Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 10 March 1998 vol 587 cc139-96

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.

5.3 p.m.

Clause 2 [Advisory functions of the Council]:

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden)

My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 6 is not moved.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I understand that it is traditional that when a vote has been taken and an amendment agreed to, further consequential amendments in that group are accepted. Is that not so?

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I understand that certain amendments have been spoken to but not moved, so they must be formally moved.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, leave out lines 33 and 34.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, leave out line 39.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I have to say that if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11: Page 3, line 5, at end insert— ("(4A) The Council may give advice on such matters falling within subsection (2) as they think fit to such persons or bodies as they may from time to time determine. (4B) Any advice given by the Council on matters falling within subsection (2) shall he advice of a general nature."). Page 3, leave out line 7 and insert (", (3) or (4A).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments which are of a technical nature. If there is no objection, I beg to move them both.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 3 [Registration of teachers]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 12: Page 3, line 16, after ("employed") insert (", or otherwise engaged to provide his services,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13: Page 3, line 17, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 14: Page 3, line 21, at end insert— ("(5) Where the Council considers that a person on the register or who has applied for registration has fallen short of the professional standards appropriate to a place on the register, it may, having heard representations—

1. (a) admonish or issue a warning to that person;
2. (b) attach conditions to his registration;
3. (c) suspend him from the register for a specified period; or
4. (d) remove him from the register, either—
1. (i) immediately, or
2. (ii) at the end of a period of suspension, if it considers that conditions specified in the notice of suspension have not been met.

(6) Where the Council takes action under subsection (5) above, it shall issue a notice to the person concerned, setting out the action being taken and the grounds for its decision that he has fallen short of the professional standards appropriate to a place on the register. (7) The powers conferred on the Council by this section are without prejudice to the powers of the Secretary of State under section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. The amendments provide for the general teaching council to have power to deregister as well as to register teachers. This issue was debated on Report, as noble Lords may recall, when I withdrew my amendment at that time (Amendment No. 15) for further consideration. The principle was widely supported, but a number of noble Lords made helpful suggestions which have been incorporated in the amplified provisions which we now have before us.

I think I need not spend much time in revisiting the merits of the case. In a sense, the amendments dot the "i"s of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which we have just discussed. Without such a power as we have here the new council will lack any real teeth, will lack esteem, and may even find it hard to attract the right people to serve. Other professions have this power, even the newly-arrived osteopaths and chiropractors. It chimes in closely with the Government's new aim in Clause 1 for the council, to maintain and improve standards of professional conduct".

The National Commission on Education advocated it. Logic and symmetry suggest that the council's powers should not be restricted to just one aspect of the register for which it is to be responsible. There is no intention of subsuming any of the Secretary of State's existing powers to bar teachers under the Education Reform Act 1988. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at Report. We have made this clear in subsection (7) of the new amendment. It is the professional—if you like, my Lords, the classroom—aspects, for example, issues of gross incompetence, with which the GTC will be concerned here.

There will doubtless come a time, and we have discussed it already, when the council, like its Scottish counterpart—and its Welsh counterpart under this very Bill—will take over all aspects of debarment. But it will be better able to do that when mechanisms are in place and experience has been gained in the matter of professional standards. For all those reasons, I believe it will be far from "premature"—let alone "dangerous", as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at an earlier stage—to make this limited but important provision.

The amendment at Report stage spoke only of removing people from the register. The present amendment brings it more into line with other professional bodies by providing in subsections (5)(a) to (c) of Amendment No. 14 suspension, warning and conditional registration. These are important additions to outright removal which the GTC will need in its armoury. The matter of appeal was also raised at Report. It is catered for in Amendment No. 16 which comes under Clause 4(2) relating to future regulations. Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 14, requiring the council to put its decision in writing, is also drafted with the possibility of a subsequent appeal in mind.

