Lords Sitting of 4 November 1997

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Baron Orme
The Right Honourable Stanley Orme, having been created Baron Orme, of Salford in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Murray of Epping Forest and the Lord Merlyn-Rees, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
Dame Joan Christabel Jill Knight DBE, having been created Baroness Knight of Collingtree, of Collingtree in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Young and the Lord Knights.

Baroness Pitkeathley
Mrs. Jill Elizabeth Pitkeathley, OBE, having been created Baroness Pitkeathley, of Caversham in the Royal County of Berkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Carter and the Baroness Flather.
Earl De La Wan—Took the Oath.
Lord Hemingford—Took the Oath.

Quarantine: Animal Welfare
2.50 p.m.
Lord Waddingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
When a pet dog, which has been vaccinated against rabies and is entering the United Kingdom from another country internationally recognised to be rabies-free, will no longer have to undergo quarantine.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 2nd October a scientific assessment of the current quarantine arrangements and alternatives to them. The assessment is to be carried out by an independent team and will be published. A full public consultation will then be held. Unless and until the law is changed following the assessment and consultation, the existing quarantine laws remain in place.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as the Government are not prepared to remove this cruel practice of
1314
quarantine, even in the case of vaccinated dogs coming from areas which are certified by the World Health Organisation as being rabies-free, will they at least ensure that in the meantime there is proper inspection of quarantine kennels and supervision of the vets who operate with those quarantine kennels? What on earth is the use of the Ministry of Agriculture issuing guidance to kennel owners telling them to inform pet owners if their pets are ill, if the kennels are so inefficient that they do not even know that a dog is dying in front of their very eyes so that it has to be put down within 48 hours of its release from its six-month sentence? It was my dog and in that sense I declare an interest.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, naturally, I was sorry about the death of Basil. However, the reports from our veterinary inspectors of the kennels do not entirely coincide with what the noble Lord implies. The veterinary inspectors inspected the dog on three occasions and found no signs of disease. The kennels in question are considered to be among the better ones. There have not been any complaints. The kennels were inspected last week and have been recommended for relicensing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there any enforcement procedure apart from mere recommendations of practice; and if so, who enforces it, what are the standards, and what are the sanctions?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the kennels operate under statutory standards in relation to the physical security of the animals and disease in order to ensure that any diseased animal does not mix with other animals. In terms of welfare, the statute does not apply, but the department has introduced a voluntary code of welfare applying welfare standards. Of the 79 kennels, 74 have accepted the welfare code. Two are still to reply.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is the noble Lord in touch with Sweden, which I understand has been extremely successful in reducing the period of quarantine that dogs have to undergo?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have not vet had any connection with Sweden. However, the department is in close contact with Sweden and is studying the Swedish reforms introduced in 1994. We shall assess the effectiveness of those reforms. The new independent scientific assessment committee will take into account all that has happened there.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, should not criticise him because attempts to get quarantine restrictions lifted during the period of the previous Government were totally unsuccessful, although I understand many attempts were made? Can my noble friend say whether, if the restrictions are lifted, consideration will be given to the introduction of a dog registration scheme? It will be necessary to register dogs

1315
that are brought into this country under such conditions; but would it not be rather odd to have a registration scheme for those dogs but not for others?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question and for what she has said. It is the case that in the previous 18 years nothing was done and that in five months we have introduced these proposals. My noble friend makes a helpful suggestion on the registration of dogs. I shall see that it is taken into account.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not the case that veterinary and scientific opinion no longer overwhelmingly believes that quarantine is necessary? The alternatives, which may involve a considerable expansion of the state veterinary system, would mean a great deal of public expenditure. Is that not the real problem?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, scientific standards have improved a little since this system was introduced in 1902. It is quite appropriate that we should look at the matter again from that point of view. The costs of any revised scheme will be borne by pet owners as they are under the existing scheme. I am sure that the vets will continue to do quite well out of it.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State is holding discussions with the European Commission and members of the EU with regard to the way forward in changing quarantine laws? Does he agree that in the future it will be a change in European law that will bring about a resolution of the problems over quarantine rather than a change to British law?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. Her intelligence and charm, which have already been demonstrated, will make a great contribution. She is spot on here. She has put her finger on the important question of the European attitude to this issue. The European Commission has already expressed considerable interest and appears to intend to have a European approach to pet imports. We are proceeding on our own basis and with our own scientific assessments. We shall have a public consultation after that; and, if need be, and if the results of the committee point that way, we shall introduce our own changes. It appears that this is likely to be wrapped up in the European changes, but we wait to see how that works out.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I welcome the independent scientific assessment announced by the Minister. But does he not agree that the Agriculture Select Committee in another place some three years ago recommended overwhelmingly that the quarantine laws should be reviewed? Does he not further agree that unless action is taken soon the chances of pets being smuggled over borders will become very much greater?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree that is a danger. We are aware of the 1994 Select Committee report and
1316
it will be borne in mind by our scientific committee. However, I should point out that the Select Committee's report was not solidly based on scientific advice, as our report will be.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what will be the timescale for this assessment?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, to some extent that is out of our hands in that the assessment will be carried out by an independent body. We hope that it will proceed rapidly; we assume that the matter will take a few months. We shall publish the independent body's report and there will then be public consultation. So it is unlikely there will be a result earlier than the second half of 1998. Whether that encompasses the holiday season for going abroad with pets remains to be seen.

European Union Budget
3.00 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the EU budget documents for 1998 were not deposited in the Library until 15th July.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the key volume of the 1998 Preliminary Draft Budget, Volume 4 on the Commission was deposited in Parliament on 18th June. This covers 98 per cent. of Community expenditure. Volume 1, which relates to revenue, and Volume 7, which covers the expenditure of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, were deposited in Parliament on 11th July. Copies were placed in the Library on the same day. It is necessary to deposit the different volumes as they are received. To do otherwise would unnecessarily hold up the proper scrutiny of the European Community budget. However, the Government recognise my noble friend's concern that Parliament should have enough time to scrutinise the budget and they are looking for ways to improve matters.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the latter part of his reply. Does he agree that it is a budget for the expenditure of a very considerable sum of money, of which the United Kingdom was due to bear out of the taxpayers' money some £3.4 billion during 1998? Does he further agree that when the budget documents eventually arrived there was no time for any scrutiny by Parliament and consequently the budget was confirmed in draft by the Council of Ministers, including our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 24th July, without the benefit of any observations of authority from either House of Parliament? Does the noble Lord agree that that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs which the people of the United Kingdom will expect the Government to deal with more satisfactorily in the future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has a valid argument. As regards the delays

1317
experienced so far, these are very substantial documents. Volume 4 itself runs to 1,154 pages, all of which have to be translated. That length is required by the treaty. All the volumes together amount to about 1,600 pages. As regards the timescale this year, I understand that the committees of both Houses were reconvened on 23rd July, which was only one day before the budget had to be adopted.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that whatever extension of time there may be, there will never be sufficient time for the budget to be looked at in any depth in this House? Does he therefore agree that it is worth considering the setting up of a committee such as the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, where this House could probe in some depth certain aspects of European expenditure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. There are committees of both Houses—the Scrutiny Committee in another place and the European Communities Committee in this House—which do that job, but perhaps not quite in the way that the noble Lord is suggesting. It is a valid point that that scrutiny of the European budget should continue throughout the year and not be concentrated on a few days or weeks in the summer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I find myself in the unique position of agreeing with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on a European Union matter. He is, of course, quite right. But is my noble friend the Minister aware that the matter goes much deeper because the committee, which I have the honour to chair and of which the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is a distinguished member, does not have anything like enough time? We have recently carried out investigations into the consequences of EMU whether we are in or out; we have also carried out investigations on structural funds, and we are in the middle of a further investigation on enlargement and its financial consequences. All that makes it quite impossible for the committee to look at the budget even if we received it very much earlier, as I and my noble friend would like. Is the Minister aware that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that we need a separate Select Committee to deal purely and simply with the budget? After all, it is going to grow with the growth of the single currency, whether we are in or out, and with enlargement. Therefore, will the Minister consult with the usual channels, wherever they are, to try to ensure that we have such a committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course my noble friend has the experience and the authority, and he also makes a very valid point. It is, however, a matter for the House and not for the Government. As I understand it, the Liaison Committee is meeting in two weeks' time and there is no reason at all why
1318
that matter should not be on the agenda for that committee and we should not seek to provide year-round scrutiny of the Community budget.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is not often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but on this matter we are in complete agreement and, more particularly, have been so for a very considerable length of time. Is the Minister aware how frequently this matter has been raised in previous years with very little discernible effect? We understand it is not a matter for the Government alone; it is clearly a matter for the European Community. Will the Minister undertake to press further in Brussels to get a better resolution of this very unsatisfactory situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we will and we do. If one looks at the programme for the budget, it starts in January and finishes at the end of December. If the formal programme were used, as laid down in the treaty, it would be much worse. In the hope that some noble Lord will ask what we intend to do to try to improve the situation, may I try to answer the question which has not quite been asked? Although propositions have not yet been put to Treasury Ministers, officials are looking at the possibility of improving the explanatory memorandum to explain what decisions the Council has already made—for example, the agriculture budget which is determined by the Agriculture Council. We are also looking for better communications with the Scrutiny Committee of both Houses of Parliament. We do not see why the overview volume, which could be very helpful, and which is supplied to the chairman of the European Communities Committee, should not be placed in the Library as well.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I suppose we ought to take these questions and answers seriously. Can my noble friend say whether the noble Lords who have spoken are really proposing to look at 1,500 pages, which amounts to about 15 centimetres in height for such documents, and that we actually commit ourselves to that kind of scrutiny? I used to take an interest in economic affairs, but it never occurred to me for one moment to start ploughing my way through these documents. I do not know of any other noble Lord, other than my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who was even aware of their existence. Are we now moving towards devoting our lives to such things or am I being cynical in assuming that this is all just talk?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Peston and I will abstain

1319
from doing so, but he is quite right in suggesting that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington really does read them all.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with respect, it is getting a little late.

Prescription Fraud
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any further measures to curb or eliminate fraud relating to prescription charges within the National Health Service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, in June the Government announced decisions to implement recommendations of the Efficiency Scrutiny on Prescription Fraud. These included developing proposals for a new criminal offence of evading payment of the prescription charge with a fixed penalty for non-payment and developing a business case for sending prescriptions by electronic data interchange, known as EDI. Further changes are being planned and will be announced shortly. On 17th October the Government also announced plans for a senior appointment of someone with specific responsibility for fraud. The so-called "fraudbuster" will lead a small team to intensify the Government's campaign against fraud in the family health services.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer will be welcomed by everyone who has the interests of our National Health Service at heart? I have had discussions with both appointed members of trusts and with doctors in the National Health Service who think that the repeat prescription formula is wide open to abuse. Will that problem fall within the remit of what my noble friend termed the new "fraudbuster?"
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the problem of trying to identify those who have legitimately asked for and been given prescriptions and of ascertaining whether the same person then presents the prescription is under consideration. One suggestion is that there should be computer markings on prescription forms which should tally with the patient's other records. That is being considered in the development of the computer processes which may be adopted.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am in possession of a certificate
1320
of prepayment of prescription charges issued by the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster family practitioners' committee? Is the Minister also aware that that committee does not send out reminders when one's prepaid prescription form is about to become out of date? Nor, so far as I know, does any other committee. It means that people, unlike myself, I hasten to add, could use the prescription form for another six months, thereby costing the National Health Service a lot of money. Will the Minister consider asking those who issue the cards to send out reminders?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a most helpful suggestion. It is precisely the lax operation of the prescription system in the past that has led to the extraordinary situation in which we now reckon that £100 million a year is being wasted through prescription fraud in the NHS. As the noble Lord suggests, it is clearly not conscious fraud. But we shall need to look into such lax practices.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say how much of the £100 million fraud is perpetrated by patients and how much by doctors and pharmacists who appear to be in league with each other?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure that I necessarily support that last remark of the noble Countess. There are difficulties in establishing precisely the outcome of patient fraud and distinguishing that from the fraud which occurs because individual pharmacists may not be fulfilling their professional duty. As I understand it, the best estimate is that about £70 million of the 00A3100 million to which I referred is fraud by patients.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the Minister consider, if she has not already done so, the point that when a patient passes on he often leaves behind cupboards full of expensive medicines? Is anything done to reclaim those medicines if, indeed, they could be used?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a helpful point. The noble Baroness may be aware that one of the changes that we made during the summer was to restrict the sales pack size of, for example, paracetamol drugs. That was intended primarily as a safety measure, but we also thought that if people had fewer drugs in their cupboards they might be used more effectively.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister said that the total of prescription-related losses is estimated at£100 million a year. What proportion of that total do the Government realistically hope to recoup in the next financial year—that is, in 1998–99?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that question is still open because the speed with which we can implement some of the changes that I mentioned in my Answer will affect the final outcome. In the announcement which my right honourable friend the

1321
Secretary of State for Health made in another place about the additional money for the NHS which has been agreed between the Treasury and the Department of Health, he mentioned that £30 million of it would come from efficiency savings. We hope that a large proportion of that will come from changes relating to prescription practices.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a national identity card would help in this instance?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question, but the problem of trying to identify prescription possession with individual patients by some form of computerised system is, as I said, being considered.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, has not the new idea of issuing repeat prescription forms increased the danger of the misuse of prescriptions unless people can be identified by something such as a national identity card or the use of their national insurance number?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is precisely the point. We are trying to identify more closely the person who is issued with the prescription and the person who receives it. The problem arises not so much with repeat prescriptions where someone genuinely receives that prescription but where people seek to evade the charges on their first or second prescription, or whatever.

