.".

The noble Lord said: There is a most unfortunate aspect to Clause 71 which I very much hope was not intended. It is an aspect which I think would be as unfortunate as many Members feel are the very broad provisions of Clauses 64 and 77, which have already been so exhaustively discussed today.
I shall set out the problem as clearly as I can. The Committee will perceive that it is a serious matter. Each of the existing universities in Britain was established either by a specific Act of Parliament or by a Royal Charter, under which procedures are laid down for making statutes. Any new statutes are proposed by the universities in question and have to be approved by the Privy Council. The new universities which we are discussing, formerly polytechnics, by the present Bill will be supervised by a higher education corporation, as indeed they are now as polytechnics under Section 157 of the 1988 Act. Under that Act the Secretary of State can, by order, make any change that he wishes in the trust deed or instrument regulating an institution—a polytechnic.
Clause 71 of the present Bill will allow an order of the Privy Council to modify the governing instrument after consultation. That may be a suitable and reasonable provision for the new universities. I believe it to be so. It applies to them as polytechnics under the 1988 Act and will do so with minor changes in the future. But Clause 71 would apply to:
"any institution within the higher education sector"

1143
which, under Clause 87, applies to all universities receiving support from the higher education funding council; including, therefore, all—or perhaps it is all but one—of the existing universities.
The universities are governed by statutes which may properly be described as instruments. So this clause would set aside at a stroke the procedures built up over the years for all existing universities whereby their statutes may be changed. It would annul at a stroke the degree of independence conferred over the centuries by various Acts of Parliament and by Royal Charters. I should be astonished and dismayed if that were the considered intention of the Government.
Amendment No. 282A would exempt from that provision the existing and long-established universities as well as any other universities not dependent upon public funds. Moreover, it could imply that in due course any new universities might also be granted a Royal Charter which would at that point of maturity exempt that university from such arbitrary change by ministerial fiat through the agency of the Privy Council.
Moreover, Sections 202 to 204 of the Education Reform Act 1988 took a great deal of trouble to set up university commissioners whose purpose was to modify the statutes of existing universities with respect to academic tenure. Their work is not yet complete. They have not been abolished or dismissed by the present Bill. Surely the meticulous care with which they undertake their work would be mocked if it were to be superseded under this new clause.
Therefore, I greatly hope that my noble friend the Minister, who has been so courteous and helpful with so many of the matters put to him this evening, will wish to consider this matter favourably. The system of government of our established universities has emerged over centuries—the new universities in this century just as much as the ancient foundations in earlier centuries. There may be every reason to retain the rather arbitrary power of change by ministerial directive for the new universities which will be created through the application of this Bill, for a period at any rate. But surely there are no grounds, and none has been advanced, for suddenly applying the provision to our existing universities. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: From these Benches I support the amendment. I do not want to add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said. He has been admirably clear and explained the problem. We share his view that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Earl Russell: I was regrettably unable to be present at Second Reading; I had a long-standing previous engagement. However, I read what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, said on the subject. I congratulate him on spotting the point, which is of considerable importance. I agree with everything he said. On behalf of Members on these Benches I am happy to support the noble Lord.
Lord Adrian: My anxiety is exactly that of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I am advised that the phrase "trust deed or other instrument" in Clause 71 can be
1144
thought to include statutes of a university. Serious as would be the power of the Privy Council of its own mere motion to alter statutes, there is also the fact that it could alter trusts. Trusts, after all, are the instruments by which major donations are very often given to universities. If it is known widely by those who give large sums to universities for very specific purposes—and very welcome they are too—that the Government can by their mere fiat say that those trusts can be changed, I believe that that will seriously discourage the contributions which universities are quite rightly being encouraged to seek from the private sector.
In the case of statutes controlling employment at universities, the Education Reform Act set up a special body of statutory commissioners to undertake that alteration. If the Government must alter statutes, that was a much less arbitrary way of doing so than the proposals on the face of the Bill. I am apprehensive about the power of the Privy Council to alter trusts unilaterally; and I am much more than merely apprehensive about giving the Privy Council power unilaterally to alter statutes. Therefore I shall welcome the assurance from the Minister that statutes are not included in "other instruments". However, even if he is able to give me that assurance, I am afraid that I shall still vote for the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The Committee will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for explaining his amendment so carefully. It helps me to be brief. I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendment, which draws attention to the extent to which the powers intended for the Privy Council to modify the constitution of designated institutions in the higher education sector interact with the Privy Council's existing powers in relation to institutions in the sector, including the present universities that are not designated.
The Government are considering the scope of Clause 71. I shall be pleased to let the Committee know the outcome at the earliest opportunity. I assure noble Lords that I understand their anxiety. However, until I have an opportunity to come back, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: That is a most helpful response from the Minister. I am much encouraged that this matter will receive fresh scrutiny. I believe that the Committee has made its feelings on the matter clear to the Minister. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 72 [Power to award degrees, etc.]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 282B:
Page 54, line 34, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the committee established under subsection (7) below").
The noble Earl said: I wish briefly to move Amendment No. 282B on behalf of my noble friend Lady Seear and to speak also to Amendment No.

1145
283ZD, which is consequential upon it. The amendment deals with the Secretary of State's power to confer the power to confer degrees. Its purpose is to provide that the Secretary of State shall establish a committee with the duty of advising him on the exercise of his functions. The committee will be formed of persons representing the interests of the existing degree-awarding institutions.
In the amendment my noble friend codifies what has been the practice of centuries, which on this occasion I should be sorry to see upset. The Crown—and the Secretary of State, who in practice enjoys the powers of the Crown in these circumstances—has always had the right to confer the power to confer degrees. But, as they used to say of the Crown, it must see with other men's eyes and hear with other men's ears.
The Secretary of State is not necessarily an academic. I know that some Secretaries of State have been academics of distinction—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, whose tenure of office, to my surprise, I find myself remembering with increasing nostalgia. In general, however, Secretaries of State are not competent to take such action themselves; they must take advice.
There is a long constitutional tradition of putting constraints on the Crown's power to choose its advisers. In this case, the Crown has always taken the advice of the academic community. It is in order to make sure that the tradition should continue that my noble friend has tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There has only recently been a consultation exercise conducted by the DES with higher education institutions concerning both the criteria for extending degree-awarding powers beyond the polytechnics and the arrangements for considering whether institutions meet the criteria.
Following overwhelming support for the Government's proposals from higher education interests, including the CVCP, my right honourable friend has today confirmed the criteria for awarding taught-course and research degrees. He has also announced that during the period up to the formal dissolution of the CNAA the Government will look to the council to advise on whether institutions validated by it meet the degree-awarding criteria. It will, in parallel, appoint ad hoc committees to look similarly at institutions which are validated by universities. This approach was widely welcomed in the responses to the consultation exercise.
A number of approaches to securing advice for the Secretary of State in the longer term were suggested in the consultation exercise. Some respondents supported the proposal that the ad hoc committee approach should be retained if it works well. Others saw this as a job for the quality audit unit, while some other respondents considered that the higher education funding councils should have the main responsibility. My right honourable friend has recognised this variety of opinion and has decided that, since this is not a matter which requires an immediate decision, he will reflect further and consider it again in the spring, once
1146
we have the experience of the performance of ad hoc committees, and in further discussion with the higher education interests.
I can assure the Committee that the Government's criteria are rigorous. The Government are committed to their being rigorously applied, whatever the financial arrangements. But, given the variety of views in the system on those arrangements in the longer term, the time available before final decisions need to be reached and, I have to say, the absence of even one respondent to the department's consultation exercise suggesting the kind of standing committee proposed in this amendment, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for this Committee to foreclose the options as this amendment would do. For that reason I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that carefully considered and courteous reply. There cannot be a more complete way of crumping an amendment than to offer a consultation document published today. Under those circumstances, I cannot do other than promise the Minister to read that document, to consider it with great care and to formulate my conclusions as a result, and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 282C:
Page 54, line 34, after ("institution") insert ("or consortium of institutions").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 282C reflects the serious anxieties expressed by a significant number of colleges. The issues stem from the Government's proposals to close down the Council for National Academic Awards in such a rapid timescale that many colleges which now offer CNAA degrees will be left in a difficult situation. Some may be able to follow the Government's advice to enter into agreements with other degree-awarding institutions to validate their courses. But that is by no means an acceptable alternative for many colleges.
For some, it is difficult to find suitable universities or polytechnics without entering into direct competition with them. Such arrangements also mean an enormous increase in registration fees—at least six-fold—from the £50 that the CNAA requires, to sums of at least £350. I know of one college which currently has a master's degree validated by a university which charges each student £580 validation fee. Such a level hardly exhibits an overwhelming desire to facilitate access to continuing higher education.
I understand that the Open University is being proposed as a potential base for a kind of residual CNAA, to ensure some continuity of validating functions for colleges which have not received accreditation to award their own degrees. I have great admiration for all that the OU stands for, and I studied as a part-time student for my first and higher degrees. But there are a number of reasons why such an arrangement based on the OU is not seen as acceptable by some colleges. For example, there is anxiety among some colleges of high repute about the extent to which there will be sufficient sympathy for