Amendment No. 15 covers the making of regulations governing how the council conducts its hearings and determines its professional standards, among all the other aspects of the exercise of its powers. These are all matters which will properly be the subject of careful discussion between the profession and the Secretary of State, which it would be unwise to set in stone under Clause 3 at this stage.

I could elaborate further, but I think the provisions are clear and I hope I have said enough to explain what these amendments set out to do, drawing on the comments made at Report from various quarters, including the Government. I commend them to the House as a worthwhile measure—a limited but significant start to the council assuming real ownership of standards within the teaching profession, as well as responsibility for them. I beg to move.

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, I warmly support Amendments Nos. 14 to 16. Following on from what was said earlier by the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Howie of Troon, I remind the House that some years ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that professional self-regulation is one of the glories of a civilised society. In a subsequent lecture Sir Ralf Dahrendorf (later the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf) said that, in his view, regulation of the professions by the state was a fearful thing. He spoke with authority, being a German citizen and having noted the regulation by the state of many of the professions in his native country.

This group of amendments follows on from that which was passed by your Lordships earlier today and gives authority to the general teaching council. I remind the House, as the noble Earl, said, that the authority for similar actions is vested in the Acts which govern the professional regulation of professions such as medicine, dentistry, chiropractic, osteopathy, and others. At Report stage I mentioned that those bodies were answerable not to the Secretary of State, but to the Privy Council. If any decision is made by those regulatory authorities relating to the registration of a professional, there is an automatic right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

At that time I suggested that the same authority was vested in the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. In fact, that used to be the case with the old General Nursing Council. Now the UKCC is not answerable to the Privy Council but to the Secretary of State for Health. In that instance the right of appeal against a direction of the council is not to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but to the High Court. I venture to suggest that, as the general teaching council will be ultimately answerable to the Secretary of State, the right of appeal against such a direction, referred to in Amendment No. 16, is one which also ought to lie with the High Court.

I believe that to add these powers on the face of the Bill is of crucial importance. It is right that the authority should not only allow removal from the register but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in the earlier debate, experience of the other regulatory authorities indicates that the professionals are often much more fierce in their condemnation of their colleagues. For instance, in the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, on which I served for many years, I found that doctors were much tougher than the lay members who were involved in the decision-making relating to issues of registration.

I believe that it is right that the general teaching council, in establishing its disciplinary conduct and professional procedures, should have a sufficient number of lay members on committees concerned with decisions in that regard to enable them to assist in reaching determinations. I firmly believe also that the right of appeal is appropriate and must be enshrined either in the Bill or in regulations. I warmly support Amendment No. 14.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I should like briefly to reiterate what I said at the previous stage; that is, that this power of the General Teaching Council for Scotland is one which teachers appear to value most.

I am told that the appeal system which that council operates is extremely tough. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, its members are extremely robust and detached. Of course, the Privy Council is not involved; it is an internal matter. However, it has a good appeal system and there is no reason why that power should not be included in the powers of the new general teaching council.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. First, I am in favour of a general teaching council and I recall raising the matter in the other place around 25 years ago.

I have an anxiety that the noble Earl may be able to assuage. The council has the power to suspend or terminate a teacher's membership. However, the teacher is not employed by the teaching council; he is employed by an education authority or a board of governors. What would the board of governors do where a teacher's membership had been suspended or it was felt by the council that the teacher should not continue in the profession? How would the employing authority act? My point is that the matter must be thought through and explanation offered. We are dealing with the work of the teaching council at the sharp end and one needs to know what arrangements are envisaged in order to make sure that the decisions of the council carry weight. If no arrangements are made, then the whole thing could fall into disrepute, which would not be desirable.

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I apologise to the House that I was not in my place when the noble Earl moved Amendment No. 14. My name is attached to the amendment because I believe that this amendment fits neatly with my earlier amendment, to which your Lordships agreed.

I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on the question of providing some kind of appeal system. The amendment gives effect to the detail of working out how the whole question of dismissing a teacher should work. It is important and, for all the arguments set out, I am glad to support it.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, when this matter was dealt with at Report stage, understandably the question of appeal had not been considered. I ventured to suggest then that it was an omission that should be looked at and, with his usual diligence, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has done so.

