Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 16 December 1991 vol 533 cc1102-80

8.25 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 66.

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—

1. (i) the need for higher education to enhance capability in the application of knowledge, and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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", 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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

1. (a) is within the higher education sector, and
2. (b) has power by virtue of any enactment or instrument to change its name, and
3. (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, 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.

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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the establishment of a high education corporation or any institution in the higher education sector which is of a denominational character, or
2. (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
3. (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
4. (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.

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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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. 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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.
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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)—

1. (a) for "pupils" (where it first appears) there is substituted "persons", and
2. (b) in paragraph (c)—
   1. (i) for "pupils" (where it first appears) there is substituted "persons", and
   2. (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 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 moved Amendment No. 306: Page 82, line 4, at end insert: (".In section 124 (powers of a higher education corporation)—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 moved amendment No. 309:

Page 8 5, line 19, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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. "(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. (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 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 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. . 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 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 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 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 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.