1147
disciplines such as theology or professional practice such as osteopathy. That is why some 25 institutions with around 2,500 undergraduates and around 250 postgraduates currently studying for degrees awarded by the CNAA formed a consortium of independent colleges and research institutions to take on the responsibilities of academic validation.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that many small independent colleges are scholarly communities of great distinction. Several have been training for specialist vocations, such as the Christian ministry or the Jewish Rabbinate, for over 100 years. They represent a valuable and respected component of our national higher education system. Moreover, in recent years they have contributed significantly to the expansion of access to higher education for which the Government have been calling. They are highly efficient, with unit costs well below those of larger institutions. CNAA validation has enabled them to gain recognition for the quality of the qualifications they bestow.
Perhaps I may briefly outline the problems which caused the colleges in question to take these initiatives and the benefits which will accrue from the recognition of such a consortium as a validating body. The problems caused by the present proposals in the Bill are, first, that there would be a risk of loss of the distinctiveness of identity in any forced partnership with a larger institution, with adverse financial results deriving From loss of competitiveness and exploitation by the more powerful partner—for example, in registration of validation fees, which I have just mentioned. Consequently, there would probably be a loss of students to those colleges.
Secondly, there is a real problem of conflicts of interest ranging from the overlapping of courses to asset-stripping. Already some of the potential senior partner institutions are asking about the kind of "dowry" the smaller colleges will bring to the forced marriage. Thirdly, there will be a reduction in the potential for innovation often associated with small independent colleges. Fourthly, there will be a loss of an enterprise culture as the independent colleges are increasingly drawn into the arena of public funding, which would be rather ironic for a government committed to enterprise and initiative.
Anticipating potential anxiety about the viability of such a consortium, it should be noted that consortium members already have approximately the numbers proposed by the Government as necessary for recognition as a university; that is, over 300 students in a majority of PCFC programmes; over 3,000 students on degree level courses. It should also be noted that the research registrations within the consortium already exceed those of many accredited polytechnics, and that CNAA advice estimates that the consortium could finance and mount a central unit capable of discharging the remaining duties of a degree-awarding body. Finally, the CNAA has acted in a way similar to that proposed here and has done so successfully.
As I draw to a conclusion perhaps I may say that the advantages of giving validation functions to consortiums, once the CNAA closes down, will be
1148
significant. For example, first, the institutions would retain their ability to mature and to move towards their own degree-awarding status in their own time. Secondly, the Government would extend choice available to students with increased access to good quality higher education at less cost to students and to the public purse.
Thirdly, the research capability would be extended in scope and volume, also at relatively low cost. For example, Wessex Institute of Technology has an excellent research record while operating at a very cost effective level. Fourthly, perhaps most important of all, the students now studying or registered for CNAA degrees will be assured of having their qualifications safeguarded. Fifthly, the Government would be seen to be true to their own principles of encouraging diversity, choice, accountability and commitment to free market principles, while supporting many centres of higher education with a well-deserved reputation for excellence.
Finally, the new institutions could be brought into the consortium as anticipated expansion of higher education continues. It is noteworthy that a number of new institutions such as Maryvale Institute and Newbold College are even this year applying for recognition as associate institutions of CNAA.
I finish by urging my noble friend the Minister to respond sympathetically to these proposals. I very much hope that the proposal to provide for the kind of arrangements for validation and quality assurance by a consortium of colleges affected by these changes will perhaps be able to be considered sympathetically in the form of an amendment at a later stage.
The colleges are of very high repute. They are examples of excellence based on initiative and commitment. It would be a tragedy for them, a betrayal of their students and a loss for the nation if their future were jeopardised by arrangements currently in, or implicit in, the Bill as it now stands. I beg to move.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I wish to add my support to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, with which mine is linked. She has made so many comprehensive points this evening that I do not wish to detain the Committee by reiterating them. However, there is a real problem for these independent institutions that have formed consortia in view of the recommendations in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has already said that these are institutions of noble history. All I can do is to expand on the names of some of them which indicate the part they play in our national life. There is, for example, the Architectural Association Graduate School, the Camborne School of Mines, the Royal Naval Engineering College, the Royal Agricultural College, the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and so on. Then, as I mentioned at Second Reading, there are notable and historic names among the theological colleges: Trinity, Spurgeons, the London Bible College, Oakhill, St Johns, Wycliffe Hall. These form a noble array of theological colleges that have contributed much to our national life.
I recognise that the announcement that the noble Lord the Minister was able to make that the result of

1149
consultations may affect the situation of these colleges. Although their degrees are at the moment validated by the CNAA, they do not independently have accredited status, so there remains a problem for the independent colleges which I urge the Committee to consider and support.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, put very attractive arguments and argue them cogently. Like them, I have a great respect for all the colleges they describe, and particularly those I know. I believe that they have established themselves individually as a most important part of the higher education scene in this country.
I have reservations about the idea of a consortium as a validating entity. My own institution conducts, I suppose, over 150 validation events each year internally. In order to do that we have acquired a rhythm, a way of working and an understanding of what our validation is about, and what standards we expect of each other in our own courses. It is very important that there is a tremendous overlap and that there are people moving from one validation event to another who carry their experience through with them. There is a corporate sense, identity and understanding about what validation is.
I find it very hard to imagine a consortium of so varied a range of institutions from aeronautical, engineering to theological colleges could establish with geographical distance the same kind of ethos. In saying that, I am also very conscious that many very proud institutions have retained their independence and autonomy within a system of being validated by another institution. There are many thousands of students in higher education who pursue university degrees, for example, although they themselves are not part of the university but of independent and separate institutions in much the same way as the CNAA has validated many individual degrees in institutions without in any sense taking over the institution.
I believe that it is possible for these institutions to have their fears allayed and to retain their independence, their proud history and record. I believe that it would be better for them to find an association for validation purposes with an external and larger higher education institution with the kind of corporate experience that I have described.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may for once take issue with my noble friend Lady Perry. I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. There is no doubt that these institutions, although some are small, already have a very high level of academic achievement and tradition within them. I do not believe that the difficulties to which my noble friend Lady Perry refers could not be overcome in the way in which much larger institutions have done, with their larger departments and a less rigorous ethos, in the course of the accreditation process. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady McFarlane, for bringing this issue before the Committee. I read the remarks that they made at Second Reading. They have raised an important point on which some action must be taken. There is also the vital principle of commitment to existing students. When students are taken in on any course there is what I believe should be an overwhelming moral obligation to give them the opportunity to complete the course. I am aware of the problem. I am personally involved in helping one CNAA post-graduate.
It is the kind of issue on which universities have always been happy to help. They look forward to the opportunity to do so. I ask the noble Baroness and the Minister whether they will consider, as one possible machinery for dealing with the matter, the delightfully flexible and yet academically secure machinery of the external degree of the University of London. That has been used in the past for validating degrees of a large number of Commonwealth universities in the early days of their existence. It combines a recognised degree with the independence of the institution.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for making one comment which I hope that the Committee will not take to be a sour note, because it is not meant to be. I do not want to put forward matters unless I am absolutely sure of the position. I refer to the changing staff to student ratio. One of the reasons why people in the universities want time is that we like to be able to help with this kind of activity. We are proud to be able to do so. It would be regrettable if the increasing pressure of numbers in our own institutions took the opportunity away from us. As long as we can carry out that function we shall do so.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I should also like to support this amendment. I do so partly for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned—that there are theological colleges concerned within this particular group of amendments. However, it is on a rather broader basis that I urge the Government to consider seriously the possibility that this amendment puts forward.
I noted carefully the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and I recognise readily that her suggestion may be a possible way forward. However, I think the anxiety of many of these smaller institutions is that if they are validated by, or accredited to, much larger institutions, such as the new universities, although that may be satisfactory in the immediate short term if circumstances change and pressures build up then these smaller units with highly specialised interests may inadvertently, or—dare I say it?—even deliberately get a little squeezed. Therefore, a proper option that should be available for these smaller institutions is to be able to form themselves into a consortium that is considered seriously by the Government, as the amendment suggests.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Cox whether the institutions of which she is speaking are all south of the Border. Are they all in England and Wales? From the way she talks they probably are. There may be others in similar