Counselling
3.14 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce regulations for the new profession of "counselling", to include registration and requirements for training and standards of proficiency.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have no plans to introduce statutory registration. We believe that the existing mechanisms for voluntary registration and the regulation of professional practice are sufficient to ensure that the public and employers can know who is trained for work in this field and who is not. However, we continue to work actively with the professional bodies concerned and with health service staff to maintain and develop mechanisms for registration and regulation which are in the public interest.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Excluding counselling prescribed by the medical profession, can anyone put up a notice and offer counselling without any qualifications or any form of licence? Is the Minister aware that
1322
inexperienced counsellors, although often well meaning, have sometimes created more stress than was present in the first place?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord's last point may be correct where inexperienced persons offer counselling. It is true that in the private sector anybody can, as the noble Lord said, put up a sign and offer their services. However, in the NHS, employers and those medical or other practitioners who refer people to counsellors, clinical psychologists or psychotherapists must ensure that the person to whom they refer the patient is qualified. Individuals could approach one of the professional bodies which regulate in this field. Two professional bodies which offer the registration of counsellors are the British Association for Counselling and the British Psychological Society.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is often confusion about the distinction between on the one hand a psychiatrist, who is a medically qualified individual concerned with the treatment of disorders of the mind, and, on the other hand, the graduate psychologist, who is concerned more with examining mental processes? In the specialty of psychology, there are those who receive postgraduate training in counselling and there are those who receive it in educational psychology and clinical psychology. Is it not therefore right that, as the British Psychological Society would wish, the profession of psychology should soon be subject to statutory registration and regulation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clear explanation of the confusion of titles in this area. Representatives of the British Psychological Society recently met my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Boateng, who has ministerial responsibility in this area, and he took the view that the case for registration was persuasive. However, given the very full parliamentary timetable, he thought that it was unlikely that time would be found to take the matter forward into legislation in the near future. I understand that he assured the society's representatives that officials will continue to work with the society to ensure that the existing systems of regulation and promotion are maintained.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the services offered by the people from Cruse, which offers bereavement counselling, are well appreciated all over the country?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. It is sometimes easy to ridicule some aspects of counselling, but I am sure that we all know of people who have been greatly helped by supportive contact with professionals or in the more formal psychotherapy setting which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, described
Lord Annan: My Lords, is there not a danger of over-bureaucratisation in this matter? We already have

1323
large numbers of quangos; do we want to add yet another? Is it not true that over-registration could create a situation where if I tried to comfort a widower who had recently lost his wife and my comfort unfortunately resembled that of Job and the widower committed suicide, I might then be prosecuted because I do not have a diploma in counselling?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has indicated precisely the difficulty of establishing a professional watershed in this field. As I said in response to the previous Question, this is an easy area to over-bureaucratise or to ridicule. But the point with which the British Association for Counselling is concerned is the registration of individual professionals practising in this field, which is slightly different from setting up another quango.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister accept congratulations for resisting any temptation to regulate the torrent which exists?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the torrent is fairly free-flowing as it is. When I asked for advice in this matter, I was informed that there were 17 national bodies representing people working in this field. One can understand the difficulties of trying to regulate that situation, even if one wished to.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that counselling is not a new profession? I trained as a counsellor at the Tavistock Centre 20 years ago. I am disappointed. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that this is not a flash in the pan or something that has suddenly appeared. Newspapers have begun to talk about counselling. Counsellors have been working successfully in very difficult circumstances. I speak as a vice-president of the British Association for Counselling. Will the Minister make it clear that that body has a registration scheme and anyone who is in doubt can turn to it and ensure that he or she gets a trained and properly accredited person? That body accredits people all the time.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving an authoritative account of the development of this particular skill. As I hope I made clear in an earlier response, the British Association for Counselling and the other very important national body, the British Psychological Society, maintain registers to which people can apply.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.21 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Mayhew of Twysden be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Kingsland. —(The
Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Contracts) Bill
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.;(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Bowness: My Lords, we on this side of the House supported the aims of the Bill; namely, to clarify and remove doubt about the powers of local authorities to enter into private finance initiatives and partnership deals. We had concerns about some aspects, particularly the circumstances in which discharge terms might be challenged. But that matter was debated fully in Committee. I believe that distinguished legal opinion in your Lordships' House did not altogether share my concerns. I hope that that proves to be correct.
I thank the Minister for her detailed explanations of the provisions and the amendments introduced by the Government at Committee stage. We on this side of the House hope that the Bill succeeds in its aims, as private finance initiatives and partnerships are vitally important to local government. They are matters which the Conservative administration and the Conservative Benches support.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, who has been involved in the discussions on this Bill, for the fact that she is not able to be present this afternoon. We support the Bill and its central objectives. We look forward to the Government dealing rather more boldly with the issue of local government powers. This Bill aims to provide reassurance to the private sector which is involved in the private finance initiative. We hope that the Government will be sufficiently bold to address the wider issue of local government powers in accordance with the spirit of the European Charter of Local Self Government. We congratulate the Government upon having signed that charter. We hope that the Government recognise the merits of local government having powers of general competence—in computerspeak, that its default mode is full power unless specifically limited by statute, rather than the other way round.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed for their support. This

1325
is a non-contentious but quite technically challenging Bill. I was most grateful for the courteous and extremely patient way in which your Lordships dealt with the Bill throughout all its stages, particularly the way in which noble Lords considered a large number of government amendments. Those amendments reflect the Government's response to suggestions from experienced practitioners and legal experts as well as issues raised in another place.
I was grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for their constructive approach. Their questions provided me with the opportunity to clarify the purpose and effect of the Bill. I should also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and my noble friend Lord Mishcon for their expertise at Committee stage. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has admitted, that had a helpful effect in maintaining the Government's position.
The Bill was introduced in response to demands from the private sector for the Government to clear up uncertainties about local authority powers to enter into partnership contracts. I am confident that the Bill as it now stands will satisfy those demands. I am grateful for noble Lords' patience in dealing with the large number of government amendments tabled in this House. I am sure that local authorities and their private sector partners who wish to do business together will also be grateful for the care that has been taken to ensure that this Bill meets its purpose.
As to the wider question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I hope that he will not be disappointed by the Government's performance in this field. This is a small measure but it is a token of the way in which the Government wish to work effectively with local government in future. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Plant Varieties Bill
3.27 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 48 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 20, line 9, at end insert—
("() Before making any regulations or order under this Act, the Ministers shall consult such organisations as appear to them to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by the regulations or order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 requires Ministers to consult organisations that represent persons who are likely to be substantially affected before making regulations or orders. The Plant Varieties Registration Office (PVRO) always consults widely on all proposals for secondary
1326
legislation before submitting them to Ministers. This amendment will therefore not affect existing practice in any way. The Government have no difficulty in making this practice a legal requirement.
At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, tabled an amendment which would have required consultation with bodies representing plant breeders, farmers and growers. Although we welcomed the amendment in principle, I pointed out that the amendment was not sufficiently wide to encompass all interests. I therefore undertook to table a government amendment at Report stage. This amendment discharges that obligation. It requires Ministers to consult organisations representing those who are likely to be substantially affected before making orders and regulations under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendment. It meets the objective that I hoped to achieve in the amendment I tabled at Committee stage. His wording is perhaps more felicitous than mine. I had not intended to exclude from consultation any relevant party. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("() In section 2(4) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted—
"(h) the Plant Varieties Act 1997;".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3. These two amendments correct some drafting omissions. Section 2(4) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 provides that any description or mark applied in pursuance of Acts of Parliament listed in it is deemed not to be a trade description. The Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 is listed. The first amendment adds the Plant Varieties Act 1997 to that list so that the variety names continue to be deemed not to be trade descriptions.
Amendment No. 3 repeals redundant wording in the Resale Prices Act 1976. Currently, that Act refers to protective directions under the 1964 Act. The Bill does not provide for protective directions, and this wording will therefore become redundant once the Bill comes into force. The amendments have no practical effect other than to keep the statute book tidy, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is a thoroughly worthy objective. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that it is an admirable objective to keep the statute book tidy. However, how are we to know that the Bill will become an Act in 1997 rather than in 1998?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not have the Bill in front of me; therefore I am not sure of its

1327
commencement date. The Bill enters the statute book and becomes law next week when we have the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 29, line 12, at end insert—

("1976 c. 53.

The Resale Prices Act 1976

In section 10(4)(b), the words from "or" to the end.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1997/1790), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I look forward with eager anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It is a challenging assignment to make a non-controversial maiden speech on this subject, but the noble Lord is an experienced parliamentarian even if as yet only in one House. We look forward to his continuing experience in this House. Whether it is impossible or not, I am sure that he will succeed.
The regulations against which I pray cut benefits for lone parents. Lone parents are easily stereotyped, as I am sure the Minister agrees; indeed, I have heard her say so. In thinking of that point, I was moved to remember a moment in my life which I would normally prefer to forget. It is of sitting through a very long afternoon in the wing of a maternity hospital waiting to find out whether I had become not merely a parent but a lone parent.
Fortunately, that period did not last long enough for me to need to take any decisions, but it did last long enough for me to contemplate some of the choices. They are not particularly easy. Had I decided that it was my duty to give up one responsible job in order to undertake another and become a full-time parent it would, of course, have been a wrench. Had I then been told that I was a scrounger, a sufferer from welfare dependency and an exploiter of taxpayers, I might well have replied, like the former President Nixon, in words from which the expletives would have had to be deleted. But as it is, now that the Conservative Party has had such a welcome conversion to the cause of compassion for single parents, I hope that I need not develop that point further.
The regulations abolish the single parent premium; that is, the extra payment for the specific expense of being a single parent. It was formerly paid with income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Because of the inclusion of housing benefit and council tax benefit, they apply to those in work as well as those out of work. The average loss for those in work ranges from l£10.40 a week to £6.05 a week. The loss for those on income support is £4.95 a week.
In the words of the Department of Social Security, the aim of the regulations is "more even-handed treatment" for couple parents and for single parents. The Social Security Advisory Committee stated that it ends the tradition of special support for single parents which goes back to the Finer Committee. The Social Security Advisory Committee has understated its case; it should have said that it ends a tradition that goes back to the book of Exodus.
I believe that the regulations will worsen hardship in an area where it is already particularly severe. They cause considerable concern to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which advised that they should not be proceeded with until there had been further research on the costs, income and expenditure of lone parents. The department dismissed that argument, saying that all evidence remained inconclusive.
The research for which the Social Security Advisory Committee asked appeared within a few days of its report. It was published by the Rowntree Trust and was entitled Small Fortunes by Sue Middleton and others. That established the interesting point that when we three debated that issue in the past we were all barking up the wrong tree. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, clearly remembers a good many exchanges about whether special costs are attached to being a single parent. I continue to believe that the answer to that question is yes. The problem of fox, goose and cabbage is an old one, but, because it depends on exceptional circumstances, it is in its nature difficult to prove.
The Small Fortunes Rowntree research has left that argument on one side. It shows that the child premium on income support is a good deal less than the cost of bringing up children. It states that on average the premium is about 70 per cent. of the cost. Therefore, all children need to be subsidised out of their parents' income support. Where there are two parents there are two to share the subsidy. Where there is only one parent inevitably in practice the parental subsidy is twice as big. Inevitably there will more poverty among lone parents than among couple parents.
Since then, two further pieces of research have appeared and both are worth mentioning. One is by Alex Bryson and others, published by the Policy Studies Institute. It found that income support appeared inadequate to maintain stable family living standards where the head of the household was a lone mother. That is a strong finding and it should have been known to the DSS since the research in which it was included was funded by the DSS.
The other piece of research was published by the Office for National Statistics and entitled Social Focus on Families. It found that between 1981 and 1991 the proportion of single parents at below half average income had increased from 13 per cent. to 52 per cent. That is a fourfold increase in 10 years. That finding does not suggest to me that if we lack a level playing field it is tilted in favour of single parents. Indeed, it suggests the reverse. It seems to me that there is considerable hardship among lone parents and if these regulations go ahead it will become significantly worse.
The Government's answer is set out in the Secretary of State's speech to NCH's "Action for Children" on 22nd October. That speech was as good as the Treasury allowed it to be. Lest that sounds like the 18th century tourist who said that Switzerland was a very nice country except for the mountains, I will say that since 1st May my opinion of the Secretary of State has consistently gone up and my opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently gone down. That is an unambiguous statement. The Secretary of State said:
"Work is the best form of welfare for people of working age and this Government have already taken action to get lone mothers off welfare and into work, where they want to be".
The Minister knows that I shall not argue about the conceptual framework of that argument. She has certainly heard me develop it many times before, most recently on 3rd June. But what the Secretary of State said needs qualification. She said that lone mothers should be,
"into work, where they want to be".
"They" in fact means 80 per cent. of single parents. The other 20 per cent. are not insignificant because the right of a parent to remain at home with the children is fundamental. I do not wish to see that challenged or threatened.
Also, we must remember the finding of the Policy Studies Institute that those parents who suffer severe hardship while at home with their children are less likely to obtain work later on. That is a credible finding. Malnutrition is not an assistance to the exhausting task of actively seeking work.
There will also be a number who, although they want to work, will not succeed in doing so, some of them for transport reasons. The ONS research Social Focus on Families found that 51 per cent. of lone parents have no access to a car as against 10 per cent. of married couples who have no access to a car. In many areas, not all of them rural, no access to a car means no opportunity to work. In some cases, there will be no job and in some cases there will be no childcare. More generally, I believe that the Minister will agree that no policy brought into effect by any government, however competent, has ever been 100 per cent. effective.
Therefore, I am not happy with a policy which helps to get single mothers back to work, however good that objective may be, if that is done at the price of starving the remainder. If the Minister invokes, as I think she must and probably will, this Government's adherence to their predecessors' spending limits, I shall ask her to tell me and the whole House why the Government have decided to adhere to their predecessors' spending limits because, of course, that was a pledge that Mr. Kenneth Clarke, who is a prudent man on occasions, never gave. Why his successor felt the need to do so is something which I should like to have explained to me.
At this stage I say nothing about the arguments for and against voting on the Motion. I do not like to take final decisions on a vote before I have heard the Minister's reply. For the moment, I shall mention only the Resolution of this House on 20th October 1994 that this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on subordinate legislation.
I shall leave the House with one or two statistics from the Rowntree Report. First, 63 per cent. of the income support allowance for children of single parents goes on food. That research measured poverty by a list of indicators and classed as severely poor those who were without five of them. The department argues that the use of indicators measures tastes and not needs. But many of those indicators, such as meals, a warm coat or single use of a bed, I do not count to be a matter of taste; I would regard them as a matter of need. I do not think that there will be much disagreement about that.
It was found that 13 per cent. of children over the age of 10 share a bedroom with a sibling of the opposite sex. Children of single parents who are not working are 7½times more likely to lack five of those basic necessities than children with two parents who are both not working. That is a remarkably precise quantification of the extra hardship in single parent families. All of those who lacked all three food items were in single parent families and of those who were without one of the three food items, 24 per cent. were in families of single parents with no work and 25 per cent.—the larger number—in families of single parents who had part-time work.
Work is not by itself a wholly adequate answer, however welcome it may be. I shall leave the House with a quotation from the Prime Minister's party conference speech. The Prime Minister said:
"Children should not have to go hungry to school".
We agree with the Prime Minister's aspiration, and therefore we do not agree with these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1997/1790), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled—.(Earl Russell.)
3.46 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Guinness Book of Records has no reference to the fastest time taken for a Member of your Lordships' House to proceed from being introduced to making a maiden speech on the Opposition Front Bench. But since it is barely 24 hours since I had the great privilege of entering your Lordships' House, noble Lords will understand that I feel a little intimidated this afternoon, even though I find opposite me at least two faces I have encountered on more Finance Bills than any of us would probably wish to recall.
I trust that the House will be kind and indulge me as a maiden speaker. I have always taken the view that it is right that a maiden speaker should seek to be uncontroversial and brief. Having said that, I thought it appropriate to carry out some research before engaging in today's debate. One thing emerges very clearly; namely, that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is assiduous in proposing Motions of this kind regarding statutory instruments and is immensely expert in the area we are discussing. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the extremely generous remarks with which he began his speech.