I turn to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that an appeal under anything in this section should go to a High Court judge. If we look at the amendment we will see that the council is given the power to admonish or issue a warning. It cannot possibly be suggested that an appeal against that should go before a High Court judge.

The only time that one envisages an appeal to a High Court judge would be under paragraph (d), which is removal from the register. That is not the position under Amendment No. 14. Appeal should lie with another body or even with the Secretary of State in respect of matters covered by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (d) is the only one which ought to go anywhere near a High Court judge.

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, perhaps I can answer that point by saying that in other regulatory authorities there is no appeal against a decision to admonish or to attach conditions to registration; there is appeal only against decisions which affect an individual's registration, such as suspension or erasure. I felt that I should clarify that point in case it is necessary for this issue to be dealt with in another place by a further amendment.

In answer to a question raised earlier in relation to registration—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I am sorry, this is Third Reading. The noble Lord is a little out of order and perhaps he can be brief and keep to factual points of information.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the factual point of information in relation to other regulatory bodies is that an individual who is not registered is not able to be employed in that profession within a public service.

Lord Howell

My Lords, I hope to have an opportunity for a moment to express again my unease at the removal of parliamentary accountability which is inherent, first, in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and, secondly, in Amendment No. 14, though I acknowledge that its drafting is far superior to the earlier one.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned other professional bodies. He will know that there is some unease among other professional bodies about accountability to the public. I have a little experience in this area as for five years, as Under-Secretary of State for Education, I was solely responsible, subject to the Secretary of State, for dealing with these unfortunate disciplinary matters. I was dealing with 350 cases a year, an enormous number. If children are abused in school, parents are understandably irate about it. The first thing they do is go to see their Member of Parliament. After that Members of Parliament came to see me or raised the matter in the House. One notorious case, with which I shall not bore the House, was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailshani, whose name was mentioned earlier. He demanded greater accountability regarding the actions I had taken which were supported by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It merited being raised on the Floor of the House by the Member concerned and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, although they were totally misdirected in what they were saying at the time and they lost the argument. For heaven's sake, let us not put that out of our minds. If parents cannot get severe grievances raised on the Floor of the House and receive proper answers, considerable difficulties will be caused. I have read that as far as concerns the General Medical Council there has been no public accountability about the private investigations carried on there.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will confirm my view that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, is more reasonable than an earlier amendment. He has gone to great trouble to meet the wishes of the House, as expressed earlier, and so I would not want to vote against it, even though I have my reservations about it. I hope that the Government can see their way clear to meeting the various differences of opinion.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, saw some difficulty in the fact that the employer is not the same person as is judging competence. With respect, that is not an entirely uncommon situation. A barrister is not employed by the Bar Council, but the Bar Council is competent to decide his fitness to act as a barrister. A bus driver is employed by a bus company. But it is not the bus company that takes away his driving licence if he drives extremely badly. What happens when he loses his driving licence is that he loses his qualification to be employed by his employer. That is a perfectly recognised procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, invoked the spectre of accountability. This has been done by power in all centuries. But the limits of accountability must have something to do with the limits of competence. It is our contention that the general teaching council is more likely to be able to recognise a competent or incompetent teacher than the department is.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Order!

Lord Tope

My Lords, my name is also attached to this amendment and I rise therefore to offer support for it from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Reference has been made to the amendment at Report stage in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I know that since withdrawing that amendment, the noble Earl has worked extremely hard to take on board the points made on Report. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has offered some extremely valuable advice, which has been included in the drafting of the amendment. Noble Lords have said that the amendment now before us is significantly better than the amendment at Report stage. Although I was disappointed that the amendment at Report stage was not pressed to a Division, I can now see that that was a wise decision. We now come to an amendment which meets all of the concerns mentioned at Report stage.