1151
categories which are in Scotland and I am not sure whether her amendment would be helpful to those colleges.
I understand that the CNAA has been having discussions with the Open University, with which I am connected, and that there is a possibility that some of the smaller institutions, at any rate, might like to be validated to that university, which also has flexible arrangements in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that London universities are relatively flexible. That is a possibility. The Open University is, of course, United Kingdom-wide.
I realise that some of the colleges that have been spoken about—for example, theological colleges—might not find that a satisfactory solution. I am not particularly advocating it, but it seems a rather ingenious idea. I think that at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister was not entirely unsympathetic to that notion.
I should like to know, in relation to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox, whether for colleges which exist north of the Border—I cannot name them, she did not mention this aspect—that arrangement might be possible.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for moving this amendment because this is a serious and rather worrying situation. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, who has not only spoken but also kindly wrote to me about Amendment No. 291, which has similar features.
My noble friend Lady Cox asked for a sympathetic reply and that indeed I give. The Government are at one with my noble friend in wanting to ensure that small, monotechnic institutions are not disadvantaged in the new arrangements. It is for that reason, as I said in the debate on the previous amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has confirmed today—following consultations with the higher education sector, including representatives of the smaller colleges whose concerns have prompted this amendment—the criteria for degree-awarding powers, which ensure that small institutions are able to meet them. Without going into detail the overriding criterion is that an institution should be a self-critical, cohesive, academic community. A limited range of work, or limited volume of work inside the institution, can be compensated in a number of ways, including acknowledged high standards of scholarship and the use of external reference points in quality assurance procedures.
Small institutions do have a number of options open to them. They could seek degree-awarding powers individually, seeking to take account of the formal and informal links with each other to demonstrate that they can satisfy the criteria, or groups of institutions could seek to ensure that one of their number receives degree-awarding powers and is then able to be the validating body of the other institutions so that they award its degrees. Alternatively, such institutions could try to satisfy the criteria by entering into a formal federation—in other words, a single overarching corporate identity whose degrees they would all award.
1152
All of those options are possible under the legislation as presently drafted. None of them is dependent on this amendment being made. To that extent, one would not need this amendment in order to achieve them. Incidentally, the external degree of the University of London, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is probably an option. There is also the Open University option, where the university is intending to offer a validation service to those colleges without degrees-awarding powers which for various reasons do not wish to become associated with a local institution. I understand that the Open University expects this service to operate broadly on CNAA lines.
Another definition of a consortium might lie somewhere between links designed to secure degree-awarding powers institution by institution, and links in the form of a federation. It seems to me that the fundamental difficulty in awarding degree-awarding powers to that kind of "consortium" is that it would have no corporate identity. There would be no clear focus for monitoring and maintaining academic standards. Responsibility for quality assurance would be blurred. So to that extent, such a degree would be difficult to entertain.
This is quite a difficult story; I believe that we should read what everyone has said. I have attempted to set out the stall of the different ways in which the problem can be addressed. I have done so not for the sake of resisting an amendment but for the reason I gave. There is a difficulty about the kind of consortium that the noble Baronesses put forward. There is, however, no lack of sympathy, and I hope that on those grounds, at any rate for the moment, my noble friend Lady Cox will feel it right to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful, as I am sure is the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for that sympathetic and positive response to the amendment. We should like to thank all those who have spoken in support of the principles behind the amendment. In response to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Perry, I recognise that established institutions such as large polytechnics have developed their own ethos and procedures and run those complex procedures very smoothly. But we feel that that would not necessarily be a contra-indication to our proposal which would embody the fundamental principles of peer group review and would also respect the identity, distinctiveness, expertise and high quality of the institutions involved.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support in principle. I would happily consider as a possibility the London University system of external degree validation. I have always had great respect for that system. It embodies a great deal of what we are looking for with regard to the consortium. I would like to put the suggestion among the array of options that the colleges might consider.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked whether any of these colleges are north of the Border. I do not have my complete list. At the moment, I think that it does not include any colleges in Scotland. I stand to be corrected. I shall certainly let my noble friend know

1153
and perhaps give her a list of all the colleges so that she will know those that are involved. I cannot at the moment think of any north of the Border. I hope that some may be prompted to join the initiative if they feel it appropriate.
I thank my noble friend the Minister. It was indeed a sympathetic response. He has put forward a range of options, some of them creative and ingenious. We shall also want to read what has been published today. With that encouraging response I shall consider where we go from here. I thank everyone concerned. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 282D:
Page 54, line 35, leave out ("within the higher education sector") and insert ("which provides higher education").
The noble Lord said: The amendment brings privately-funded institutions within the Secretary of State's power to designate degree-awarding bodies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State sees no reason to treat privately-funded institutions any differently from those funded by the higher education funding councils. The amendment will provide that all institutions offering higher education will be able to apply to the Secretary of State to grant them degree-awarding powers; and the criteria will apply equally to all. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 283 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 283ZA:
Page 55, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) to do so jointly with another institution").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments No. 283ZB and 283ZC. The amendments do no more than put beyond doubt that institutions granted degree-awarding powers by the Secretary of State under Clause 73 will be empowered to offer awards jointly with other degree-awarding institutions. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 283ZB and 283ZC:
Page 55, line 16, at end insert ("(or, in the case of an award granted to him by the institution and another institution jointly, to do so jointly with the other institution)").
Page 55, line 22, leave out from ("the") to end of line 27 and insert ("terms and conditions on which any of the powers conferred under this section may be exercised").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 283ZD not moved.]
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Use of "university" in title of institution]:
Lord Kirkwood Lord Kirkwood moved Amendment No. 283A:
Page 55, line 33, leave out (", or on the direction of").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to
1154
Amendments Nos. 283B and 287A. These amendments are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am always very happy to speed up the business of the Committee by being brief; and, indeed, I intend to be brief. The amendments are aimed at the wording of Clause 73 which states that on the direction of the Privy Council the word "university" may be inserted into the title of an aspiring higher education institution.
The question arises as to why any higher education institution should be compelled to call itself a university. It arouses in me a tiny suspicion that something nasty lurks behind those words. Are we to understand that an institution designated by the Secretary of State as a higher education institution may be required to call itself a university? Further, in what circumstances can one envisage such a situation coming to pass?
It is to be hoped that some higher education institutions may actually prefer the prestigious and honourable title of "Institute of Technology". We could certainly do with a few MITs in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Where the Secretary of State currently has power, theoretically, to direct a change of name by virtue of his wider power to direct changes to instruments and articles of government, then strictly speaking the Privy Council will assume that power. The only group of institutions to which that applies are those which are companies limited by guarantee and designated for funding by the higher education funding council by virtue of Section 129 of the Education Reform Act, as modified by Clause 69 of the Bill.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that there is no question of the Privy Council directing a change of name for one of those institutions. The arrangements by which institutions may apply to adopt a university name are set out in guidance from the Privy Council Office to all polytechnics. In particular, institutions should seek local agreement before submitting a proposed name. Where that local agreement does not exist, and where the polytechnic concerned cannot find another name which commands local support, the Privy Council has made it clear that the institution will need to retain its existing title. The Privy Council will not insist upon another one.
With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kirkwood: I am not clear, from what the Minister said, why the word "direct" enters into the Bill. It is not clear under what circumstances there would be a direction to change the name to that of a university. Have I missed the point?
Lord Belstead: The answer is that the direction comes only after the institutions have applied to adopt a university name. The cart comes before the horse in that case. The application comes first, and then the direction is needed so that the matter can be completed.
Lord Kirkwood: I thank the Minister for explaining the matter.
Lord Belstead: If my interpretation is wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Kirkwood: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 283B not moved.]
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 55, line 37, after ("include") insert ("on and after the date on which the power is exercised").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, the process, which I had not fully appreciated. I should like to turn to the consideration that takes place within the institutions which may become entitled to call themselves universities under the procedure that he has described. I hope that when they are doing that they will think carefully before incorporating the name university, not least because, under their present titles, many of them have earned for themselves an important and distinctive niche in British higher education.
I believe that I made it plain on Second Reading that I should regret any change of name contemplated by an institution which was clearly indicative of a desire, if not to abandon, at least to dilute the basic purpose for which the institution existed. Such a desire would only be part of the English disease in education—which other people might more brutally refer to as snobbery—which is not to be found in Europe or North America. I was pleased when the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred to the noble history of some of those institutions. "Noble" is an adjective which is fully justified.
I am immensely proud of the fact that the first honorary doctorate that I received was from the European Polytechnic. I am more pleased about that than if it had been conferred by the university in the same city. I also admire the resolute way in which the rectors of those two institutions. and their parent bodies, have adhered to their desire to keep distinctive names and missions. The reason for their resolve was to avoid confusion and to retain identity. They believed that that confusion would be inevitable in the minds of those applying for admission and the public.
That brings me to Amendment No. 284 which seeks to ensure that the term "university" is not used until the Privy Council has agreed; otherwise confusion will be even worse confounded. The undesirablity of such titular confusion is also evident behind Amendment No. 290 in which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seek to restrict for a period of some 10 years the use by any other institution of a name which has been abandoned by a college, a polytechnic or a central institution. I seek simply to avoid confusion and also to help the new system settle down with the retention of the distinctive mission of those institutions which are at present within what is falsely termed the public sector. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There can be no formal change of name until the Bill is enacted. The amendment is unnecessary because the institution concerned will not have its new name until the Privy Council has exercised the powers conferred on it. Until such time as the change of name has been given legal effect, the institution will not be able to use the title for any formal purposes. I hope that that completely meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
Lord Dainton: That completely satisfies me. It is for the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, to raise the matter of the 10-year period. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 55, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) No institution shall be called a university unless the Quality Assessment Committee is satisfied that its library and laboratory facilities are sufficient for its purposes.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to provide that no place will be called a university unless the quality assessment committee is satisfied that it has library and laboratory facilities sufficient for the purpose. I appreciate that many of my academic colleagues have misgivings about the quality assessment committees. I hope they will have none about the purpose I wish the committees to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already described one amendment I have moved to this Bill as an unusual provision. Were he in his place now, I am sure he would say the same about this amendment. As he is not in his place, I shall do it for him. The mere moving of this amendment, regardless of what I or the Committee might decide to do with it, marks the end of 800 years of unbroken history, give or take the odd five years. So far it has always been the case that the title of university, once conferred, has not been lost. It has also been the case hitherto that the Crown's prerogative of conferring the title of university has been unfettered by any statutory restraint.
It would be the purpose of this amendment to change both those things. The power to withhold the title of university has not been much used in this country. It was withheld from the putative university of Stamford in the 14th century and from the putative university of Durham by Oliver Cromwell. How far it has been used in the 1960s the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will doubtless know much better than I.
Here we have a situation which has lasted undisturbed for a pretty long time and one in which this country has been distinctly unusual. Historians of education have often raised the question of whether this control by the Crown over the power to confer the title of university involved a threat to academic freedom. I have always said hitherto that it did not. Indeed as recently as last September, when I still thought this Bill might be lost by a general election, I argued that it did not. What has changed is that the Crown has changed what it is trying to do when it exercises this power.
Previously when the Crown exercised this power, it exercised it in a way very like conferring de facto