1331
The fact is that, more and more in legislation, the details and even large chunks of the proposal are embodied in statutory instruments but less and less is given adequate scrutiny either in this House or the other place. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we should have this opportunity and I am grateful to the noble Earl for providing it.
The quick research I was able to carry out also reveals that the regulations which we are discussing appear to be, so far as I can ascertain, in every respect similar to those which the previous government were likely to introduce. Therefore, I do not recommend my noble friends—although it seems presumptuous of me at this stage—to vote against the regulations. The arguments previously put forward remain valid and appropriate, although I shall comment in a few moments about the point made by the noble Earl as regards the influence of the Treasury.
However, I have discovered that the arguments put forward by the opposition previously seem somewhat inconsistent, if I may say so, with the regulations now before us. The Library, to which I am very grateful, provided me with a large number of quotations from the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate. It would be inappropriate, in a non-controversial speech, to refer to them extensively. Perhaps, on Second Reading of another Bill, there may be that opportunity.
The essence of the noble Baroness's argument, which she has put consistently, was that the benefits we are discussing today, which the Government are—I was going to say proposing to reduce but, more accurately—proposing to eliminate, are extremely valuable in as much as the recipients find that they are not means-tested and therefore, if moving from welfare to work, retain them. I believe that that was the essence of the Minister's argument, repeated in a number of speeches. As the essence of the Government's case now is to have a system which operates from welfare to work it would seem entirely appropriate that the noble Baroness should have pursued those arguments rather than do what appears to be a clear "U" turn. It is possible that I have misunderstood the point, but it seems to me to be one of very considerable importance.
Similarly, so far as concerns the noble Earl's point, it is true that the Government have said that they will remain within the limits of public expenditure specified by the previous government. However, if I am correct—and I believe that I am—the noble Baroness objected to the measure that she now proposes when she was well aware that that restraint had already been put forward by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was in opposition.
I should like to pose a few specific questions for the Minister. On the back of the regulations that she has signed an "Explanatory Note", says:
"These Regulations do not impose a charge on business".
However, it is surprising that there is no mention of the likely effect on public expenditure. Can the Minister clarify for the benefit of the House and myself what the effect of the measure is likely to be as regards public expenditure? I well understand that that will require an
1332
estimate. The regulations are not retrospective; indeed, they are concerned with the situation in the future. However, it would seem that the effect of the regulations, together with the related clause in the new Social Security Bill in another place, will be well over £250 million. That is not a small amount of money. Therefore, can the Minister say what the Government's estimate is of the actual savings in public money which will result from the measure? In particular, can the Minister say whether or not that is greater than the amount of money—I believe some £200 million—which it is said she has obtained from the Treasury as a result of the windfall tax? I believe that noble Lords would be interested to know.
I have a further point to make. It relates to the extremely helpful report from the Social Security Advisory Committee which was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State for Social Security. He received a reply; the election intervened; and the Government have now published the report together with their comments. As the noble Earl pointed out, the committee made some remarkably modest proposals both with regard to the provision of greater data upon which we could base decisions in such matters and a very modest proposal to help with transitional arrangements. However, both proposals have been rejected by the Government. Indeed, they reject both proposals, then thank the committee for its advice. Therefore, despite the fact that something like 60 organisations and individuals were consulted, the Government have not felt able to accept these reasonably modest proposals. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us why.
I should like to make one final and perhaps rather broader point. The Government are engaged in a great many studies concerning the welfare state. I must confess that I have somewhat lost count of them. I believe that there are between seven and 11 of them, depending on whether one is concerned with those of the Department of Social Security or those which also involve the Treasury. I am sure that we all look forward with great interest to studying all of them, not least one which I see is related to a tax credit scheme which, had we not lost the election in 1974, we would have introduced. Alas, the incoming Labour government did not implement it.
From my personal point of view, and as I am conscious of the responsibilities which fall upon me in my new role, perhaps I may point out that many years ago I had the privilege of studying economics at Cambridge and of working in the Marshall Library. Marshall was, I suppose, one of the greatest economists who ever lived. I am glad to see that at least I carry the noble Baroness with me in that respect. It is said that Marshall used to work in the library with a portrait of a poor man in front of him so that, however mathematical his calculations, he would, at the same time, have in the forefront of his mind the effect that they might have in benefiting those who were impoverished, be they lone parents or whatever. That is something I learnt at that time.

1333
I know that the noble Earl and the Minister are very concerned with the analytical side of such matters. It is tremendously important that we should go in great depth into what are at times very complex matters to ensure that we get the right answers. As the results of reviews come back to us and we consider them, I hope that I shall be able to play some small role in analysing such problems so that the whole House will manage to improve the lot of those whom we seek to help.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience and kindness in hearing me this afternoon. As I said, we are discussing a difficult issue and one which we clearly need to return to when we come to discuss the Social Security Bill on its arrival from another place. However, on this occasion, perhaps I may express the hope that we are able to improve matters. I look forward very much to hearing the answers that I hope I will receive from the Minister.
3.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, my first pleasure is to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to the Opposition Front Bench. He brings to the task of official Opposition spokesperson for social security his vast experience in the Treasury as a Minister and then of course as chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and on the Civil Service. That experience will not only enrich proceedings but will, I am sure, continue to stretch the acumen and experience of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and certainly myself on this Front Bench, as the experience of his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, always did. So the House is indeed enriched. I believe the evidence for that is to be found in the contribution that the noble Lord made this afternoon. I think that the noble Lord was perhaps helped in being less controversial than he might otherwise have felt the need to be given the fact that, as he noticed himself, this is a hangover measure. Therefore, to that extent, it took the noble Lord away from that embarrassment, although he would like to think that it has now shifted to me. Perhaps I may address that point at a later stage.
I should like to respond to this Prayer against the regulations by first putting the measures in context. The Government's objectives for the social security system are clear. We believe—and I doubt whether there is any dissent in the House—that work is the best and most independent form of welfare. It raises the living standards of families and is the best route out of a dependency on benefit. In addition, a working parent provides a positive role model for future generations as their children see that work brings not only financial benefits but satisfaction, fulfilment and self-respect.
More than that, a recent research study suggests that children of working lone mothers are more likely to get a job; that their daughters are more likely to do well at school; and that the daughters are themselves less likely to become lone mothers. In other words, work breaks some of that inheritance of deprivation. The Government believe that a life on benefit, at whatever level, cannot satisfy the aspirations of lone mothers to
1334
provide the best possible life for their children; nor can the example of that way of life be a healthy one for children. We know—and I am sure that no one disputes this fact—that lone parents themselves want to achieve independence and to regain personal control over their lives. Our policies are on the side of what they themselves wish and want to do as they tell us.
For too long the welfare state has excluded lone parents from the rest of society, writing them off to a life of dependence on benefit and ignoring both their aspirations and responsibilities. We start with a policy of social inclusion because we believe that lone parents should have the same opportunities as everyone else to take up work or training and to improve their standard of living. Independent research suggests that the average additional income for lone parents who are in work and supported by family credit is over £50 a week above the estimate of their out-of-work incomes. Promoting social inclusion benefits all of society.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, but I wish to seek a point of clarification. As regards the figure of £50 a week better off, is that before or after childcare?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is before childcare, and that is precisely why in the previous Budget and the statements of the Chancellor we have always supported the childcare disregard which ensures that the cost of childcare does not negate family credit.
As I say, we know that lone parents want to be included in society. We know that promoting social inclusion benefits the whole of society. The Government inherited a society which over the past 18 years has seen dramatic increases in the gap between rich and poor. Some 20 per cent. of households of families of working age have no one in work; a quarter of all children in Britain now live in families where no one has a job; 1 million out-of-work lone mothers bring up 2 million children on income support; and expenditure on lone parents on income support costs £8 billion a year. Although 20 per cent. of families are headed by a lone parent, and 90 per cent. of lone parents want to work, up until now there has been no recognition that the best way to improve the living standards of those families is through work and there has been little on offer to help them.
Our priority for lone parents is to help them achieve what they themselves want; namely, an increased standard of living for their families and increased personal independence through work. We are turning those words into action. The key to helping lone parents into work and improving their income is practical help with job search, with finding the right childcare, with building confidence and motivation and with developing skills. We are already addressing those issues. The first phase of the New Deal for Lone Parents was launched in July this year. This is a joint initiative by the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to provide support for lone parents in moving from welfare to work. It offers the option of using an individual caseworker to provide advice and guidance, and a package of help, including job search, training and after-school childcare.