This is one of the key amendments in this part of the Bill. On the government amendment earlier today, we recognised that the general teaching council should have a majority of teachers. That was an important step towards having it seen by teachers themselves as an appropriate professional body. We then passed an amendment giving it proper functions and a proper role as a general teaching council. I see this amendment as a third plank in establishing the general teaching council as a proper professional body and being recognised as such by the profession. So on these Benches we are pleased to support this important amendment.

We noted with great interest the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that it is this provision which is valued most in Scotland. I can well recognise that that must be so. Another speaker said earlier—and I know it to be the case—that very often the people who feel most strongly about bad teachers are other teachers. I speak as the husband of a teacher, so I know that to be true.

Perhaps I may follow on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Russell in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, as to how a governing body or an LEA—the employer of a teacher who is deregistered—would feel. I can speak as a school governor who has had to face this issue. First, it is highly probable that before a teacher is deregistered the governing body would have taken action anyway. These are notoriously difficult areas for school governing bodies to deal with. In the probably unlikely event that the governing body had not dealt with it, or had not been able to deal with it, I suspect that most governing bodies, if not all governing bodies, would be very pleased indeed to have a professional body which was able to judge, and judge independently, that a teacher was not suitable to teach.

I would expect all governing bodies and all LEAs to welcome this provision. My noble friend Lord Russell made exactly the right points as to why that should be so.

This is an extremely important amendment for the establishment of the general teaching council. We were warned, if that is the right word, earlier that the Minister may have something positive to say on the amendment. We look forward to hearing it. However, unless it is accepted in its entirety, I think it is something which the noble Earl may wish to pursue further.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter, obviously reinforced by the Division which has recently taken place. I pay tribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has done, to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for his work in drawing up the amendment, for the way he responded to contributions by Members of your Lordships' House at an earlier stage and for the force and eloquence with which he moved the amendment today. Most important of all, he has come up with an amendment which we believe proposes a more workable and responsible way forward than the amendments that have just been passed.

As my noble friend Lord Whitty said earlier when the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, were being debated, they would undermine our new qualified teacher standards. They would undeimine the valuable work of the Teacher Training Agency. They would fragment what is currently a coherent child protection system and would give highly sensitive powers over child protection to an untried and untested body. For those reasons, we shall seek to overturn the amendments in another place.

As we have said at earlier stages, we understand why many Members of your Lordships' House wish to give the council full power over the register of teachers and particularly more power over professional discipline. That is an admirable aim. There is clearly a case for the council assuming such powers in due course. But where we part company is on how and when that might be done.

We have concerns, which I outlined earlier, about fragmenting the child protection arrangements. This amendment attempts to address that concern and I am pleased to welcome the principle that underpins it. As I understand it, the amendment is designed to cover those cases which might be characterised as being about a teacher's professional standing or involving conduct unbecoming to a teacher. Therefore, I am prepared to undertake on behalf of the Government to consider how we can translate that principle into this Bill. It is not possible to give the council the role envisaged without affecting the existing disciplinary system administered by the Secretary of State. So we need to take this matter away and do some detailed work on it before bringing forward an amendment in another place, which I undertake to do.

At present we have a single, coherent system for dealing with all forms of misconduct. It is a wide-ranging system which has been successively extended by governments of all political persuasions. It covers both teachers and a wide range of other people working with children in an educational setting. It covers state schools, independent schools and colleges of further education. It covers both misconduct which gives rise to concerns about child protection and that which gives rise to concerns about a teacher's professional standing. So we cannot really look at this matter in isolation. We have to look at how it will dovetail with the existing barring regime. We will need to consider how we can ensure a clear dividing line between child protection cases and professional standing cases, which the amendment agreed to earlier singularly fails to do.

More than half of the cases dealt with by the department's teacher misconduct team are clearly about child protection. They account for some three-quarters of the barring or restriction orders on teachers. Around one quarter of the cases have little or no child protection dimension to them. These cases involve things like teachers making false claims about their qualifications; misappropriating school funds, helping pupils to cheat in exams, and similar forms of misconduct. There are around 100 such cases a year, which typically lead to between 10 or 20 barring or restriction orders.