1157
diplomatic recognition. There are no moral judgments involved in de facto diplomatic recognition. It is simply a question of what the facts of the case are on which the Crown is informed by those competent to do it. What we have not had in the past and now do, is, first, any direct attempt by the Crown to judge quality. We have heard enough today about the Crown being involved in a direct attempt to judge quality.
Nor have we see the Crown joining issue in a matter of this kind with a considerable weight of opinion from the academic community. Hitherto the Crown has always reflected the weight of views of the academic community. After all, that was why the Crown did not confer the title of university on the putative university of Stamford.
In the concept of the non-research university there is also an attempt by the Crown to introduce a fundamental change in the very essence of the concept of university as it has been understood since the 12th century. That is moving the goalposts if anything is.
There is a long tradition in the history of this country that when the Crown makes unexpected use of its prerogative, attempts are made to create new statutory controls on the prerogative. That is what is involved in this and a subsequent series of amendments. It is intended to control the exercise of the Crown prerogative of conferring the title of university. It is also—and to me this is the more important purpose of the amendment—intended not only to control the conferring of new titles but to put before those who at present have the tide of university the risk that under certain circumstances the title might be lost.
It is not from the former polytechnics that I see a threat to standards and quality over the next 10 years. They will be most anxious to satisfy the world that they meet university standards and I expect them to do a very great deal in that direction. I am anxious about the remorseless pressure of reducing unit costs on university institutions. I shall not dwell on what I have already said, but I should like—and this is the real purpose of the amendment—to place an academic in a position in which he can say to his own institution, "If you do this you will lose the title of university". I should like that ability to exist as a countervailing pressure to the remorseless pressure exercised from the other end towards so-called efficiency.
The purpose of the amendment is to put a brake on declining standards because of funding in existing universities. The link between unit costs and quality is of the very essence in the thinking behind the amendment. I was very surprised indeed to hear the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—who I am sorry is not in her place now—to Amendment No. 272B when she said that the question of unit costs was irrelevant to an amendment concerned with quality. I was astonished by that. Because I was so astonished I had to speak to the amendment tonight. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The noble Earl has explained very clearly why he moved the amendment. However, with
1158
great respect, it will not do. The amendment would apply additional criteria to those which are already set for the award of the title of university which would inevitably be largely subjective and would lead to a great many disputes. It would also burden the quality assessment committee with a further duty and responsibility which none of the bodies responding to the Government's consultation process has suggested it should have.
I do not believe that the amendment would work. I must add that the proposals for the degree-awarding criteria are good and they are watertight. They have been widely welcomed by those consulted, including the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
Earl Russell: I must beg the Minister to take the amendment a little more seriously. It is a new provision because it meets a new situation. It is an unusual provision because it must deal with an unusual problem. It is to an extent subjective, but then so are all the criteria that have been used in this field since universities began, so there is nothing new about that. I have already heard of economies forced on universities that have led them to do things which in my opinion should deprive them of the title of university. At some stage before the Bill is through, I may have to press the amendment to a Division, but meanwhile—
Lord Peston: The noble Earl prides himself on his logic. He has lost me totally. To try to define the concept of a university in terms of cost seems to be about as far-fetched as I could imagine. I can imagine something called a university that does not have enough in the way of resources, but it does not cease to be a university. It is a university that does not have enough resources. I therefore believe that the noble Earl is on a completely mistaken track.
The noble Earl did not understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. We are concerned about unit cost matters. I have suffered as much from lack of resources as the noble Earl, perhaps even more so, as my college is slightly less favoured than his. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not we are a university. I ask the noble Earl not to pursue that line. It is not helpful to those of us who are anxious about the future of universities. We too want to attack the Government on the question of resources, but the two matters are quite different.
Earl Russell: They are not different matters. I was concerned with defining a university in terms of its functions. One of the points that occurred to me in terms of its functions was to think of it as a place in which people either conduct experiments or read books, or often both. If that is not of the essence, I do not know what is.
We shall have to continue this argument on Report. I shall hope for a better response from the Minister, but, by the look of it, I shall not hope for a better response from the party on my left. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 286 to 287A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I must point out that, if Amendment No. 288 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 289 because of pre-emption.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 56, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It does not begin with any preconceptions. It is simply that the clause to which the amendment refers appears to have no meaning. My noble friend Lord Butterworth and I should like to know what is meant by it and why it is necessary. For those members of the Commit tee who do not have page 56 in front of them, the clause states:
"Any educational institution whose name includes the word 'university' by virtue of the exercise of any power as extended by subsection (1)"—
that is the power given to create new universities—
"… is to be treated as a university for all purposes".
What are the "all purposes"? How can it be a university if it is treated otherwise?
The Committee may think that there are parallels. When noble Lords are introduced into this House for the first time, the Reading Clerk tells the lucky person that he is entitled to all the privileges, immunities, honours and so on which go with being a Baron. The only privilege that I have discovered is having to stay up very late at night in order to deal with often obscure and sometimes clearly ill-prepared Bills, but that is a penalty rather than a privilege. Are the universities to incur certain penalties which they would not otherwise incur, or are they to have genuine privileges? What is the reason for including a clause which no academic starting to write the Bill would have thought necessary? They would assume, as Gertrude Stein might have said, that a university is a university, is a university. I beg to move.
Lord Butterworth: I shall not detain the Committee long at this late hour, but there is a problem in this clause. The Bill is concerned with machinery to bring the new system into being—except for this clause, which deals with policy, or attempts to do so; if you like, it attempts to deal with philosophy.
My view is that it is a mistake and that it would be much better not to have this clause in the Bill at all. It hints at matters which might later cause great difficulty in the courts and other institutions. Perhaps I may illustrate what I have in mind by quoting from the Minister responsible for higher education, Mr. Alan Howarth. What he said was thought to be so important that it became part of a Department of Education and Science news-sheet of 27th November. He said:
"The purpose of granting polytechnics the right to adopt a university title is not that they should become clones of the present universities. We need to enhance rather than diminish diversity in higher education".
I thought that that is what this legislation was all about. I suspect that there is unanimity in this Chamber that polytechnics should be called universities if they so wish but that they should retain their distinctive purpose and operation.
Let us look again at this clause, which mentions:
1160
"Any educational institution whose name includes the word 'university' by virtue of the exercise of any power … is to be treated as a university for all purposes".
The definition of "university" in the Act is purely adjectival. It does not help. The implication is that, once a polytechnic has the title of university, it is to be treated as a university for all the purposes for which a university has hitherto been treated as a university. That raises deep questions about funding. I could give the Committee some very interesting examples which could cause difficulty later—there are problems about dual funding and so on—if this clause is agreed to.
However, it is too late to discuss those matters this evening. My submission is that this clause would be much better if it kept to its main purpose—which is machinery—and that this sudden excursion into policy ought to be deleted.
Lord Belstead: Subsection (4) of Clause 73 is included in the Bill in order to ensure that an institution which is granted a university title by the Privy Council cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is not really a university. This is a necessary provision to safeguard the status of the new universities, which, unlike the present universities, will not have royal charters.
The background to this matter is a rather obscure judgment about the meaning of the word "university" made 40 years ago in the case of St. David's College, Lampeter v the Ministry of Education. That judgment left the position unclear, since it appeared to suggest that, even where an institution possessed most or all of the qualities of a university, it did not necessarily follow that it was one.
I cannot imagine that anyone would want to raise the issue in the common law again. But, in the very unlikely event of someone doing so, there would inevitably be damaging confusion. Clause 73(4) is in the Bill for the sole purpose of ruling out such a challenge.
That is the simple answer to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Butterworth will excuse me if I do not follow him this evening down the labyrinthine ways of the drafting of the whole of Clause 73.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I had hoped that his answer would have included one other matter; namely, if one of the new universities included other words in its name, such as calling itself the polytechnic university of somewhere or the technical university of somewhere, would it still be a university? I understood the clause to mean precisely that because it uses the expression "includes the word 'university'".
Can the Minister reassure the Committee that it is not necessary to be called "X University" to be a university? Could the institution be called "Something Something University" and still be a university? That is what I assumed I should be told. I am a little lost as a result of the noble Lord's answer.
Lord Belstead: That will depend upon the way in which the title is granted by the Privy Council. It would be imprudent of me to to go beyond that today. I must confess that I do not know. I must write to the noble Lord on that important point.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may clarify the point. If Oxford Polytechnic wishes to call itself the Technical University of Oxford—I do not say for one moment that it does; I made the title up—perhaps the letter will clarify such a consideration. I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Beloff: One is obviously impressed by the fact that even if the Department of Education and Science is a little weak about education, it is terribly good at law. With that observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12 midnight
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 56, line 3, at end insert ("provided that no institution shall be called a university unless all its departments are funded for research on a level sufficient to satisfy the Quality Assessment Committee").
The noble Lord said: Before moving the amendment I wish to thank the Minister for his reply to the previous amendment. When the Official Report appears perhaps the reference to the Lampeter judgment that he quoted could be given. I shall be interested to read it.
Amendment No. 289 refers again to the definition of a university. Again, I am thinking in terms of its functions. The provisions of the amendment are that no place shall be called a university,
"unless all its departments arc funded for research on a level sufficient to satisfy the Quality Assessment Committee".
I refer to "all its departments." The Secretary of State speaks of selective funding. That means that he envisages a situation in which some departments in a university will be funded for research and some will not. Research is essential as the lingua franca between academic departments. It provides the common scale of values within which they all operate. To preserve academic values in a situation in which only some departments still research will be as difficult as preserving democratic values in a country in which only some people have the vote.
For many of us, research is one of the main reasons for entering the profession. There is a great risk that if the provision of a non-research university takes effect, there will be massive voting with their feet among those who are capable of obtaining any other form of employment. It is inevitable that the provision will affect the most able among us more than others. Such an effect is already taking place. Not too many academics were appointed in the 1970s. However, from among six or eight of the most able people in my own area—those one would have expected to be at the top of the tree in 15 years' time—to my certain knowledge one is off to Princeton in September, and one is applying for a job overseas because of no longer having the time to do any research. That is the situation in one of our most ancient universities. A third is looking for a non-academic job. Such a situation may become an avalanche.
Research is also essential to the quality of teaching. Only last week I was being cross-examined by some bright first year students about the differences between a book of mine and criticisms made of it in other publications. I believe that they found it valuable to be
1162
able to make that challenge; they learned something. It is vital to be able to learn that knowledge is sometimes in a state of flux and that the question, "What are the facts?" is not always capable of an objective answer.
These factors are at the very heart of quality of education. They are at the very heart of the usefulness of education in a rapidly changing world. I believe too that the Secretary of State is mistaken in thinking that he will not have difficulty in recruiting undergraduates for non-research universities. I need only look into my memory as an undergraduate to see whose lectures undergraduates flock into. They are the lectures of people who have been carrying out research and changing the picture. They are the lectures of people who are making news. That is the vital point. If one does not accept that there is news and that the picture changes, one is not learning anything.
One may talk about parity of esteem. I cannot see how there can be parity of esteem between a research and a non-research university. I grant that in law anything recognised as a university must be called a university. However, I am reminded of the remark made by the first Lord Burghley; that it was possible for an Act of Parliament to make a man a woman. In law that is so. Were it to be done to any of my parliamentary colleagues I must, when in the Chamber, refer to the person concerned as the noble Baroness. I should not find that I was socially reacting to the person as a woman. Similarly, if we have a non-research university I cannot undertake to react to it as a university; I cannot feel that it is one. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: During the Second Reading I spoke on the importance of providing sufficient funding for research in universities. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with the underlying point which the noble Earl is making. Although I am a newcomer to this Chamber and to this Committee, am I wrong in believing that the appropriate time for expressing such general sentiments, albeit important sentiments which I share, is during Second Reading?
By implication I am reflecting adversely on the specific amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for animadverting in this way. However, it would be helpful if an amendment put forward in Committee had not only a coherent logic but viable implications. Amendment No. 289 seeks to insert the words:
"provided that no institution shall be called a university unless all its departments are funded for research on a level sufficient to satisfy the Quality Assessment Committee".
It suffers from the same kind of logical flaw indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in respect of earlier amendments.
The amendment operates in the present tense. Therefore, if a university became a university and was successful in receiving funding for research on an appropriate scale but then the funding or research fell below a level sufficient to satisfy the quality assessment committee, it would cease to be a university. We cannot have universities switching on and off like that.