1335
We are seeking innovative solutions to the problems lone parents face. For example, in Cambridge and Peterborough kiosks are available that allow touch screen access to update information about jobs, childcare and training via the Internet. I have attended interviews between caseworkers and lone parents. I have seen the change of mindset that occurs as the interview progresses, as the options become open and possible and as the active support of that caseworker is available to help the lone parent with the interview, with finding childcare while the interview is in progress and with obtaining the information that the lone parent needs. I have seen that process transform people's lives. We shall extend that facility to 20 more of the first phase offices by early 1998. Early results from the New Deal are encouraging, although there is as yet insufficient data to draw firm conclusions. A report of the first three months of the programme was published on 23rd October. This showed that over 2,000 lone parents have already had an initial interview, four in five are taking part in the programme and are working with their advisers to find employment and a quarter have already found work.
One crucial area—which was referred to earlier—where lone parents need support is in ensuring that childcare is available and affordable. Access to high quality, affordable and accessible childcare is essential to help families, and above all lone parents, to balance the demands of family and working life. The National Childcare Strategy, which we promised in our manifesto and which we are delivering, will ensure that provision of childcare is planned to meet the needs of parents. The Government will announce the details shortly but we have already made a number of commitments. We are committed to providing a nursery place for every four year-old in Britain. Midweek lottery money is available for homework centres, with up to half the places containing an element of childcare. We have already announced improvements to the childcare disregard. From June 1998 we shall extend help with childcare charges in family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit to ensure that greater financial help is available for families with more than one child. We shall also extend help to families with older children. As a result, families will be able to receive help up to a maximum of £95.50 a week towards the cost of childcare.
While the support is available to all families who meet the qualifying conditions, I am sure that we all recognise, as the noble Earl has stressed, the particular benefit these measures will have in supporting lone parent families, given their particular needs. The receipt of regular child maintenance is also a key part of our strategy for helping lone mothers into work. Maintenance is a portable income which lone mothers keep when they start work and they need to know that the Child Support Agency will take every action to ensure that it is paid. We are therefore reviewing all aspects of the operations of the CSA to ensure that it provides a fair, efficient and effective service. I am taking part in that review. We are determined to ensure that cases are processed faster, backlogs are cleared,
1336
non-resident fathers who pay irregularly are helped to pay regularly and non-resident fathers who avoid paying altogether are chased. We have also allocated an additional £15 million to the agency from April 1998 to be used specifically to get more non-resident fathers to pay the maintenance they owe. They must recognise that they have a responsibility for that maintenance. Lone mothers, and the children they care for, have a right to receive that money which can help them get back into work, to become more independent and to improve their standard of living.
Why are we implementing this measure? I have taken some time to set out our priorities for lone parents. We are promoting work as the best means of supporting family life. We are also promoting policies of social inclusion to fulfil the aspirations of lone parents who for too long have been marginalised and have been excluded from prosperity, from work and from the wider personal and social benefits that independence, an improved standard of living and increased self-esteem can bring. We are delivering the practical support which lone parents need to overcome the real barriers they can face in re-entering the world of work. The measure we are debating today is one of a number of measures we inherited from the previous government which had not been implemented but were already included in our expenditure plans. We are committed to live within those expenditure plans, but staying within expenditure limits involves tough decisions. That is the context in which these measures must be viewed.
We have set out our priorities which we believe constitute the only way to offer lone families genuine and sustainable improvements in their standard of living and their standard of life. As I have said, we have a commitment to live with expenditure limits. It was against that background that the decisions to carry forward these measures—already scored by the previous government—were made. I should make it clear, before addressing the points raised by the two speakers in this debate, that all existing lone parents in receipt of the higher rate of premium will continue to receive it as long as they continue to satisfy the entitlement conditions. No lone parent will suffer a cash loss at the point of change.
In the course of his opening speech the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made, I believe, two main points. If I have overlooked any others I shall, of course, write to him. The first point he made was that in the past I, like him, have resisted the stereotyping of lone parents. I go further and say that, like him, I resisted the stigmatising of lone parents. I do not think that anyone in this House would disagree that the most worthwhile job that any parents can do—whether they are lone parents or are part of a couple—is to bring up their children well and successfully. However, to do that—this was the point of my rather long introduction—most lone parents will want also to work. They will wish to do so for the money certainly and certainly for the benefit of the children, but also to fulfil their own sense of gregariousness, sociability and self-esteem. That is what they tell us they want and that is what we want to offer them.

1337
The second point made by the noble Earl—I do not think that he and I disagree on it—was the reliance on research and the suggestion by the Social Security Advisory Committee that further research should be conducted to see whether a definitive answer can be reached on whether lone parents should receive only the same financial support as couples, which is the effect of the proposal. I have looked at a lot of the research. I find that it is not all that easy to draw firm conclusions from it. Given the difficulties that all researchers face, there is research that supports the retention of a premium for lone parents, as the noble Earl mentioned. Work by Middleton, Ashworth and Braithwaite, referred to in Small Fortunes, suggests that lone parent families are more deprived than couple families. Yet against that, research by Oldfield and Yu, contained in The Cost of a Child, and by Bradshaw, in Household Budgets and Living Standards, found that lone parent families were relatively less disadvantaged on income support than couple families.
Other research is open to different interpretations. Work by Dickens, Fry and Pashardes, The Costs of Children and the Welfare State, last year shows that lone parents are under-compensated by the benefit welfare system in relation to some family types but over-compensated in relation to others. I have read the research to assure myself of what I am saying.
What is clear is that the research does not produce the conclusive evidence that a lone parent family requires greater financial support than a couple family, partly, I suspect, because, as the noble Earl said and as I have argued, to some extent we seek to compare qualitative and quantitative issues. What lone parents do not have is the qualitative support and shared time and labour of a second adult in the household. In some senses one seeks to set that against the quantitative, somewhat lower overall levels of benefit arising from income support which supports one adult rather than two. I think that the jury is out. However, from the work that I have seen, I am not sure that further research can give us a clear-cut answer.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in an immaculate, polished, informed and incisive maiden speech. He made two points. The second was a series of questions about the effect on public expenditure. The first was whether on these Benches we have done a U-turn. If I may, I shall take them in reverse order.
I refer to the effects on public expenditure and savings. The scored savings for the withdrawal of lone parent premium for new lone parents is £55 million the first year, £125 million the second and £170 million the third. If in addition one adds in—the noble Lord referred to this benefit; it is not the subject of these regulations but will come up through the social security Bill—one-parent benefit, there are additional savings of £5 million, then £15 million, then £25 million. In total over three years we expect to see £400 million in savings from reducing lone parent benefits to the level of that enjoyed by couples. Two hundred million pounds of expenditure funded from the windfall tax will go into the new deal. That is the balance of the equation.
1338
The noble Lord's second point was that in Opposition we opposed these and similar cuts in benefit. In Opposition we certainly opposed any situation which worsened the position of lone parents and where there was no way for lone parents to take their path out of poverty. The difference between being in Opposition and in Government is that we have had the opportunity, as I sought to spell out earlier, of developing a new deal for lone parents, a childcare strategy for lone parents and, in due course, a minimum wage for lone parents. Those three developments were not proposed or supported by the party opposite. Members opposite fought fiercely the minimum wage. All those developments will directly benefit lone parents as they move into work.
It is within the context of a new deal, of a childcare strategy and in due course of a minimum wage that we feel that this is the right way forward for the future. Had Members opposite when in Government produced those proposals, we should have been able to explore them on their merits. They chose not to do so. We now have the opportunity to promote them and put them forward.
Finally, before I finish, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another issue which is perhaps even more important than the measures that I have outlined; that is, the constitutional implications if the House votes on these regulations this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he was not sure whether he proposed to push the matter to a vote. However, I wish to remind the House of this. It is essential that we accept the convention of this House—it has been long observed—that we do not vote against statutory instruments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, there was an express resolution of this House negativing the proposition that the noble Baroness has just enunciated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the House made a distinction between the unfettered paper right, if I may so put it, of this House to exercise its powers in the same way as the elected House: that an unelected, largely hereditary House has the right on paper to overturn an elected House. But we also said that we thought it wise that this House should respect a self-denying ordinance, which it has respected over the past 15 years, and should not exercise that right to thwart the will of an elected House.
We made a distinction between the conventions that this House observes, by which this House runs, which we ask the House to continue to accept, and its theoretical rights, which are wisely in abeyance.
Perhaps I may wind up. We believe that if the issue were pressed to the vote and your Lordships were minded to reject the measure, it would mean that whatever the elected House did would be irrelevant because the instrument could not proceed. Unlike an amendment to a Bill, the Commons could not reject and overturn a decision by your Lordships' House. In the colloquial phrase, there could be no ping-pong. I accept that on paper we may have the unfettered right, but if we did so we should create a situation where the view

1339
of this unelected and largely hereditary Chamber would prevail over the elected Chamber. Whatever the elected Chamber wished to do, it could not because we had thwarted it. The effect would be to force the withdrawal of the regulations.
The House of Commons will not debate the regulations until 12th November. We do not believe that it is right to deny the other House the right to determine the outcome of these regulations. This reflects our consistent position in Opposition when we always abstained on such matters.
As far as I understand, the last time the House of Lords annulled regulations was in the late 1970s—naturally it was against a Labour Government—on issues of town planning and national parks. On several occasions since then I have been in this House when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has led the Liberal Democrats, or the Cross-Benchers have been moved, to annul regulations. Often I have supported their policies but never felt it right to seek to veto the Commons.
Your Lordships will recall that on local government reform in Cleveland in January 1995, or in Berkshire in July 1996, we on these Benches made it clear that, although we were deeply hostile to the Government's handling of some of those issues, we would not vote to overturn a regulation. Even when we debated housing benefit changes in May 1996 we made it clear that we would not vote against a statutory instrument. Similarly in July 1996, when the noble Earl brought forward a Prayer to annul the child benefit regulations, we on these Benches refused to overturn the convention, the self-denying ordinance of this House, by joining him in the Lobby. We amend, we revise, we debate but, I suggest to your Lordships, we do not thwart irrevocably. It is a long established self-denying ordinance which I ask the House to respect tonight. Therefore I ask the House to agree these regulations.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I say anything else, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on a distinguished and extremely skilful maiden speech. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on proving me right, not once, but twice. I said that his task was impossible, and that he would pull it off. He did, and I am lost in admiration at the skill with which the job was done. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord in this House many times in future, and to hearing that skill deployed with a much greater freedom than he was able to enjoy today. It will be a pleasure for us all.
To turn immediately to the noble Baroness's remarks about constitutional conventions, first, the practice of voting on Prayers is not in abeyance. It was done twice during the previous Session: first, by my noble friend Lord Avebury on the regulations on the Port of Ipswich
1340
Authority; and secondly, by myself, again on the subject of benefits for single parents. So it has been done twice, and the roof has not fallen in.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the noble Earl will give way, that was because, on his Motion he did not carry many Members of this House with him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness challenges me to take on the part of Gideon and say that it is yet too many. However, she might consider what happened next. It might not be quite as she wishes.
As to the point that there is a convention, as the noble Baroness says, I have in front of me the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaking without any thought of advantage to any party, for he has no party and that is one of his glories in this Chamber. The noble and learned Lord said:
"I can find no evidence of its acceptance by your Lordships … Nor is it recognised by any of the authorities that I have been able to find. I have looked at Shell on the House of Lords, at Erskine May, at Griffiths and Ryle on Parliament, which had the participation of one of the Clerks of your Lordships' House. None of them mentions any such convention; nor does the leading authority on constitutional conventions—Marshall on Constitutional Conventions—mention it. On the contrary, they all mention the instances on which your Lordships' House did vote against subordinate legislation";—[Official Report, 20/10/94; cols. 357–358.]
I also have in front of me the speech made on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, speaking for the Opposition as they then were. Speaking on a Motion that the House had an unfettered right to vote on subordinate legislation, the noble Lord said:
"This House must continue to preserve the unfettered right. However, the use of that unfettered right must be a last resort".—[Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 367.]
I do not disagree with that conclusion. I do not believe that I am doing anything against it. What has been happening in the field of regulation is that the convention outlined by the Donoughmore Committee in 1932 that regulation is kept for minor matters has, because of the increasing press of business, altogether broken down.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaking on 20th October 1994, drew attention to that point and prayed in aid a letter from the late Mr. Bob Cryer, chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, as the noble and learned Lord said,
"complaining that subordinate legislation was now going well beyond what he, in his homely phrase, called the 'nuts and bolts' of legislation".—[Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 358.]
That means that the right of this House to express any effective opinion if it cannot vote is rendered nugatory. The power of another place to check what is done by the Executive is being very much diminished. This Parliament does not represent the great age of the Government Back-Bencher in another place. So, if this House does not retain a residual power, to be used rarely and only in relation to points of great importance, then the Executive's will is law. I find that a more unacceptable conclusion than any that the noble Baroness describes.