However, the remaining one quarter of the cases may not be quite so easily classified. These are cases of serious offences which may not involve children directly, but in which the offending behaviour may indicate a possible risk to the safety or welfare of children. We shall need to consider how such cases are handled and who decides whether they should be taken up by the GTC or the Secretary of State.

As we said at earlier stages, there could also be some difficulties of scope. The amendment covers only registered teachers since the council's power would be to strike a teacher off the register, suspend him or her from the register or attach conditions to his or her registration. We shall need to consider how we deal with unregistered teachers in the independent and FE sectors and with the non-teaching staff who are covered by the current barring regime.

Similarly, removal from the GTC's register would effectively bar a person only from teaching in maintained schools. We shall need to consider whether a teacher who has been removed from the council's register should be barred from teaching in independent schools and FE colleges and from other non-teaching work with children. However, I would have reservations if appropriate professional standards were to include at this stage matters of competence as to how individual teachers do their job. We have worked in partnership with the education service and drawn up new arrangements agreed by representatives of local education authorities and teachers' unions. I would want to consider carefully whether a role for the council would help or hinder those new arrangements. We must give the arrangements time to work.

I now turn to appeals. We see a proper place for them in any new system. We will give this careful thought in preparing a government amendment to be introduced in another place.

There is a range of issues which we need to work through in more detail in order to make absolutely sure that the amendment will have the desired effect. But I can say again that we shall bring forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage at the same time as overturning the amendments that have just been passed in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.

I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, for the considerable energy and clarity he has brought to this issue. In the wording of the amendment the noble Earl's intention is made crystal clear; namely, to distinguish very clearly child protection cases, which we believe should remain with the Secretary of State, and those misconduct cases where we now believe that the GTC can bring its unique professional insight to bear. I hope that he will understand our wish to make sure that the wording is also legally watertight. As I have said, we shall bring forward an appropriate amendment in another place. In the light of that commitment, and in view of the conflict between this amendment and the amendments which have just been passed, I very much hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Let me cut straight through to what the noble Baroness has generously said in the past few minutes. She went a very long way towards what we are after. However, I am still not as clear as I would like to be. I tend to go with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that unless we are 100 per cent. clear we should press the amendment. I am still inclined to think that.

The reducing point that I have in mind is that the general teaching council should, obviously, have the powers which are now on the face of the Bill and that it would have a real, constructive and positive role in matters, for example, like gross incompetence. I refer to the teaching-related issues that I mentioned, such as the teacher who loses all the scripts that her children have done for the GCSE; who fails to mark work; or whose pupils, going in for an exam, find 10 minutes beforehand, that they do not have the papers that they are allowed to take in with them: and this is all part of a pattern from previous schools and so on. That is the kind of issue that we had in mind that the general teaching council should take on; issues which would not have got to the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness also said that teaching competence would not come into it. Can she give a little more clarification before I decide, if not exactly where the dividing line is between the two, but that a substantial amount of what we have been talking about will be assigned to the general teaching council? Can she do that?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, this is exactly the kind of issue which needs more consideration. As I said earlier, we are anxious to work in partnership with the education service. We have recently drawn up new arrangements, which have been agreed by local education authorities, their representatives and the teaching unions, for dealing with matters of competence as to how an individual teacher does his or her job. We need to give those new arrangements time to work. Therefore, I do not believe that, for the time being, it would be sensible for the GTC to be barring a teacher on those kinds of grounds.