1163
I may be in error but my underlying point is that it would be helpful if the amendment, if passed, added to the coherence of our public life. With respect, I doubt whether that is the case as regards this amendment, even though I am at one with the noble Earl in his general sentiments.
Lord Belstead: Let us be clear that the criteria announced by the Government for university title relate to the size and breadth of an institution. In addition they will ensure that only those institutions which have passed the criteria for awarding their own taught-course and research degrees will be able to be considered for a university title. I believe that the criterion which the noble Earl has put into the amendment requiring that all departments in an institution are funded for research before the institution can adopt a university title would not work.
Perhaps I may put a slant on the issue which is different from that adopted by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Many of our present universities are active in research in only some parts of their work.
The Government believe that that makes academic and financial sense. That selectivity is a cornerstone of the Government's policy to improve the quality of research in our higher education institutions. Requiring that all future universities, including our future polytechnics, should be funded for research in all departments, would create an insuperable barrier for many institutions, and it would also interfere most improperly with the freedom of the funding councils to pay grants to individual departments for research as they see fit.
It is on those grounds that I resist the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, for his general sympathy. I have already offered to him my apologies for my absence from Second Reading. I should undoubtedly have made these points there. In fact I made them in the debate on the humble Address, on which I believe the noble Lord was not present.
The reason why it is proposed that the provision should be included in the Bill is the reason why legislation has been passed for centuries—to restrict the Crown in an exercise of its powers which appears to the person moving the proposal to be thoroughly undesirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke of the freedom of the funding council. But the freedom of the funding council is capable of conflicting with the freedom of the university; in fact it is of the essence of the Minister's argument that it should do so. It should not be taken for granted that the freedom of the funding council ought to take priority.
If 10 years ago—even five years ago—I had tabled this kind of amendment I should have been told that it was entirely unnecessary because the provision was so absolutely of the essence of our university life that it could not be imagined that anyone could ever threaten it. Indeed, it was not all that long ago that I did not myself imagine that anyone could ever threaten it.
1164
I hear what the Minister says in regard to selectivity. I am afraid that to me that is once again evidence that the Government are wading in heavy boots into an area where they have no idea where the quicksands are. I hope to return to the issue later, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 56, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) Where an institution changes its title by virtue of the exercise of power extended by subsection (1) above, the previous title may not be used by any other educational establishment for a period of ten years without the consent of that institution.").
The noble Baroness said: In view of the late hour, I shall try to be extremely brief. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the assumption by other organisations, including private colleges, of the old titles of polytechnics once they have changed their titles by virtue of the provisions of the Bill.
I draw attention to the precedent of the provisions of the University of Salford Act 1966 which prohibited for 25 years anyone else from using without its consent the former titles of the colleges which comprised Salford University. The present amendment is more modest, seeking protection for 10 years. Several speakers in the Committee have been kind enough to refer to the noble titles of polytechnics. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that they are protected from misuse for a period limited to 10 years. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to my feet to support the noble Baroness and speak to the amendment which stands in my name also. It is a sensible and modest measure that we propose. If an institution has built up a reputation in its previous guise and it becomes a new university, it will be sensible, purely for the purpose of knowing where the qualifications came from and getting rid of all kinds of new confusions which will arise, to implement the provision. I am sure that anybody with any kind of brain at all who was setting up a new institution would be able to think of a new title.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend has raised an important issue in the amendment. It would of course be of great concern if institutions were at liberty to adopt titles which were confusing. Subsection (3) of the clause requires that, in approving name changes, the Privy Council shall have regard to the need to avoid confusion. While, strictly speaking, the requirement applies only to proposed university titles, in fact it is a principle which the Privy Council will apply to name changes of any description. It would be perverse for it to do otherwise.
In addition to controls on educational institutions, there is specific control exercisable by the Secretary of State over the use of the word "polytechnic". Any company or business which wishes to use that word in its title must seek the permission of the Secretary of State. That provision includes the incorporated institutions in the higher education sector.

1165
Both the Secretary of State and the Privy Council will be well aware of the sensitivities surrounding names and possible confusion. That is why subsection (3) is on the face of the Bill. My noble friend's amendment requires that an old name should not be available for 10 years without the permission of the old institution. It is best to allow the Privy Council to exercise its duty to avoid confusion without stipulating any minimum times. In some cases, 10 years will perhaps be too long a period to protect a name. In others, it may be too little.
In the light of these reassurances, perhaps my noble friend will feel that it is not necessary to press the amendment, particularly with the undertaking that I gave in the middle of what I was saying about any company or business wishing to use the word "polytechnic" in the title having to go the Secretary of State.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for his full reply. I shall consider his words carefully. I hope that it will give reassurance to those who are concerned. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 290A:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Name of higher education institution
.—(1) Where an educational institution or a body corporate carrying on such an institution

(a) is within the higher education sector, and

(b) has power by virtue of any enactment or instrument to change its name, and

(c) satisfies the Secretary of State that it has for a period of not less than five years been conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by any university existing at the date this Act comes into force or the Council for National Academic Awards or an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title by virtue of section 73 of this Act and that it is currently conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title whether by virtue of section 73 of this Act or otherwise,