1341
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, also said on that occasion; namely, that there is a party imbalance in this House. It is right that anybody who seeks to win a Division in this House should be forced to persuade those to whom they talk. One should not be able to win a Division simply by the deploying of a party majority. But in my position, the parallel of Gideon is a good deal more acceptable than the parallel of an overwhelming party majority. We on these Benches do not win Divisions unless we succeed in persuading other people—and that is what I have tried to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that his party does not have a Whip on this issue?
Earl Russell: No, my Lords, I am saying that my party by itself does not command a majority in this Chamber. That is a proposition which I do not believe the noble Lord disputes. We win Divisions only when we persuade people outside our own party.
To turn to the noble Baroness's argument, I congratulate her on the skill with which it was done. She was in a position that I would not have been put in for £1 million, and she discharged that position with consummate skill. What she gave us amounted only to what New Labour calls "warm words"—so warm, indeed, that I wondered whether they should be liable to VAT! But they were extremely skilfully deployed. They concentrated particularly on the theoretical background of our attitude to lone parents, on which, as the noble Baroness knows, there is very little, if anything, between us. On that framework, upon which she wisely concentrated, I agree with her remarks. The question is: how much does it add up to?
Most of the noble Baroness's remarks came under two headings: either pilot schemes—and while I do not object to pilot schemes, they do not as yet have any great substance; or the childcare disregard, which I have in the past welcomed. But my honourable friend Mr. Webb in another place has since done more work on the exclusion conditions of those disregards. They apply only to the use of registered childminders. There is a cut-off edge, a cut-off amount which means, according to Mr. Webb's calculations—which have not been disputed by the Government—that under the exclusion conditions only 2,000 single parents in the country are eligible to benefit. This does not yet amount to colossal new policy. I repeat what I said about the Secretary of State: she is as good as the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows her to be. I do not find that good enough.
Nor do I believe that the Minister has given enough weight to the finding of the Policy Studies Institute that people who suffer severe financial deprivation find it much harder to get work than those who do not. That is a research finding; I believe it also to be a finding of common sense. It is entirely intelligible to me. So, for all the noble Baroness says about her dislike of social exclusion—and I was glad to hear her say it—by going ahead with these regulations she is considerably worsening the social exclusion of some of the most
1342
under-privileged people in the whole country. If that is not a major policy issue, I do not know what is. I commend the Motion to the House.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: contents, 48; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Alderdice, L.

McNally, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Meston, L.

Annan, L.

Razzall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Renton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Brookes, L.

Rochester, L.

Caldecote, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Calverley, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Clancarty, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Sandwich, E.

Exmouth, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Geraint, L.

Strafford, E.

Grey, E.

Taverne, L.

Hampton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

Tope, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ludford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gallacher, L.

Barnett, L.

Gilbert, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gregson, L.

Burlison, L.

Hardie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hayman, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chandos, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Chorley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hoyle, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Hughes, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Davies of Coity, L.

Chancellor.]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jeger, B.

Dixon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Eatwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McCarthy, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

[Teller.]

1343

Mallalieu, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Marsh, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

St Davids, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sewel, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Simon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Morris of Manchester, L,

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Northfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Orme, L.

Varley, L.

Paul, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wharton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitty, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Student Fees in Scotland
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their proposals for fees at universities in Scotland offer equality of access to students across the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as an honorary graduate of two universities affected by the Question: the Universities of St. Andrews and Dundee. I also warmly welcome to this short debate a most knowledgeable list of speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas who has chosen this occasion to make his maiden speech. I am sure we all look forward to hearing him.
Details of the Government's proposals for higher education students' tuition fees are so far only partly known. Much, we understand, is still to be decided. My Question is focused on a single point regarding a decision that has been made and which seems to me to require urgent further attention from the Government. Alarming implications of that decision are already arising:—implications for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland aspiring to go to a Scottish university next year but now having serious doubts and cancelling exploratory visits; implications for the universities themselves, which may lose those students; considerable implications for the Scottish economy; and, most importantly, for the way United Kingdom devolution is likely to develop in the future.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is to reply to the Question. As a Scottish Office Minister and a previous Vice-Principal of Aberdeen University, he will speak for the Government as a whole but will clearly understand the Scottish perspective.
When, just before the Recess, the Dearing Report was published, the Government announced simultaneously that from 1998 undergraduates without means-tested exemption would be required to contribute £1,000 a year
1344
towards their tuition fees. The Government added that they would be looking in particular at the circumstances in Scotland, where the honours degree takes four years as opposed to three years elsewhere.
Last week, on 27th October, Mr. Brian Wilson, Minister for Education at the Scottish Office, announced that, for the sake of equity, honours degree students living in Scotland would only be required to contribute for three years of their tuition at Scottish universities. The fourth year would be free, and for medical and dental students the fifth and sixth years would also be free. That welcome decision—it is extremely welcome in Scotland—did not apply, Mr. Wilson stated, to students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland, his comment being,
"The question of whether students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom coming to study in Scotland will receive a similar concession will depend on those who provide their support"—
whatever that means.
The questions I ask the Minister this afternoon are as follows. First, it seems strange that a student from Dover can be charged more for a given course than a student from Calais or a student from Scotland. Is the decision legal under domestic law, human rights law or the Maastricht Treaty? I shall be grateful if the Minister can give me an answer to that question. Secondly, legal requirement or no, do the Government consider it right or indeed wise not to include all United Kingdom students taking an honours degree in Scotland in this United Kingdom taxpayer funded concession?
Writing in this week's House Magazine, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, reminds us that, in considering funding reform for universities, fairness is at the heart of government thinking and equity is their watchword. Is this fair? Is it equity? And is it wise?
In an article in the Scotsman on 29th October, Mr. Brian Wilson, far from accepting that there was any principle at stake, dismissed the many protests as "hyperbolic nonsense". His grounds were that the numbers affected would be small; a third would be exempted through means testing and, of the rest, a high proportion would find the extra £1,000 "a mere inconvenience". With respect to Mr. Wilson, that is not the point. At this moment 6,000 or more young people at school south of the Border are considering the pros and cons of applying to Scots universities. No one can tell them precisely what the tuition will cost them. In any case, the word has gone round that for non-Scots Scotland may be a more expensive option.
Currently 17 per cent. of Scots undergraduates—23,000 or a little less—are United Kingdom incomers. But at Edinburgh (Mr. Gordon Brown's university) they represent 48 per cent.; at St. Andrews 45 per cent.; at Dundee (Mr. Brian Wilson's university) 36 per cent.; and at Stirling 32 per cent. If young people's reaction is to diminish that mix, what will that do to the Scottish educational experience? What will it do to universities that depend on incoming students' residence fees, to the Scottish economy which gains some £100 million a year from their spending, and to the Scottish community where many of them stay on to live and work?
It is not possible to say precisely how many students south of the Border will stay away. My submission is that, whatever that number may be, the Government's position on this is wrong, particularly at this moment when legislation is awaited for a devolved Scots parliament—a parliament which will be 95 per cent. funded by United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole. Surely at this time the Government should be demonstrating to all our people the potential advantages to them of devolution and the increasingly varied opportunities it will offer to citizens across the United Kingdom.
If between now and the setting up of a Scots parliament the Prime Minister is to allow Scottish Office Ministers to proclaim "Fortress Scotland" in this way, if he is to allow—as may well be the problem in this case—Ministers in departments like education and employment south of the Border to refuse to co-operate with a devolved parliament north of the Border, even if that department is willing to pay, it is a poor outlook for devolution.
Likewise, if the Prime Minister is to allow that sort of behaviour, one can see an erosion of the open, welcoming encouragement of cross-Border flow which is the key to Scotland's character, to its universities and, incidentally, a key to incomers' enjoyment of Scotland. It is also, to my mind, a key to making devolution a success.
On this matter the Government are sending out depressing signals. Only the Scottish Nationalists are smiling. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I was delighted to be able to add my name to the list of speakers in this important debate. I did so in order to beg the Minister to convey to his colleagues the feelings of this House on the matter and the feelings of the people of Scotland, particularly the academic community.
I live in St. Andrews. Its university is not large, but it is a university founded in 1410. The intake of non-Scottish students to the University of St. Andrews is 41 per cent. That is good for St. Andrews; it is good for the educational community to have that kind of mix in their courses. St. Andrews provides a broader based degree course which is not repeated in most of the English universities. Students who wish to take advantage of that course and who live in England will have to pay the extra £1,000 per annum.
The noble Baroness pointed out that there are 22,000 full-time UK undergraduate students of non-Scottish domicile in Scottish higher education. That is not a very large number. Mr. Brian Wilson said, "We are concerned with a small number". If it is a small number, why make a fuss about it? If it is a small number, why make Scottish education more expensive than studying in England? Thirty per cent. of students at Dundee University come from outside Scotland. Of those, 14 per cent. come from Northern Ireland. The students who come to Dundee University from Northern Ireland will be required to pay the extra £1,000. However, students
1346
who come from southern Ireland will not be required to pay the extra £1,000. That is anomalous and totally indefensible.
It has been said that students who come up to Scottish universities from England are well able to pay the extra £1,000. That is not the experience of St. Andrews University. The great majority of students who come up from England to study at St. Andrews University are not from public schools and are not necessarily from homes where the parents can afford to pay the extra.
Anything that makes Scottish education more expensive affects their ability to recruit students. Recruiting students is a highly competitive business. The funding of universities depends on attracting a sufficient number of students to make the courses viable. This proposal makes Scottish education less attractive and to that extent affects the academic community and the whole provision of education in Scotland.
Lots of people admire, and some even prefer, Scottish education. There is no reason in the world why it should be made less attractive. As has been said, this is a gift to the SNP. I regard the SNP as a great menace, politically and socially. Anything that encourages its kind of propaganda should certainly not be encouraged by the Government. I am therefore delighted to support the proposition so admirably presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, in speaking to this Unstarred Question, I must first declare an interest as an honorary lecturer in the medical faculty of Queen's University, Belfast. It might be assumed from that remark that I would be rather glad to try to find any reason why students should stay in Northern Ireland and not be attracted away to universities in Scotland. However, there are two reasons why I feel extremely unhappy about the proposition that has come forward.
First, there has traditionally been a considerable run of students to Scotland from Northern Ireland. It is not just a matter of our recent difficulties. Indeed, in the early days the two key pillars of Queen's University, Belfast, were theology and medicine. In both cases those who established the courses took their initial training in Scotland and came across to Northern Ireland. That long and distinguished tradition considerably informed the philosophy of education in Northern Ireland, and for the better. In more recent years there have been other reasons for students going to Scotland and other places. Parents and families, particularly in the Protestant community, began to feel there was little long-term future for young people and so encouraged them to leave. That was not a happy circumstance but, in the view of many, it was not an entirely unrealistic one either.
The number of students involved is quite considerable. Currently, around 5,500 students from Northern Ireland attend institutions of higher education in Scotland. From a population of 1.5 million, that is a considerable proportion. To be disadvantaged in the way that has been announced will not improve the morale of

1347
young people and their families in Northern Ireland; it will make them feel a little more unwanted in a part of the United Kingdom where they have always felt extremely welcome.
It is not the case that the young people who have sought education in Scotland have done so because they were unable, because of their academic ability or lack of it, to find places in Northern Ireland. On the contrary: as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, many have sought it because they appreciate Scottish education and value it very much. It is also the case that some of the courses available in Scottish education are not available in the smaller pool of courses in Northern Ireland. In effect, this measure will deny to young people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to continue their education. As already stated, that will place them at a disadvantage compared with young people in the Republic of Ireland. It is an extraordinary proposition.
Secondly, I am concerned about medical students. Medicine courses are longer than other courses. What is often forgotten is that by the time it comes to year three, and certainly year four, the academic courses last, not for 30 weeks, which might allow medical students to earn some money during the other 20 weeks, but continue for 40 and in some cases for 50 weeks, making it completely impossible for medical students to earn money to help them continue through their courses. Is it the case—I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point because the medical profession is unclear about the implications even of the more recent statements—that it will be into year five before medical students receive any assistance? That will be much too late. They will have operated without the level of sustenance other students receive.
It will mean that in medicine, already in difficulties in terms of recruitment to general practice, academic medicine, and some of the other hospital specialties, those who can afford to enter will do so because it is a good and rewarding career. But it is not likely to ensure doctors coming forward in sufficient numbers and with a particular interest in working in the inner city areas which have considerable problems attracting doctors. Will this not result in medicine being outside the reach of those who have all the abilities, skills and aptitudes but not the financial resources? That is an extraordinary position for a Labour Government, new or otherwise.
I entirely support moves towards devolution. But if a devolved Scottish Parliament made a decision of this kind, I would remonstrate with it and try to persuade it otherwise. I might even hope there was a Northern Ireland Parliament from which I could do so. But I would rely on the United Kingdom Parliament to ensure that the different regional assemblies were paying attention to each other, working together and ensuring some commonality and harmony throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. I find it remarkable that it is the United Kingdom Parliament whose duty, increasingly
1348
with devolved governments, will be to keep the United Kingdom together, is bringing forward such a proposition on the way ahead—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I respectfully remind the noble Lord that the speaking time limit is five minutes and that when five minutes shows on the Clock the time is complete.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I look forward to the replies and elucidation that I trust will come from the Government Benches.
5 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am very glad to be here as a new Peer and it is an honour to participate in today's debate. While serving as an MP in the other House I had an uncle in this House, Lord Selkirk, and I benefited from his wise counsel. I remember a former Prime Minister suggesting to me that Government Whips in the House of Commons should be able to influence the votes of their relatives in the House of Lords, but I must confess I never had any success on that score.
I realise that convention demands that maiden speeches should not be too controversial and I would not wish to depart from that convention, but in relation to this subject there are clear issues of principle. I speak in today's debate because I was for three years responsible for this subject at the Scottish Office. The detailed differences between Scots and English educational systems and student support gave rise to many lengthy conversations, and indeed these were not always straightforward. But always the test we applied was to ensure fairness and to avoid discrimination against any particular group.
One of the ironies of this debate is that many more school-leavers in Scotland are staying on an extra year at school. There is therefore a trend for school-leavers in Scotland to opt for a three-year degree course as many are now going to university a year later. But the difficulty has arisen in relation to four-year honours degree courses in Scotland, as the noble Baroness has said. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to look at this issue again, for three reasons.
First, the proposed arrangements are clearly discriminatory. For example, as has been pointed out, a student from Umbria in Italy would pay less than a student from Northumbria. It would be seen as an unfairness for students on the same course to have to pay different amounts depending on which side of the Border they happen to live, and it would give rise to a grievance and a feeling of being less than welcome.
Secondly, as well as the issue of unfairness, students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland bring in an enormous amount of income to Scottish universities. The McNicoll Report identified that the actual amount of income received by the Scottish universities from the students concerned from other parts of the United Kingdom was in the region of £110 million. But one has to add over and above that an extra £100 million which those students spent in or around university towns. If