However, it is perfectly reasonable for the GTC to bar teachers for some of the other reasons that I gave earlier; namely, where a teacher has been dishonest or pretended to have qualifications which he or she does not have; or where a teacher has been involved in misconduct in the school, but not misconduct that involves child protection cases. I hope that that is helpful. All I can do is reiterate that we accept in principle what the noble Earl wants to do here, but we would like more time to come up with legally watertight amendments that do not get us into difficulty when implementing the proposals in the Bill.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that reply. It is certainly a difficult one and the noble Baroness has gone a long way. I think what I have to say is that she has not probably gone quite far enough. It is a close thing, but I would say possibly four-fifths and no more. I am swayed by the thought that if it is as she says and if I have misrepresented her, with another stage to come in another place it is perfectly open to her and her party to tidy it up at that stage. With some regret, but on balance and conscious of the support I have had from many noble Lords around the House, to whom I am extremely grateful, I think I will test the opinion of the House.

5.40 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents,69; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Flowers, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Geraint, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.]	Halsbury, E.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Hampton, L.
Blatch, B.	Hamwee, B.
Bowness, L.	Harlech, L.
Butterfield, L.	Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Byford, B.	Hooson, L.
Calverley, L.	Hylton, L.
Carlisle, E.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Inchyra, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L.	Jacobs, L.
Courtown, E.	Kinloss, Ly.
Cox, B.	Lang of Monkton, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	Leigh, L.
Dholakia, L.	Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Ezra, L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Falkland, V.	Lyell, L.

Lytton,E.	Russell, E.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
McNair, L.	Southwell, Bp.
McNally, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Maddock, B.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Meston, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Methuen, L.	Thurlow, L.
	Thurso, V.
Monson, L.	Tope, L.
Mountevans, L.	Tordoff, L. [Teller.]
Nelson, E.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Orr-Ewing, L.	Walton of Detchant, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.	Warnock, B.
Redesdale, L.	Weatherill, L.
Ritchie of Dundee, L.	Wharton, B.
Rochester, L.	Wilberforce, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.	Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Jeger, B.
Ailesbury, M.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Amos, B.	Judd, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Barnett, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Berkeley, L.	Kintore, E.
Blackstone, B.	Kirkhill, L.
Blease, L.	Levy, L.
Borrie, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Burlison, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe,L.	Mishcon, L.
Currie of Marylebone, L.	Molloy, L.
David, B.	Monkswell, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Desai, L.	Nicol, B.
Diamond, L.	Northbourne, L.
Donoughue, L.	Paul, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Peston, L.
Eatwell, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Gallacher, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Gilbert, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Serota, B.
Grantchester, L.	Sewel, L.
Gregson, L.	Shepherd, L.
Grenfell, L.	Shore of Stepney, L.
Hardie, L.	Simon, V.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Haskel, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hayman, B.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Howell, L.	Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hoyle, L.	Varley, L.
Hughes, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
	Whitty, L.
Islwyn, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.50 p.m.

Clause 4 [Regulations relating to registration]:

[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 17: Page 4, line 8, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move formally Amendment No. 17.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Additional and ancillary functions]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18: Page 4, line 30, leave out subsection (3).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [The General Teaching Council for Wales]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 21: Page 5, line 5, leave out ("General Teaching"). Page 5, line 7, leave out ("General Teaching"). Page 5, line 12, leave out ("General Teaching").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 19 to 21.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 7 [Functions of General Teaching Council for Wales: general]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 22: Page 5, line 23, leave out ("General Teaching").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Registration requirement for teachers at schools]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 23: Page 6, line 12, after ("Council") insert ("for England").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Deduction of fees from salaries, etc.]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment Nos. 24 to 26: Page 6, line 39, leave out ("and "employed""). Page 6, line 41, leave out ("General Teaching"). After Clause 10, insert the following new clause— CONSULTATION ABOUT QUALIFIED TEACHER STATUS (". In section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988, after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted— (2AA) Before making any regulations under subsection (2) or (2A) or making any provision by virtue of regulations made under those subsections as to the standards required of a person who wishes to become a qualified teacher, the Secretary of State shall consult either or both of the following (as appropriate)—