Then the institution or body corporate carrying on the institution may use the expression "university college" in its name.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any institution or body corporate carrying on an institution using the expression "university college" has ceased to conduct courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title then he may issue a direction forbidding the institution or body carrying on the institution from using the expression "university college" in its name.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may say straightaway that I have in mind the Church of England colleges of higher education. I have in mind too the Roman Catholic colleges and other ecumenical colleges and also those without denominational allegiance which are affected by the amendment. On behalf of the Church colleges,
1166
perhaps I may say that we are, as in the school sector, in partnership with the state and wish that partnership to continue and develop.
One of our concerns is that the recent circular indicates that the Secretary of State will consider for university and degree-granting status educational institutions with 4,000 or more students. A number of the existing colleges are not of that size and would therefore be excluded both from granting degrees in their own right and also from using the word "university" in their title.
The use of the word "university" in the title is important. The Bill provides for the binary divide between polytechnics and universities to be removed, but if we are not careful we shall reintroduce it at another point. If some of the colleges of higher education are not able to use the title "university college", in the public mind they will be thought to be second class institutions, although in fact they produce courses and standards exactly equivalent to those in universities. That is the concern primarily in the minds of the colleges.
I pointed out on Second Reading that many of the existing universities began as small colleges and became universities long before they had 4,000 students. It seems rather restrictive now to prevent growth which has in the past led to the creation of a number of the universities which exist today.
I speak therefore on behalf of the Church colleges, but also on behalf of other colleges, in wishing to secure the right of those institutions to be considered under certain circumstances eligible to use the word "university" in their title and clearly to be seen to be on a par with other higher education institutions.
My amendment makes it clear that the colleges will be required to fulfil conditions. First, prior to the passing of the Act they must have been conducting courses leading to a degree validated by a university or the CNAA. Secondly, after the passing of the Act they must have been conducting courses leading to an award of a degree by any institution entitled to call itself a university.
Thirdly, they must have been fulfilling these conditions for at least five years. The amendment also makes provision for the Secretary of State to prevent the continued use of the expression "university college" if the institution in question ceases to conduct courses fulfilling the requirements. Therefore, it is not an open-ended amendment. It seeks to secure the position for some of the smaller colleges that have an important part to play in the developing life of higher education in this country. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I have been approached not by the Church colleges, but by the other colleges. I very much wish to support the right reverend Prelate in this matter. I wish to give some of the arguments that have been put to me in support of the amendment. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Government continually reiterate in public their commitment to the abolition of the binary line. In practice they are simply proposing to shift it. Students believe that if they are university graduates they will have more success in the employment market. That was shown in a MORI poll carried out in November.

1167
There are more students in the socio-economic groups three, four and five in colleges of higher education than in the universities. The Prime Minister has said that he is committed to a classless society and yet his Secretary of State appears to be adopting a stance which disadvantages a group which the Prime Minister is on record as wishing to support. The confusion with colleges of further education will be exacerbated as their profile heightens in the publicity surrounding the introduction of the Act. It is no more than a logical progression in the market-oriented climate of higher education.
Polytechnics have come of age and that has been recognised. So have colleges and their achievement deserves recognition. The Privy Council will agree titles for the polytechnics which avoid confusion. Why not do the same for colleges of higher education? Those colleges will be accountable to the higher education funding councils in exactly the same way as universities. Their inclusion in the sector should be recognised in their titles. The term "university college" would indicate that they are different from universities; that is, that they do not have the same breadth of curriculum or size. However, they will be subject to the same performance indicators and quality assessment procedures.
Students in the sector who do not attend universities do not deserve to be accorded less recognition and status than their contemporaries in other higher education institutions. One advantage that was put to me about the amendment is that the change would cost the Government nothing. There is a strong case for these colleges to be treated in that way. I hope that the Government can listen sympathetically to the case.
Lord Addington: I support the general intention behind the amendment. If we are to have a non-binary divide system, as the noble Baroness has just said we should not bring back something which looks like a second-class institution. It is ridiculous to get rid of one person who is thought to represent a second-class institution when it is not. If people are taking a qualification of a certain standard they deserve to receive recognition for it. The title of "university college" is one that has historical precedent. I know that it was used for the redbrick universities before they gained independent university status during the 19th century. With a little history on one's side, surely the Government can look favourably on this suggestion or something very like it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The hour is late so I shall be brief. I support the amendment because of my close association with one of the colleges, Trinity College, Carmarthen, which has very close links with my own college, St David's University College, Lampeter, which seems to have caused the Committee and lawyers no small difficulty for the past 20 or 30 years. Those colleges have a long and distinguished history starting with their contribution to the training of teachers in this country and which is now continued with diversified degree programmes over a whole range of subjects, particularly in the humanities and in such courses as nursing and professions allied to
1168
medicine. They are validated, as we know, either by a university or by the CNAA and they have developed as institutions which are full partners in the validation of the degrees they teach.
Their record in the recruitment of students is excellent and they continue to prove attractive to both men and women who are seeking the experience of higher education in a collegiate setting since they are nearly all small institutions, although nearly all of them are now larger than 1000 students.
There is a danger that such institutions may be disadvantaged if they do not have a warrant to assume the title of "university college", because the higher education sector will now be distinguished by the title "university" since most of the institutions within the sector qualify for that title by virtue of the size requirement set out by the Secretary of State. So, as three Members of the Committee have now said, a new binary line will be formed between these universities and the colleges of which I speak. That surely will be against both the spirit and the intentions of this Bill. It is ironic that institutions which could qualify to award their own degrees would not qualify, by virtue only of their size, to assume the title of "university college". The binary line has been a Maginot line—on ne passe pas—for quite long enough. Away with it, and let us not now permit a son of binary to rise up in his father's place.
Lord Belstead: Subsection (1) of Clause 73 already empowers the Privy Council to approve titles which include the word "university" in the name of the institution and there is nothing in the Bill to preclude a change of title from "college of higher education" to "university college". But what this amendment is really about is whether that title should be allowed and, if so, what the criteria for its adoption should be.
The title "university college" is not uncommon now. It refers to colleges which are a constituent part of a university. Examples in England include the university colleges at Kent, Durham, Lancaster and York. The University of Wales also has a collegiate structure.
The amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady David, would extend eligibility for the university college title not only to colleges which are a constituent part of a university, but to other colleges solely on the basis that their degrees are validated by a university. Somewhat perversely it would appear to rule out institutions which award their own degrees but are not able to adopt a full university title—if I may put it that way—because they are not large enough. I think that that aspect looks very odd indeed.
However, there is a more general point about this. I must say that I do not believe that institutions which do not meet university title criteria, whether or not they are empowered to award their own degrees, need fear for their future or that they will be seen as second class citizens. The names "college of higher education" and "institute of higher education" are well established within the system and the colleges offer a wide variety of opportunities to students. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made that absolutely clear in his intervention and also made

1169
clear the success of the college to which he referred. The fact is that the increase in enrolments in the colleges has outpaced the increase in enrolments in universities and polytechnics over the past few years. The colleges are, and will continue to be, first rate institutions—only they are not part of a university.
I conclude by saying this, which may be rather more acceptable to the Committee. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science met a delegation from the Standing Conference of Principals last week to discuss the use of the university college title. In the light of that useful meeting the Standing Conference of Principals will be writing to the department with its views on this matter. The Government will consider those views and announce their decision in due course. Against that background I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that this amendment has been worth moving. It has certainly ventilated an important matter. It is a matter which is at present under discussion.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I am glad to know that further discussions are taking place. In my view, this is an important matter and I certainly wish to reserve the right to come back to it at Report stage. However, on the basis of what the Minister said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.290B:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Establishment of higher education institutions
.—(1) Nothing in the Education Acts shall prevent or inhibit—

(a) the establishment of a high education corporation or any institution in the higher education sector which is of a denominational character, or

(b) the establishment of such a corporation or institution which is collegiate in nature or which comprises or is formed by a federation or amalgamation of higher education corporations or institutions in the higher education sector, or

(c) the specification pursuant to section 72(1) of this Act of such a corporation or institution as competent to grant either or both kinds of award mentioned in subsection (2) (a) and (b) of section 72, or

(d) the granting by the Privy Council to such a corporation or institution of consent to include the word "university" in its name pursuant to section 73 of this Act.