1349
this perceived unfairness acted as a disincentive and deterred students from outside Scotland from attending Scots universities, that would undoubtedly damage Scots universities through loss of income. There is undoubtedly evidence that this is already happening, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has pointed out.
The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals believes that the imposition of 33 per cent. more in fees will turn English, Welsh and Northern Irish students away, threatening the survival of courses and departments, and would be seen as an unwelcome signal.
Thirdly, the proposed decision would be subject to challenges in the European Court of Justice. The National Union of Students has already said that it would support any student who decided to take on the Government, and the principals of the Scots universities are also seeking legal opinion on this issue. I recall that I once had occasion to report a Secretary of State for Scotland to the Equal Opportunities Commission for discriminating against women. Not very long afterwards he decided to change his policy in that particular respect. I cannot help believing that it would be better if the Government took steps to look at this matter again before the European Court of Justice becomes involved.
It has, of course, been suggested that the numbers affected are small, but in 199–97 the figures were as high as 26,900 students from the rest of the United Kingdom studying in Scotland. So the numbers potentially affected are probably not so small. But whatever the numbers, it is the principle of fairness that matters. Universities should be universal for those who have the ability and inclination to achieve their full potential. They should provide the passport to jobs, fulfilment and success. We have outlawed discrimination against race, religion and sex. In this case, with Ministers of good will in their respective departments, resolving this specific problem really should not prove insurmountable. Surely this is the time for Ministers in the Department for Education and the Scottish Office to look again at this issue with a view to preventing discrimination in education with particular reference to university fees.
I thank the noble Baroness very much for the fact that she has raised this issue in debate as a Question today. I am grateful for the opportunity to have addressed the House.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, on his maiden speech. As would be expected from a former Scottish Education Minister, it was well informed. It is always nice to welcome a fellow Scot to the House, and as I note that he has been in most of the departments of the Scottish Office, I am sure that he is very well informed on a number of other subjects. I hope that it will not be too long before we hear him again.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for asking this Question. I shall listen with considerable interest to the Government's reply on how
1350
they expect their proposal not to pay fourth-year fees for United Kingdom students other than Scots studying at Scottish universities to escape a legal challenge.
I declare an interest as the father of two university-aged children, but neither will be affected by the Government's proposals. I also have the honour to hold an honorary doctorate from the University of Aberdeen, an ancient Scottish university, from where the Minister who is to answer the Question is on professorial leave of absence from a distinguished career as a teacher and leader.
Surely the answer to the noble Baroness's Question is that the Government's proposals for fees at universities in Scotland do not offer equality of access to all United Kingdom students. Few English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will consider coming to a Scottish university if they know that their fourth year of study is unfunded and that they may have to find £1,000 to complete their course. In the highly competitive environment of attracting the best students, Scottish universities will thus lose out, but much more significantly, the non-Scottish UK students and UK Limited could miss out on valuable qualifications.
I refer to the geology and petroleum geology course offered at Aberdeen University. Because the oil industry is based in Aberdeen, the university is probably one of the few British institutions with the technical, practical and geographic justification for offering this degree. But it must be available to all UK students, not just Scots.
The reasons for this are that the course is probably only offered at one other institution, so it is almost a national course, and because geology is an A-level subject, which results in an above-average proportion of professionally oriented students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland wishing to take the course.
I understand that there are already quite a lot of unfunded activities directly related to that course and if a further £1,000 had to be found, there is a danger that UK non-Scots students would cease to apply, with devastating results for the course and for the whole of the reputation of the United Kingdom for providing world-class, appropriately qualified, graduates for the oil industry.
I hope that the Government's reply will not include a proposal that non-Scottish UK students with A-levels should come in to the Scottish honours degree courses at the start of the second year. Sir Ron Garrick, who chaired the Dearing Inquiry in Scotland, queried why so few students took that route and was told that the A-level students wanted themselves to take the full course. Statistics reveal that students from south of the Border taking a four-year course gained markedly better qualifications than the average and got worthwhile jobs. Sir Ron Garrick went on to comment:
"That to me sounded like a wonderful selling point for the Scottish institutions—do the four years because look at the results you get".
Unless another speaker says something untoward, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will persuade his honourable friend Mr. Brian Wilson, the Minister responsible for Scottish education in another place, that he should fund the full 120-weeks' study which is

1351
traditionally associated with the well-rounded Scottish honours degree for all UK students and that the 90-week study period has no place in the Scottish first degree.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for tabling this important Unstarred Question. I should like to add my congratulations to those that have been paid to the maiden speaker, my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, whom we were delighted to hear.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy stated the problem clearly and I shall not repeat what she said. Perhaps I may advise the Minister that since the Government announced that a tuition fee of £1,000 is to be paid, this is the second difficulty that they have encountered, the first being over what is known as the "gap year", which I think that they have at last sorted out. We now have what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, described as a totally indefensible proposition.
I have a particular interest in this debate as one of my daughters went to St. Andrews University. Like many other English students at Scottish universities, not only did she receive an excellent education but she made lifelong Scottish friends. She had opportunities at St. Andrews to take up outdoor pursuits such as mountaineering, in which she became very interested, and even skiing, which are not generally available at English universities.
As we know, thousands of English students go to Scottish universities and I am glad that many Scots are now coming to English universities. That is as it should be. Everyone interested in education knows the value of getting to know and of mixing with people of different cultures and backgrounds. It must surely be the right of any student to go to any university in the United Kingdom, provided that they are properly qualified for the course that they want to follow. They should not be financially penalised in any way. To discriminate in this extraordinary fashion against the English, the Welsh and students from Northern Ireland is not just unfair to them—although it is—but it seems to me that the fundamental difficultly is that such discrimination is against the best interests of the whole university system. There will be no winners anywhere from this proposition—in Scotland, in England, in Wales or in Northern Ireland.
However, I believe that the problem goes wider than that, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out. During the course of our long debates on the referendum in Scotland on devolution we were told time and again by the Government that it was not a precursor to an independent Scotland. I hope that that is true. However, a measure such as this sits very uneasily with what was said then. To someone like myself, it suggests that, far from looking outward, Scotland will be looking inward. When we know the importance of young people growing up and being influenced by each other's culture, that seems dangerous and damaging.
We have heard a great deal about the numbers involved. Before speaking, my attention was drawn to an article in the Scotsman, written by Mr. Brian Wilson,
1352
in which he took a rather emotional approach. He talked about 5,000 non-Scottish but UK graduates from Scottish universities. However, a letter that I have received from the acting principal at St. Andrews refers to 12,000 non-Scottish domiciled UK students. Today we have heard mention of 22,000 and 26,000 such students. This is a serious matter and it would be helpful to know exactly what number we are talking about.
I do not think, however, that it is a numbers game. It is serious for anybody to be denied an opportunity on financial grounds and I am bound to say that I find it very surprising that a Labour Government, even a New Labour Government, should adumbrate this extraordinary policy which is bad for individual students, bad for the university system as a whole and in which, as I said earlier, there will be no winners.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, like one or two previous speakers, I must declare an interest—nothing as grand as being awarded an honorary degree from a famous Scottish university, but simply the fact that I am a professor at the coalface at the University of St. Andrews—I hasten to add that it is an unpaid professorship—and that that has enabled me on visits there to assess the very high quality of its academic community. In addition, I have a granddaughter who is an undergraduate there. As she is in her fourth year, she is unaffected by the proposals. I have therefore seen a little of how this looks from the other end.
It seems a most extraordinary proposition to limit one of the factors which I think give particular quality to the University of St. Andrews, to Edinburgh University which, again, has a high proportion of students from other parts of the United Kingdom, and to Dundee University which, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, pointed out and as was pointed out to me by a very eminent figure in Northern Ireland, has very particular relations with that Province. After all, Scotland now has a complement of universities with very varied histories and of very different kinds. The University of St. Andrews is the third oldest university in the United Kingdom; others are quite new. The University of Glasgow is a very eminent institution and has been so since Adam Smith's day at least. It is true that there it is not a question of a £1,000 tuition fee because I understand that students there customarily brought a sack of oatmeal as the fee for their professor! The direct payment of professors might at least ensure that such an imposition as this would benefit the university and not merely fill holes in the Treasury. It seems extraordinary that anyone should wish—that any Scot or that any friend of Scotland should wish—to see an inroad made into that great feature of Scotland and its particular ways of handling higher education which, as the noble Earl said, are somewhat different from those in England and Wales.
The proposition that the privilege of escaping the fees should be extended from Scottish students to students in the European Union is peculiar. It is peculiar to give a preference to Dublin over Belfast. However, I am not at all sure that it is legal. I would be the last person to regret it if it were suddenly announced that the

1353
United Kingdom, including England, was ceasing to be part of the European Union, but the fact is that it is part of the European Union and therefore if the privilege of Scottish students is extended to citizens of other parts of the European Union surely that must include England. I would defy any lawyer to find a hole in that argument.
I therefore appeal to the Minister to tell his colleague in another place, whose statements on higher education suggest that he is not fully aware of the complexities inherent in the problem, that there is in this House and probably in the country unanimity in the view that in matters of higher education the United Kingdom is a single unit, and that the financing of it, whatever form it takes, must take that fact into account.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for introducing this subject and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, on his excellent maiden speech. His qualities in the other House were well recognised. It is a great advantage to this House that he now sits on the Benches here. As is the wont with maiden speakers, the noble Lord said that his contribution was non-controversial. Given the consensual views that have been expressed so far, he has certainly fulfilled that obligation. However, he was far too controversial for me. I shall put a point of view different from those expressed so far in this debate.
I emphasise that the deterrent effect of this aspect of the fees with regard to Scottish universities can be greatly exaggerated. One is talking about £1,000 spread over a 20-year repayment period under the Government's proposal. That £1,000 must be seen against the background where anyone who undertakes a four-year course at a Scots university already incurs substantial costs: the loss of earnings for the year in which they could have been employed if they had pursued a three-year course; the costs involved in maintaining themselves at university; and the additional cost, which is not insignificant in these days of privatised rail and the uncertain fare structure, of travel from England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland to Scottish universities. There are substantial costs of which this particular feature is quite marginal.
I agree that if throughout student bodies and parents there is considerable alarm that students will undertake obligations that they cannot be expected to fulfil, then the cost will be borne by students, by Scottish universities and by the wider society. In replying to the debate it behoves the Minister to emphasise how the Government will succeed in communicating to students the fact that the introduction of fees is made necessary by the key priority of this Government to expand higher education further, not least among students or young people who come from deprived homes. They will not be put off by the costs of tuition because by definition they will be exempt from such fees. Those fees come into play only where parental income is £23,000 a year.
I assure the House that there is a large number of students who, if they were given the kind of support that they deserved at the age of 16 to sustain themselves in
1354
school—priorities that the Government have identified—and the support necessary in further education to get the necessary qualifications, would be in a position to enter higher education, including Scottish higher education where neither they nor their families would face additional costs because the resources of the household would be too low to bear those costs at the present time.
If there is a fear that the introduction of these fees will somehow produce a superfluity of places in British universities, in particular Scottish ones, with large numbers of students not taking up places which would otherwise be available, the answer lies in the Government producing policies that encourage wider participation by students from social groups who at present feature all too little in higher education.
I respect the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as to the value of four-year degree courses. But the reason why Scottish higher education is different is that the preparation for it is different. One English student identified this aspect when writing in The Scotsman. She said that she had started in the second year of her degree. She did not believe that her education had suffered as a result and could not see why others could not do likewise. She said that she had gone to Scotland, as others would, because she valued the institutions and the courses, not their length. She identified the fact that her preparation on the basis of English A-level qualifications, particularly for anyone who spent three years in the sixth-form of an English school, had adequately prepared her for Scottish higher education. One must recognise the difference between the two.
Far from Ministers being criticised today for having introduced what is regarded in some areas as a major deterrent to young people entering Scottish higher education, Ministers have succeeded in protecting Scottish university degrees by ensuring that Scots have access to them on the basis of four years' support.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy for introducing this important matter, which I believe has wider implications than for Scotland alone. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on his admirable maiden speech.
I declare a personal interest, although not a financial one. One of my sons graduated from St. Andrews. So much did he enjoy the experience that currently I have a second son at St. Andrews who is greatly benefiting from the experience and thoroughly enjoying it. I support what has been said about the excellence of Scottish universities, and certainly the proportion of students who are not Scottish—about 40 per cent.—greatly benefit from the experience.
Initially, I was shocked by the real anomaly announced by the Government. When I read the debate in Hansard on 30th October I was impressed by a number of the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The majority of Scottish students take four-year courses, whereas the majority of