1. (a) the General Teaching Council for England, and
2. (b) after their establishment, the General Teaching Council for Wales."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 11 [Supply of information relating to teachers]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28: Page 7, line 3, leave out ("General Teaching") Page 7, line 19, after ("Council") insert ("for England").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) moved Amendment No. 29: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause— ("Duty of the General Teaching Council for Scotland DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO NEEDS OF DISABLED PERSONS At the end of section 1 of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 (establishment of General Teaching Council for Scotland) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (3) In exercising their functions, the Council shall have regard to the requirements of persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.—"").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I am making a brief guest appearance at this stage of the Bill. In moving Amendment No. 29 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 56. Amendment No. 29 introduces a new provision which will require the General Teaching Council for Scotland to take into account the needs of disabled people in the course of its work. This introduces for Scotland a provision similar to that relating to the GTCs for England and Wales which was debated on Report. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for raising the matter at that time. I hope she accepts that the Government have responded positively. Amendment No. 56 is a purely technical amendment to insert this new provision in the list of those provisions in the Bill which extend to Scotland. I commend the amendments to the House.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, speaks, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. I was asked by the National Deaf Children's Society to help amend the Bill to match the amendments already made for England and Wales. In my researches I discovered that the noble Baroness, in her usual assiduous way, had been hard at work on the matter and had got the Government going on it. With great relief I was able to cease my activities. I have contacted the General Teaching Council for Scotland. The council tells me that in any case it deals with this matter assiduously and is very glad to have this proposal inserted into the Bill. Obviously, the Government will also have consulted that body.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I warmly welcome this very useful amendment. I thank the Minister for his positive and speedy action. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her remarks.

Briefly, I refer to another relevant point. In my letter of 3rd March thanking the Minister for his decision to table this amendment I asked whether he would consider tabling an amendment similar to the amendment to Clause 1(4) moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at Report stage. That is now Clause 1(6)(d) which requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of the council's membership reflecting the interests of persons concerned with the teaching of persons with special educational needs.

I realise that the members of the GTC for Scotland are elected, nominated and appointed in different ways, but I very much hope that an acceptable mode can be found to achieve the same effect. I also realise that it is rash to interfere in Scottish affairs, particularly in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to whom, as I say, I am grateful for her remarks. However, the National Deaf Children's Society covers Scotland and that body feels that such an amendment is useful. It arrives late in the passage of the Bill through the House but it has yet to go to the other place. I raise the question now to give the Minister an opportunity to explain the Government's thinking on the matter. Whatever may be the response of the Minister, I thank him very much for tabling Amendments Nos. 29 and 56.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, this gives me an opportunity to speak for my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding who is not able to be here. He is in the Netherlands but thanks the Government for all they have done for the disabled in this part of the Bill and in that part which pertains to England and Wales. I promised my noble friend that I would place that on record.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I too welcome the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly referred to her noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. My noble friend Lord Addington will also be pleased to see the amendment as it addresses issues of particular concern to him. My noble friend would also be interested to hear the response to a question that I shall put to the Minister although a reply may not be possible today. Does the definition of disabled persons in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 extend to people with dyslexia and learning difficulties? I do not know the answer: my suspicion is that it does not. That might have relevance in the context of a general teaching council.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, when I look back to the referendums Bills and the earlier stages of this Bill I find myself in a somewhat unusual position. I thank noble Lords for what they have said. From time to time I am also somewhat reluctant to intervene in Scottish business in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. To deal with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the straight answer is that I do not know either but I shall endeavour to find out and write to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, raised a question about the membership of the GTC. I have asked officials in the education and industry department of the Scottish Office to discuss this matter with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. We shall consider whether it would be appropriate to table an amendment in another place. Therefore, the door is slightly more than ajar. I commend the amendments to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6 p.m.

Clause 13 [Requirement to serve induction period]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 30: Page 8, line 34, after ("period") insert ("of not less than one school year").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I undertook on Report to bring forward a government amendment making it clear that the induction period should not be less than one academic year. That has always been our intention but I am happy to make that intention clear on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 30 fulfils that commitment and will ensure that the induction period is not less than one school year; that is, three school terms.