(2) A higher education corporation or any institution in the higher education sector which is of a denominational character may notwithstanding any provision in the Education Acts to the contrary include in its instrument of government provisions to ensure the maintenance of the denominational character of the corporation or institution.
(3) In exercising his powers under section 72 of this Act and in exercising its powers under section 73 of this Act the Secretary of State and the Privy Council respectively shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that there should be higher education corporations or institutions in the higher education sector which are of a denominational character which have power to grant either or both kinds of award mentioned in subsection (2) (a) and (b) of section 72 and which are authorised to use the word "university" in their title.
(4) For the purposes of this section a corporation or institution is of a denominational character if it would be so regarded by virtue of subsection (5) of section 62 of this Act.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment I should point out that the printing on the Marshalled List might imply that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is supporting me; but I suspect that with its rather narrower thrust she may not wish to be associated with it.
This amendment is essentially to do with denominational colleges and seeks to secure one or two points. The first is to ensure, should there be any doubt, that new higher education corporations or institutions which are of a denominational character may be established; and secondly, to ensure that any such institutions may be either of a collegiate nature or formed by a federation or amalgamation of existing institutions. The amendment would also remove any doubt about the denominational institutions being free to include in their instrument of government provisions to ensure the maintenance of their denominational character. That may be of some importance in the future when such denominational institutions may need to negotiate or even to amalgamate or federate with non-denominational institutions. The amendment also links back, so to speak, with the previous amendment in that it makes reference to the use of the word "university". I trust that that is a sufficiently brief indication of the purpose of the amendment and I hope that the Minister will feel disposed to look on it favourably. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Belstead: This is an interesting amendment and, as the right reverend Prelate said, it has three main features. First, it would stipulate that there should be no legal impediments to an institution which is of a denominational character becoming a higher education corporation or any other kind of institution within the higher education sector. There are no such impediments. Clause 68 of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to designate institutions as eligible to receive funds through a higher education funding council. Clause 70 empowers the Secretary of State to change a further education corporation into a higher education one. In both cases the only criterion which the institution must meet is to have a full-time higher education enrolment number higher than 55 per cent. In both cases, the decision on whether to exercise his power in respect of institutions which have met the criterion rests with the Secretary of State.
Next, the amendment provides for such institutions to be eligible for degree-awarding powers and a university title. Any institution within the higher education sector has that possibility under Clauses 72 and 73. But, of course, it must meet the criteria established under those clauses, and I cannot believe that it would be right to require the Secretary of State and the Privy Council somehow to accord special treatment to such institutions, as subsection (3) of this new clause appears to suggest. Criteria are criteria.

1171
Finally, the new clause would ensure that the institution would be able to include, in its instrument of government, provisions to ensure the maintenance of its denominational character. That goes without saying.
I hope that what I have been able to say in respect of this essentially probing amendment is such that it will satisfy the right reverend Prelate. These are important points but I think that they are covered in the Bill as drafted.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am sure he appreciates that the Church colleges, for which I speak in this amendment, consider themselves to be making a small but significant contribution to the higher education sector. I am grateful for the assurances that he has given in the context of his speech. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause: 74 [Financial years of higher education corporations]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 290C:
Page 56, line 4, leave out from ("directs") to end of line 13 and insert ("that any financial year specified in the direction of the higher education corporations, and subsequent financial years, are to begin with a date specified in the direction, then—

(a) the financial year of the corporations immediately preceding the year specified in the direction shall end immediately before the date specified in the direction, and

(b) the financial year specified in the direction and subsequent financial years shall be each successive period of twelve months.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment effectively replaces the existing Clause 74 with a new clause. It empowers the Secretary of State to direct that the financial year of a higher education corporation should begin on a specified date, and subsequent financial years should be each successive period of 12 months. The financial year of the corporation immediately preceding the year specified in the direction ends immediately before the date specified in the direction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Dissolution of Council for National Academic Awards]:
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 56, line 33, at end insert:
("(c) in making any order under section 76(1) the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to take into account the interests of students on courses leading to CNAA awards and of institutions which do not receive degree awarding powers.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to place on the Secretary of State the duty to take into account the interests of students, and institutions which do not receive degree-awarding powers.
Under Clause 76 the dissolution of the CNAA is not in contention. In fact, it is my view that both the staff of the Council for National Academic Awards and the council members have, together, been working co-operatively to achieve the transfer of powers.
1172
However, there are matters which are more complex in the work of the CNAA than just the transfer of the accredited institutions. As we said on Second Reading, there are 70 institutions with 40,000 students who will not receive degree-awarding powers. It is in the interests of those institutions, and their students, that we put forward the amendment.
The validation of degrees in non-accredited institutions can, as we heard earlier this evening, be achieved through seeking validation through another higher education institution. But that is not as simple as it sounds. I understand that some institutions are already seeking validating powers through more than one institution and that they are not always being welcomed. Further, there is a very limited time schedule in view.
Moreover, in many cases the students have enrolled for CNAA degrees. They do not always wish to transfer to another type of degree, even though we might regard it as being equivalent. I believe that we have yet to find out the legal position of students who may regard themselves as aggrieved. Surely the Secretary of State must take an interest in the situation.
Not only is the validation of degrees in question, but many of these institutions offer a far wider range of qualifications and degrees at certificate and diploma level. In many cases, the institutions through which they seek to validate their work do not always have this wide spread of work. That presents some difficulties.
There are other aspects of the work of the CNAA that I believe must be jealously guarded. There is the national validation of a credit accumulation and transfer scheme and the access work which has been undertaken in that connection. I understand that parts of it will go to the quality and access organisation. But there are residual parts of that work which must find a national home.
In all those matters, I believe that one of the anxieties is the timescale to which we are working. Our understanding is that we are working towards September next year. Those of us who have had anything to do with the validation of courses in higher education institutions know, for example, that to get a proposal for a validation of a degree—first through a department, secondly, through a faculty board and, thirdly, through a senate—will take considerably longer than the timescale which we have in view.
Because of the latter, we feel that the residual work of the CNAA needs to be held under close review and that it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to guard the interests of both students and institutions in the dissolution of the CNAA. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My name is attached to the amendment and it is to the first part of it that I especially wish to speak. It provides:
"The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to take into account the interests of students on courses leading to CNAA awards".
It is the feelings and interests of students that we should be considering. The precipitate closure of CNAA will leave many thousands of students unable to be awarded, on completion of their studies, the

1173
degree of their choice. Those involved are full-time students on three or four-year programmes who are not due to finish until 1993, 1994, or 1995; part-time students on undergraduate programmes who can take up to eight years from initial registration; part-time postgraduate students; and those registered for research degrees such as M.Phil and Ph.D.
Many students within the last three categories registered some years ago. They have already paid the fee to CNAA which entitles them to follow the whole course in the expectation that they will receive a CNAA award on completion. Those students are registered by choice not by default. Indeed, certain subject areas are especially noted for the high quality of their degrees which are nationally and internationally recognised by employers. One such area is art and design. Such students are already expressing unhappiness that they find themselves, against their will, having to take a degree at an institution which has no track record for art and design, and of which no employer has ever heard in that regard.
That situation could well have a deleterious effect upon the employability of such students. I am reliably informed that there is likely to be a claim in law, with possible recourse to British and European courts. The students who have enrolled at an institution have a contract with the institution which gives them a contractual right to follow a CNAA course. Likewise, students individually registered for research degrees have a contract with CNAA. The interests of the students would be best taken care of by enabling the powers of the CNAA charter to be exercised in that regard until presently enrolled students who so choose can complete their programmes of study. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Cox: My name is to the amendment, and perhaps I can say how much I appreciate the manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, covered the points so comprehensively. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said in highlighting the interests of students, and I wish to indicate the wide area of anxiety felt by many categories of students who are already enrolled and may be suffering a breach of contract.
The two additional categories that I should like to highlight are those students who have not yet enrolled on courses or who are currently enrolling but do not know for what degree, and students beginning the academic year 1993 who will not know what they will be receiving in 1993. Finally, there is a small, but important, category of students who seem to be forgotten by the Government in relation to any of these provisions: the 500 research students registered by CNAA who are not in any educational establishments but who could transfer, such as those in industrial and commercial organisations, research laboratories and hospitals. Many students have been left in an impossible position. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us on those important points.
Lord Belstead: A number of noble Lords made representations about these matters on Second
1174
Reading, and I promised to draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who has considered them most carefully.
My right honourable friend has considered at what point it would be appropriate for the CNAA to cease its normal operations, and at what point beyond that it would be appropriate for the CNAA to be dissolved. His officials have discussed those issues with the CNAA. The Secretary of State intends, in line with the CNAA's strategic plan, that it will continue to operate until 30th September 1992. After that it will concentrate on winding up its affairs in preparation for dissolution, which is likely to be at the end of March 1993. That means that CNAA will not be able to register any students for taught courses or programmes of research after 1st September 1992 although it will confer awards to all successful students whose courses of study or programmes of research are completed in the 1991–92 academic year.
My right honourable friend has considered carefully the representations made that the CNAA should continue in existence until all the students presently registered with it have completed their course of study. To achieve that, the CNAA would have to continue for at least three more years. Given that its other functions will have transferred elsewhere, the Secretary of State does not consider this to be a practical proposition.
Ministers accept that it will be essential for alternative arrangements to be made for those students to be able to continue on the course of study on which they enrolled, in the institution at which they enrolled and with the expectation of receiving a degree or other award at the end of that course of similar standing to the CNAA degree or award for which they initially registered. My right honourable friend expects that to be achieved through institutions not empowered to grant their own awards entering into a validation agreement with institutions which are so empowered, and awarding their qualifications. It is for institutions which are not presently assured of receiving degree awarding powers to ensure that a suitable agreement is in place by next September.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred to problems of getting validation agreements arranged. Currently there are 30 validating universities and, once the polytechnics become universities, there will clearly be an even wider range.
There are many current examples of university validation, and there are now more potential validating institutions. The CDP and the CVCP have indicated their readiness to help in identifying suitable validating institutions in particular cases. In addition—I shall not go into this in detail as I mentioned it before—the Open University is intending to offer a validation service for those colleges without degree awarding powers which for various reasons do not wish to become associated with a local institution.
I know this is not an easy situation but against this background my right honourable friend believes that the necessary arrangements are capable of being made within the planned timetable. The amendment is correct in drawing attention to issues which arise as a result of the proposal to dissolve the CNAA, but I

1175
hope that, after considering the results of my consultation with my right honourable friend, the Committee will feel that some progress is now being made.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for his reply and for having consulted with the Secretary of State on this matter. Nevertheless I still have some feelings of anxiety. I am concerned, for example, that the CNAA may not register for degrees after September 1992: many of the colleges of which we are speaking have already recruited for next September and have offered students the very CNAA degrees that will no longer be available. The fact that there are 30 validating universities and there has been an offer of help is not clearly apparent to those institutions, some of whom are seeking to find a validating partner. I still have some reservations, but I appreciate all the Minister has done towards safeguarding the interests of the students involved. I believe that some of the amendments that have been moved this evening—for example Amendments Nos. 283ZA, 283ZB and 283ZC—may be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 291A to 294 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Joint exercise of functions]:
[Amendments 295 to 297 not moved.]
Clauses 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 297A:
After Clause 79, insert the following new clause:
("Periodic circular
—(1) The Secretary of State shall be required to issue, at periodic intervals, a Circular in respect of those aspects of further education which, under section 11 of this Act, it is the duty of a local education authority to provide.
(2) The Circular to be issued under subsection (1) above shall—

(a) set, for each local education authority, a target in respect of the proportion of the residents of the area who shall be enrolled on courses of study of further education.