1355
English students take three-year courses. Maybe there is a certain lack of justice in that in general Scottish students have to pay four times £1,000 whereas in general English students have to pay three times £1,000. I noted the logic that increasingly A-level students attending Scottish universities with those qualifications entered in the second year and therefore incurred only three years' worth of expenses.
As an aside, I am disappointed not to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in her place this evening. There are no doubt excellent reasons, but the noble Baroness is the Minister responsible for higher education. It seems that part of the anomaly in this affair arises from the circumstance that it is in part a higher education matter and in part a Scottish matter. Therefore, we shall hear the noble Lord with responsibility for Scottish affairs in this House answering the debate. One wonders whether one is already entering an area of anomalies. If this represents the first fruits of devolution, bring me back the days of Queen Anne!
There are further anomalies. We have not yet heard about the Scottish students who attend English universities. I have always regarded it as a sad aspect of the educational system that a limited number of Scottish students attend English universities because of the differences in the school system. I have always regretted the fact that we do not see more Scottish students. There are many science courses in English universities that are four-year courses. Will Scottish students who attend four-year courses in English universities be paying their fourth £1,000 or not? No doubt a factual answer can be provided to that question.
I understand the problem as outlined by the noble Baroness. Lady Blackstone. The main point I make in this debate is that by setting up differentials at the margin a financial market in educational matters is being created. This is the first or perhaps the second example. We saw the difficulties produced by the gap-year enterprise; the sudden switch in the number of applications and students deciding to take up their places. The noble Lord opposite said that the £1,000 will be multiplied by other factors and added to a larger debt paid over 20 years and that difference will scarcely be noticed. I assure your Lordships that impoverished students notice the difference of £1,000 and these issues operate at the margin. It is to be anticipated that many students, probably wrongly, will be making their decisions on relatively small matters; that is, the £1,000 at the margin.
I wish to draw the attention, in particular of noble Lords opposite, to the fact that if we introduce £1,000 here and £1,000 there we shall be introducing a series of distortions into the educational system which will have serious effects. Applications in some universities have declined for next year. I see much of the logic of the Government's response to the Dearing Report and I am not arguing against it now. However, if by accident we introduce market forces into the British educational system we will be setting up a situation which will have
1356
dire consequences. Anomalies exist: we shall be playing at Scottish sixes and English sevens, and it will not add up.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy, for introducing the debate. It is an important subject which deserves an airing. Furthermore, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on his admirable speech. We look forward to hearing more from him.
Perhaps at the outset I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who dismissed the issue of an extra £1,000 as derisory. Tell that to the students! The noble Lord entirely missed the point that the issue is one of unfairness; we are discussing the application of a policy of differential rates for the same course. The noble Lord also ignored the point that the proposal comes on top of the wholesale abolition of the maintenance grant and students from low income families will be most disadvantaged by the policy.
As recently as 14th April, in an article in the Evening Standard, Mr. Blair pledged that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education. Indeed, during the election campaign—and I know because I was there—an unsuccessful Labour Party candidate spoke to a hall of sixth-form school-leavers and made the same pledge.
The Dearing Report was received, considered and rejected in unseemly haste. As a result of the Government's policy, those who have most to lose will be those about whom the Government purport to be most concerned—the least well off. There has also been a lack of openness and honesty in the debate. If it is the Government's intention to save all of the grant from maintenance costs and to levy £1,000 per student per year as a tax without guarantees that the money will be returned to higher education, they should say what their plans are—or is that a closely guarded secret of the Treasury? Perhaps the Minister will clarify the issue by telling the House the extent to which higher education will benefit from moneys saved at the expense of students and their families.
We have also seen a number of knee-jerk reactions since the introduction of the policy. First, we had the incredible gap-year fiasco. How could the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, not have predicted the reaction from students who had delayed taking up places at university for one year? Not for the first time did the Prime Minister have to come to the rescue of the noble Baroness by agreeing to delay by one year the introduction of fees for those gap-year students. Although we shall be discussing the issue at greater length next week, it is strongly rumoured that the Prime Minister has had to intervene in the plans of the noble Baroness to remove money from the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Again, we look forward to clarification on that point.
However, the latest and, frankly, most absurd knee-jerk policy adjustment is the concession to Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recently used the argument that some English students

1357
are entered in the second year of a Scottish degree course. Even if that were so, it is cold comfort for the students to whom it does not apply. The consequences of applying a two-tier policy will be to create wholly foreseeable inequalities. As was said most eloquently by my noble friends, Scottish, southern Irish, continental and European students will sit alongside English, Welsh and Northern Irish students on similar courses on the basis of differential fees. Not only is that unfair, the policy will act as a deterrent for many young people and that will impact adversely on our great Scottish universities.
I repeat a question which was posed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Is it within both the letter and the spirit of the Government's obligation under domestic and European laws of equality of access for students throughout the European countries to be charged differential fees for the same course? It would be most interesting to know precisely what was the legal advice on that point.
Do the Government envisage any decline in applications for places at universities? If so, do they have any contingency plans? Will the money saved and income raised from fees be returned to higher education, or will it simply be tax revenue for disposal by the Chancellor? What was the legal advice as regards differential fees? What system is in place to verify whether or not a gap-year student has undertaken three months voluntary work in order to qualify for the 1998–99 concession? How will the Government know that someone has undertaken voluntary work, and who will be administering the system? Is there any plan to legislate against higher education colleges charging top up fees?
As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friend—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the time!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am finishing—this is my last sentence. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy, this policy plays into the hands of the SNP. The smile on the face of the SNP when the result of the Scottish referendum was announced was very wide indeed. However, the smile has positively broken into a look of pure ecstasy as a result of this ill-advised concession to Scottish, southern Irish and continental Europeans—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, order! It is now seven minutes!
5.38 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for tabling this important debate. She has posed a question which has far-reaching and worrying implications for many people, none more so than medical and dental students on whose behalf I venture to intervene tonight.
In that context, two main issues arise: first, the impact of tuition fees south of the Border and, secondly, the apparent inequality of treatment between
1358
Scottish medical students and those who live or study in other parts of the United Kingdom. Students of medicine and dentistry find themselves encumbered in a number of ways unique to those disciplines. Unavoidably, they have to go without professional earnings for five or six years. As was rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, the length of their academic term combined with the intensity of their work means that they have little chance of supplementing their income through part-time employment. Their working expenses tend to be much higher than those of other students and when they take up their period of elective study, often overseas, medics have to fund themselves. For a whole host of reasons, the medic is disadvantaged—indeed, sometimes deterred—by the cost of his or her course of study.
Encouragingly, the Government went some way towards recognising the special features of medical training with their announcement on 23rd September that the tuition fees of medical and dental students from year five onwards will be met by the Department of Health and that new bursaries and loans will be available for those who most need them. Those are welcome initiatives as far as they go, although the adequacy of the bursaries and loans remains to be gauged once the details emerge. However, south of the Border we still have a yawning anomaly as regards tuition fees.
I deplore the Government's decision to introduce their proposals in the way that they did. But to have a situation where students doing a conventional three-year degree course pay one amount but medical students, who have to fund four years fees, pay one-third more is not only inequitable; it is a huge further deterrent to people contemplating a medical career. That is the last thing that we should be expecting them to do in the face of the special burdens which they already have to carry.
If we are to require students to contribute to the cost of tuition—and it seems that we are—will the Government re-examine the position of medical and dental students so as to ensure that at the very least they are treated fairly in comparison with other students?
That brings me to the Scottish dimension. There is a great deal of confusion in the medical community about the inequalities which the new system looks set to engender. On 27th October, the Scottish education Minister, Mr. Wilson, in a news release, conceded the principle that the fee contribution from Scottish graduates, who typically study for four years rather than three, should be on a par with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK. He announced that to relieve Scottish students of the burden of paying for more than three years' worth of contributions, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland will pay the additional £1,000 arising in the final honours year. Where does that leave dental and medical students?
It would seem from the Government's proposals so far that Scottish medics will be exempt not only from the fifth and sixth years' fee contributions but from

1359
the fourth years' as well. In other words, medical students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to pay four years' worth of fees but those from Scotland only three. Furthermore, when we refer to Scottish students in that context, we should remember that the preferential treatment in Scotland applies only to those whose home is in Scotland.
Those are gross anomalies. But somewhere along the line it is possible that misunderstandings may have arisen. Therefore, I ask the Minister, not necessarily today, to clarify in writing the following issues. Is it the case that all Scottish students will have to pay towards three years of their degree—in other words, a maximum of —3,000—whatever that degree may be? Will non-Scottish students studying at a Scottish medical school be eligible for treatment equal to that of their Scottish counterparts? If so, who will fund them?
Finally, on a more detailed point, I refer the Minister to the announcement in Mr. Wilson's press release that Scottish medical and dental students will be eligible for an NHS 50 per cent. means-tested bursary towards living costs in the fifth and sixth years. That is 50 per cent. of what?
The backdrop to that is the worrying picture of the declining recruitment that we are seeing currently in general practice, in academic medicine and in a number of hospital specialities. The last thing that we want—and by "we" I mean the country as a whole—is a set of funding arrangements which exacerbates those difficulties and creates manifest unfairness in different parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will be able to provide some reassurance.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for initiating a debate that has been of great interest and markedly one-sided. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answer. I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on his maiden speech which I listened to with particular interest because he speaks with a great deal of knowledge and experience of the subject which I do not claim to have.
I need to say at the outset, lest I should give the impression otherwise, that my party remains opposed to the imposition of tuition fees. That is a debate for another day. I shall not pursue the matter now except to say that were the fees not to be imposed it would not be necessary to have this debate today and the Government would not be in the mess in which they clearly find themselves again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and, indeed, every other speaker except one in the debate, has made the case very well and has in effect answered very fully the noble Baroness's Question. How can there be equality of access within the United Kingdom when a student from Dover has to pay more than a student from a Scottish town? A comparison was made between Dover and Calais and between Umbria and Northumbria. I was going to make a comparison
1360
between Umbria and Cumbria which seemed to go better. But the comparisons are there. It cannot be right that students from Paris, Rome or Athens pay less for tuition fees at a Scottish university than those from Carlisle. A colleague of mine remarked to me that that is perhaps why Edinburgh is described as the Athens of the North.
That cannot be equality of access. It has been suggested by other noble Lords that it also cannot be legal. We look forward to the Minister's answer on that point which must be forthcoming. I should have thought that it must fall foul of discrimination legislation, whether in this country or within the European Union. Indeed, I understand that the European Union is to introduce legislation next year which will enable people to take their own governments to court on grounds of discrimination. I know that the NUS and other interested bodies will undoubtedly pursue that course unless something is done.
Others have spoken with greater knowledge about the effect on Scottish universities. The figures have been given and I need not repeat them. I was pleased to hear the point made also that it is not only the profound effect on Scottish universities that has to be considered but also the effect on Scottish university towns. Too often, sometimes, in an education debate, we forget the wider picture. We forget that a local economy may depend greatly on a local university.
There is no doubt in my mind that an extra £1,000 will have a deterrent effect on students in relation to their decision whether or not to go to a Scottish university. None of us knows the extent of that; it is in the nature of things that those who oppose the measure will tend to exaggerate the effect while those who support it will say that the effect is negligible or there is no effect at all. That is not the point. The point is one of principle. Whether it is one person, 100 or 5,000 people being discriminated against, it is the principle which is the issue.
There is evidence to show that the effect will be significant. My noble friend Lord Alderdice spoke with great knowledge and experience of the probable effect in Northern Ireland and on students from Northern Ireland. I need not repeat that. I have said that I have no connections with Scottish universities. I have a connection with an English university in that my son is studying at one. No mention has been made in the debate of the possible effect on English universities. If students are discouraged in any numbers from going to Scottish universities and instead go to English universities, the effect on what is already overcrowding in a number of those universities will be even greater.
I heard today of the position at one university, not my son's, where the overcrowding is such that there are three students to a room without wardrobe accommodation and that some students are currently sleeping on the floor in the library. I am not in a position to suggest that that is typical. I hope very much that it is not. But that is direct personal experience at one English university. If we add to that, the situation will become worse.