(b) outline the Secretary of State's expectations as to the range and type of facilities to be made available by the local education authority in connection with the provision of further education to an extent commensurate with the targets outlined in paragraph (a) above.").

The right reverend Prelate said: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but it seems appropriate to move the amendment, which invites the Secretary of State to set targets for adult education provision by local education authorities. The Minister will be aware that after the publication of the White Paper there was considerable anxiety that the so-called leisure adult education was not fully appreciated and understood. It would help to secure and recognise the valuable part which LEA adult education plays in the whole perspective of adult education if those targets could be set. We have heard
1176
a good deal in recent times about league tables indicating performance. The amendment tackles a similar issue but from a slightly different angle in that it relates to setting targets. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I do not want to delay the Committee, although it is a pity that we do not feel that we have time to discuss this important issue at some length. It is worthy of discussion and considerable argument. Suffice it to say at this point that from these Benches we strongly support the initiative and hope that it will receive a sympathetic response. We should be interested to hear the Government's view in order to decide what needs to be done next.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I understand that at this time of night Members of the Committee feel constrained not to speak at length, but I believe that I have to give a considered answer to the amendment.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue periodic circulars about aspects of LEAs' duties under Clause 11. I find the notion of putting such a requirement upon the Secretary of State in law unusual. The assumption in law is that people upon whom duties are placed will discharge them responsibly. In respect of Clause 11, LEAs will discharge their duties on the basis of informed decisions taken in the light of local circumstances. There is recourse to the Secretary of State in the event of an LEA acting unreasonably or in default of its duty. It is in that way that LEAs are accountable under law for the decisions they make.
However, there is a suggestion in the amendment that those decisions should be influenced at the outset by the Secretary of State's own judgment about how the duties should be fulfilled in each LEA. In the Government's view it is for each LEA, provided it acts reasonably, to decide how to fulfil the duties imposed on it. I believe that targets for enrolments are for LEAs themselves to set in response to local needs and circumstances. Similarly, it must be for LEAs to determine the range and type of facilities required for further education.
I do not see how the Secretary of State could be expected to judge for Birmingham or Somerset LEAs respectively the provision they should be making for their areas. It is right that the Secretary of State should from time to time issue circulars of guidance about aspects of LEA functions as he thinks fit but not, as I have said, about the functions of individual LEAs. I do not believe that such guidance is a subject for legislation.
I am aware that there has been anxiety about the expression of LEAs' duties under Clause 11. My noble friend Lord Belstead said in response to amendments to Clause 11—including an amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford—that he would like to look at the way that duty is expressed. I hope that that will be of some assurance to the right reverend Prelate.
I am not happy about the amendment. I think that it deals with matters which should rightly be for local determination and not for the Secretary of State. I

1177
hope that the right reverend Prelate will be persuaded by what I have said and see fit to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. Perhaps I may comment wryly that here is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to have more powers given to him which on this occasion it appears that he does not particularly want. However, I shall not pursue that matter at this hour of the night.
I am reassured about the reconsideration being given to Clause 11 and, although it may be necessary to come back to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 80 to 83 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Stamp duty]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 297B:
Page 58, line 43, leave out from ("(7)") to end of line 44 and insert (", 59 and 76.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 84 lists the sections of the Act under which any transfers affected should not be liable for stamp duty. When drawing up that list, Section 76, which provides for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of the CNAA was unintentionally omitted. The amendment rectifies that omission. This is a technical amendment which I hope that the Committee will approve. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 298 to 299 not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Index]:
[Amendment No. 300 not moved.]
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Short title, commencement, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 301 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 62, line 28, at end insert ("after the passing of this Act").
The noble Earl said: I wish to move this amendment, but not at any length. The amendment simply seeks to provide that the Bill shall not be applied retroactively. I should be grateful to be told that the amendment was unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I can reassure the noble Earl on this matter. Clauses 39 and 41 have effect from immediately after the Statement made on 29th March 1991 by my noble friend in this House and by my right honourable friend in another place. Those clauses were discussed and voted upon. They come under a special category and there is no further retrospection. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will be reassured.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 78, line 11, at end insert:
(".In section 81 (power of local education authorities to give assistance by means of scholarships and otherwise)—

(a) for "pupils" (where it first appears) there is substituted "persons", and

(b) in paragraph (c)—

(i) for "pupils" (where it first appears) there is substituted "persons", and

(ii) the words from "including" to the end are omitted.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 304, 307 and 312 to 314. The amendments replace the word "pupils" in a number of Acts with the word "persons" and make other changes having a similar effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 80, line 45, at end insert:
(".In section 52(1) (a) and (3) of that Act (recoupment: cross-border provisions) for "pupil", in each place, there is substituted "person".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 305 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 306:
Page 82, line 4, at end insert:
(".In section 124 (powers of a higher education corporation)—

(a) in subsection (2) (b) for "disabled students" there is substituted "students having learning difficulties within the meaning of section 41(9) of the Education Act 1944", and

(b) subsection (4) is omitted.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 315. These amendments will ensure consistency in the way that the Bill deals with students with disabilities in both the further and higher education sectors. The Government are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for highlighting the discrepancy within the Bill as drafted between Clause 4 and Clause 19 and for agreeing to withdraw their amendment to Clause 19 to enable these more detailed amendments to be put forward. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 307:
Page 83, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) in subsection (1) (f) for "pupils" there is substituted "persons receiving education",
( ) in subsection (7) (b) for "pupils attending" there is substituted "persons receiving education at",").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 308:
Page 85, line 16, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deletes in Schedule 8 two erroneous references to subsections and replaces them with references to sub-paragraphs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved amendment No. 309:
Page 8 5, line 19, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 86, line 32, at end insert:
(".In paragraph 4 of that Schedule at the beginning there is inserted—

"(1) Where a transfer by virtue of section 126 or 130 relates to registered land, it shall be the duty of the transferor to execute any such instrument under the Land Registration Acts 1925 to 1986, to deliver any such certificate under those Acts and to do such other things under those Acts as he would be required to execute, deliver or do in the case of a transfer by agreement between the transferor and the transferee.

(2)".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment adds to Schedule 10 of the Education Reform Act 1988 in relation to transfers of registered land to higher education institutions a parallel provision to that provided for further education colleges at paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. The transferor local education authority would be under a duty to execute the transfer document and meet other requirements of the land registration Acts for transfers still to be effected.
I hope that, with that lucid explanation, the Committee will accept this small amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 87. line 10, at end insert:
("The Charities Act 1960 (c. 58)
.—(1) A further education corporation shall be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1960.
(2) Paragraph (e) of Schedule 2 to that Act (institutions connected with institutions which are exempt charities for the purposes of that Act by virtue of the preceding provisions of that Schedule) shall apply in relation to an institution conducted by a further education corporation as it applies in relation to an institution included in that Schedule above that paragraph").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides that further education corporations shall be exempt charities under the Charities Act 1960. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 88. line 40, at end insert:
(".After section 26(3) (exception for single-sex establishments) there is added—
"(4) In this section, as it applies to an establishment in England and Wales, "pupil" includes any person who receives education at that establishment."
1180
. After section 27(5) (exception for single-sex establishments turning co-educational) there is added—
"(6) In this section, as it applies to an establishment in England and Wales, "pupil" includes any person who receives education at that establishment." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 89, line 44, at end insert:
("The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14)
. In section 46(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (fare-paying passengers on school buses) in the definition of "free school transport" for "pupils" there is substituted "persons".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 91, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) in the definition of "child" after "school or" there is inserted "as a student at",").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 314A:
Page 91, line 34, at end insert:
("and for paragraph (c) there is substituted—
"(c) any institution designated by order made or having effect as if made under section 129 of the Education Reform Act 1988."").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment intended to keep institutions designated as eligible to receive funding from a higher education funding council within the scope of Section 5 of the Employment Act 1989. This exempts from sex discrimination the appointment of a person of a particular sex as a head teacher or principal of an educational establishment if the instrument governing the establishment requires the head teacher or principal to be a member of a particular religious order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 93, line 20, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 124(4).")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 306.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past one o'clock.