1361
This whole problem results from a failure by the Government to think out competently the effects of their policies. Others speakers have referred to the fact that it is not the first such example; it is the second. The infamous gap year was the first. But this measure demonstrates clearly that the Government have not thought through the effects of their policy. It is dividing country against country, student against student and university against university. The matter could be cleared up tomorrow if the Government would only stand up to the Treasury and abandon this iniquitous policy.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I too start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on raising this important topic this evening. Also, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas on his maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more from my noble friend, just as we heard a great deal from his noble kinsman Lord Selkirk in his day.
I am certain that this afternoon has not been a good afternoon for the Government. First, we had the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, trying to defend a policy which, had she been standing on this side of the House, she would have described as an abomination. And now we have the poor noble Lord, Lord Sewel, sent here to defend an education policy which, I am sure, if it had been put forward by a Conservative Government, he would have been lambasting from pillar to post. I am sorry for the poor noble Lord because I am sure that he has had little to do with the discussions. It should be his honourable friend Mr. Brian Wilson or the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is responsible for higher education. But it is the poor noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and I hope that he does not take too personally anything that has been said.
Mr. Brian Wilson, who is the Minister in charge of such matters at the Scottish Office, wrote an interesting article in The Scotsman recently in which he said that what he had heard—and I have no doubt he would encompass what has been said today—was "hyperbolic nonsense". Well, it takes one to know one. Over the years, Brian Wilson has written more hyperbolic nonsense than anyone else I know. If that is the best argument that he can put forward, it suggests to me that he is on quite weak grounds.
I thought it rather noticeable that the Government could not find a single Scottish Back-Bench Peer to come to talk in defence of this policy: I repeat, not a single one. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will remember my problems regarding my daughter in Italy during the referendum Bill. Perhaps I may pose the question that we have heard in a number of ways like this. I have two granddaughters. One lives in Italy and the other in Kent. If, in the fullness of time, they decide to follow in the footsteps of their parents and of their grandparent and attend the University of Glasgow, the one from Italy will be charged £3,000
1362
and the one from Kent will be charged £4,000. When that proposition was put to Mr. Brian Wilson on the programme "The World Tonight" last week when he was debating with Professor Colin Vincent (an old friend of mine from my Glasgow University days), he clutched at straws. He was asked, "Why this anomaly?"—in that case regarding France—and replied, "Well, France is in the Common Market". The interviewer on the programme, who obviously had not been cleared by Mr. Alistair Campbell, responded, "Yes, but isn't England?".
I make that point seriously to the Minister. Is not England in the Common Market? Further, is this not the most ludicrous position? Coming as it does from a Minister in the Scottish Office who I genuinely believe is a unionist to the marrow of his bones, is this not a particularly silly position for him to find himself in simply because of the general incompetence of the Department for Education?
However, there is more to that unfairness. Let us consider the abolition of maintenance grants, which means that students from the West Highlands—which is where I come from and, indeed, where Brian Wilson and a number of other people involved in the Government come from—who have to leave home in order to go to university and pay away-from-home expenses will actually accumulate during their university degree a lot more debt than their cousins whose parents migrated from, let us say, Lewis to Glasgow and can go to their local university. Is that fair? I can tell the House that if a Conservative Government or any other government had proposed that, Brian Wilson would have been vitriolic on behalf of the students of Lewis and Harris and the West Highlands against that kind of discriminatory policy. He would have been vitriolic in the columns of the Herald and, indeed, in the West Highlands free press. Although I am being short in my remarks this evening because of the time limit imposed upon me, I also feel pretty vitriolic on behalf of people who have no option but to leave home in order to study at university.
There is an even dafter proposition behind the Government's policy; namely, that they will take parental income into account when it comes to deciding whether a student should pay the fees. But it is not on the parental income that one will have to pay back: it is on one's own graduate income during the years after leaving university. Do the Government have any evidence that students from an economically poor background do not graduate and do not in fact end up earning the same as or more than those students from an economically better-off background? I can see a situation where some graduates will actually be paying back far larger debts than their better paid bosses purely on the basis of their parents' income.
Whether it be because of the daftness of the position of English students at Scottish universities, the gross inequity as regards the students who live in rural areas or this amazing decision on pay back, I believe this to be a badly thought-out policy and, frankly, yesteryear the students of this country would

1363
have been marching in the streets in protest. When defending the student loan system at the beginning, I should confess to the House that, when I visited a university in Scotland I was slapped across the face by one indignant young lady student. I have to point out that that is the only time that a lady has slapped me across the face and that related to government grants. Frankly, the Government deserve to be slapped about the face by every student and every potential student in the country for this iniquitous policy.
5.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on providing the House with the opportunity to debate this issue. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, on his maiden speech and welcome him to the House. There is often a difficulty when people join this House because, in some cases, the names change rather radically. Indeed, in this case, there has been such a radical name change. The noble Lord is well-known—fondly and warmly known—in Scotland throughout the whole of Scottish public life as Lord James. It will be quite difficult to stop using that particular nomenclature in the future. The noble Lord comes to us as a man who is known for his love of Scotland and also for his love of our parliamentary institutions. We welcome him most warmly.
When I came to study the Unstarred Question and observed the speakers' list, given my particular background and provenance I thought that perhaps the most prudent thing to do would be to answer it by saying, "Yes", and then throw myself upon the mercy of the examiners. However, I shall try something a little more robust. I should also make it clear that my noble friend Lady Blackstone is attending an important international conference with delegates from 60 countries. She is, quite rightly, attending that conference and it is only right, therefore, that I should be here answering the Question in this House because it is a Scottish Office matter. I have no difficulty or problem with that, although I may have with the answer.
We have had a deliberate, responsible, and, for the most part, well-informed debate. Indeed, I would have expected nothing less. Before I respond to the specific points raised, I should say that I hope to be able to take up most of them in my reply but, if not, I shall write to noble Lords separately. However, perhaps I may begin with a few general remarks.
First, why are we here? We are at this particular juncture in the issue of higher education financing because the Government are determined to put the whole of our higher education sector on a sound financial footing. That was not the case for many years under the previous administration when growth was encouraged. Of course, there is nothing wrong with encouraging growth in student numbers, but it far outstripped the growth in funding. The unit of
1364
resource per student went down and down and created the crisis which we inherited. We are dealing with that crisis and doing so effectively and robustly.
The changes which we have announced also lay the basis for resolving the paradox which the previous government failed to grasp; namely, that we have moved from an elite system of higher education which could relatively easily be funded on the basis of public taxation to a system of mass participation in higher education where, basically, the burden on public taxation would be too great. It is therefore quite proper that we now look to those who are beneficiaries of higher education to make a direct contribution. That is what we are doing in the proposals that we have put forward.
The bold and, I believe, inevitable decision to introduce a contribution to tuition fees would always have been difficult to implement technically, even if the country had one school system and one qualifications framework for entry into universities. But in Britain we do not have one school system. The Scottish school system is distinct, and the qualifications framework is also different in Scotland. People enter university at different stages of their intellectual development in Scotland and England and, I suspect, in Wales and Northern Ireland. The prevalence of the longer honours course in Scotland is the result of that. Our Scottish based students have traditionally entered university a year earlier than has been the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. Their entry qualification is broader. It is usually now about five highers, with each higher being taken over two terms, as opposed to the three A-levels in England which are taken over two years. Therefore we have breadth but we do not have the same degree of depth. That is the heritage that the Scottish student takes with him or her when he enters higher education.
At present we have these distinct systems but they interact flexibly. The Government wish to maintain that interaction and that flexibility. However, to do so the Government recognised that they had to remove the major anomaly, which was that many Scottish students would be left in a position of contributing more towards their tuition for a similar qualification as a result of simply following through the Scottish school system and the longer honours course. Resolving that major anomaly has, however, created a smaller one. I recognise that and I shall not argue that there is no problem. However, I shall argue that the problem has been exaggerated out of all proportion.
Let us begin at the beginning. The Question raised in this debate stems from the Garrick recommendation. Let us be clear precisely what Garrick said. His recommendation was the following. He stated:
"We recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that, if a graduate contribution is introduced, the Secretary of State should ensure that the contribution from Scottish graduates for qualifications gained in Scotland is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK".

1365
That was the considered opinion of the Garrick Committee, whose members were drawn from higher education and the business sector in Scotland. The announcement made by the Government last Monday fulfilled that recommendation 100 per cent. We have lived up to the advice and recommendation that Garrick gave us.
The main Dearing Committee's recommendation was that only students entering higher education direct from the fifth year at school should be given such an exemption. A consequence of that recommendation is that it would favour the academically more able. One of the great successes of Scottish higher education in recent years has been the growth in participation from those who have taken a little longer to gain entry qualifications, either through longer attendance at school or through following a slightly different route such as an HNC or HND course at a further education college, or indeed entering higher education much later in life. The equity issue with which we in Scotland have least difficulty is that all of those groups should be given equitable treatment to those entering higher education direct from the fifth year.
Ensuring equity of treatment between students on different courses on each side of the Border, whatever their original domicile, is much more difficult. Concerns have been raised about the threat to cross-Border flows of students from elsewhere in the UK into Scottish higher education. Neither Dearing nor Garrick raised the issue of cross-Border flows as one of great concern, although they were clearly aware of it, as have been the Government in their deliberations on the issue. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government and Scottish Office Ministers support the great cultural benefits that students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Europe and the rest of the world bring to our higher education system. We should like to see those flows maintained and, if possible, increased, and perhaps not necessarily concentrated at the University of St Andrews! They provide an important cultural diversity to student life that influences and remains with Scots students throughout their lives.
Despite these benefits and our encouragement for them, we are not fully convinced that equity is a driving argument behind giving a one-year concession to all students studying in Scotland. The Garrick Committee's recommendation for equity for comparable qualifications is based clearly on the consequences of the Scottish schools system. The principle of equity should stem from the fact that Scottish domiciled students, by and large, have school qualifications geared to entry into Scottish higher education institutions. That is why they do not tend to go to England in large numbers. We send comparatively few people south to England to study compared to those coming in the other direction. Scots must generally study four years for the typical honours degree as compared to three years in England. In this case when I refer to England I mean Wales and
1366
Northern Ireland, too. Equity, in our view, demands that those Scots should pay only £3,000 in Scotland because they are graduating with the comparable qualification of a student graduating from an English university with an honours degree. The qualification is the same and therefore the contribution should be the same.
There would be a great anomaly if Scottish students were required to pay £4,000 while English students paid £3,000 for the same level of qualification—the first honours degree. The Government were clear that this major anomaly had to be resolved, and we have done so. The announcement last Monday resolved the problem. However, there is a remaining anomaly; namely, that students with A-levels come to Scotland to study in a system not specifically tailored for them. That is the heart of the difficulty. As has been observed, this means that an English student could potentially pay £4,000 compared to only £3,000 for a Scot, or £3,000 if that English student had studied in England.
Of course we need to keep this in perspective. Those who are less well off do not need a special concession. They will already be exempt from tuition fees because of the means test. About 40 per cent. of students each year will gain total exemption. A further 30 per cent. will not pay the full amount. Many English students wish to benefit from the broader Scottish degree and are already willing to make a decision that costs them more. At the moment that extra year will cost them about £4,000 to £5,000 for their maintenance, plus a year of income forgone. Taken together that is about £20,000—much more than the maximum fee of £1,000. As I said, a small proportion will pay that maximum fee.
I now turn to an issue which has been raised by a number of noble Lords; namely, that of medical and dental students. They will face precisely the same contribution to tuition fees wherever they study and wherever they are from. The BMA was incorrect in its report in The Scotsman this morning. I repeat that the process is exactly the same as in England. There will be no difference in the way that medical students are treated in England, Scotland or anywhere else.
Sir Ron Garrick has said that students with A-levels may still wish to study for four years and benefit from the extra year. As a businessman his advice seems to be that Scottish universities would be better served making the case to potential applicants of the value of the four-year honours degree and not following their present course of telling potential customers that their product is not worth the extra! Our university principals should have confidence in their product and market it aggressively. Of course the structure of university degrees may change as time goes on. That is a matter for the universities and for the students as regards what they demand.
I return finally to the point made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. He referred to a letter in The Scotsman from an English student who had

1367
studied at Edinburgh University. She wrote that she could not see what all the fuss was about concerning student fees. She considered that the English education system was geared to the needs of English students and the Scottish system to the needs of Scottish students and that that explained the four-year system in Scotland and the three-year system in England. She said that anyone coming to Scotland was fully aware of that situation and they came for the quality of Scottish education. That student succeeded. She came to Scotland. She enjoyed Scotland. She entered in the second year.
That is part of the solution. If more universities and more students recognised that because of the difference of entry qualifications and the structure of Scottish degrees good A-levels could mean entry into the second year of an honours course, the problem would be largely resolved. That, I believe, is one of the challenges that Scottish higher education faces.
1368
But I am sure that it will continue to flourish; that it will continue to be an attractive option for students from England and elsewhere.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it possible to ask a question for clarification on medical fees before the noble Lord sits down?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we have now exceeded the time allotted for the debate.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain of the amendments disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement and with the remaining amendment agreed to; the reason ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.