Our intention is that the induction period should normally be one school year. However, Amendment No. 31 will enable the Secretary of State to make provision as to the length of the induction period in any prescribed circumstances. It is intended to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations that the induction period will be longer for part-time teachers who will be required to serve an equivalent number of days in order to complete their induction period. It will also enable the Secretary of State to prescribe those requirements that will apply if there are interruptions in the induction period as a result of teachers being on extended sick or maternity leave. We intend to consult in our consultation document on such exceptions to ensure that the regulations can cover every eventuality. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 31: Page 8, line 36, at end insert ("in any prescribed circumstances").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 33: Page 9. line 8, leave out first ("General Teaching").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 34: Page 9, line 9, at end insert— ("(2A) Once the Council or the General Teaching Council for Wales have been established, the Secretary of State shall consult one or both of those Councils (as appropriate) before making any determination as to standards by virtue of regulations made under subsection (2)(c).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36: Page 9, line 16, after ("section") insert—

1. ("(a) any reference to persons employed as teachers shall be construed in accordance with section 218(13) of the Education Reform Act 1988, and
2. (b)")

Page 9, leave out line 17 and insert ("subsection (12) of that section.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 14 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 37: Page 9, line 37, after ("Council") insert ("for England").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools: Scotland]:

Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 38 Page 11, line 31, leave out ("of") and insert ("wholly or mainly for").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 brings forward in relation to inspection of teacher education in Scotland a similar clarification to that which was provided in relation to Clause 14 by the provision already debated on Report. My noble friend and I undertook to bring forward this similar amendment relating to Scotland and we are today fulfilling that undertaking.

As I explained at the time, it was always the intention that HM Inspectorate would look only at courses in Scotland provided wholly or mainly for teacher education purposes. But we recognise concerns raised that the clause as drafted might have permitted inspection of other courses, because some students attending lectures might have been trainee teachers. We are therefore happy to make the position clear through this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [New arrangements for giving financial support to students]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 39: Page 12, line 25, after ("fees") insert ("payable in connection with attendance on courses").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments in this grouping are minor technical amendments. They do not alter the substance of Clause 16(2)(h) or 16(8) or of Clause 18(4) or 18(5). They simply bring the references to fees in those four subsections into line with the definition of fees in Clause 20(1) as amended on Report. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 40: Page 13, line 39, at end insert— ("() Notwithstanding the provisions in other subsections of this section, the Secretary of State shall not introduce a scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date on or after 1st June 2002.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a good and useful debate on tuition fees on Report. We now return to the subject. I have said at every stage of the Bill thus far that the Liberal Democrats remain opposed to the student payment of tuition fees. That remains our view. It is unchanged. But I have to recognise that in your Lordships' House that issue was decided on Report. On that occasion, we had voting for the amendment against tuition fees the largest ever number of Liberal Democrat Peers. We had over 30 Conservative Back-Bench Peers, to whom I am grateful for their support, as well as a number of Cross-Benchers, Labour Peers and Members of the Bishops' Bench. I am grateful for that considerable show of concern that I am aware exists in your Lordships' House on the issue of tuition fees.

I recognise that, sadly from our point of view, the Conservative Front Bench did not feel able to support that amendment. I know that that was because it did not accord with its policy on tuition fees. Later in the evening, the Conservatives succeeded with their own amendment.

This amendment is a little different. I hope that the Conservative Front Bench, as well as its Back Benches will feel able to support it. We are saying now, as indeed the Conservative Front Bench has said on other occasions—and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, made the point forcefully on Report—that the Government have no mandate to introduce tuition fees. It did not feature in their election manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, told us that it did not feature at the Labour Party conference. Indeed, it is contrary to the impression given during the general election, and, some will argue, in the statements made during the general election.

Therefore we feel that any action to be taken with regard to the introduction of tuition fees should stand the test of a general election, and that whichever government or prospective government may wish to take such action, they should have the mandate to do so. For that reason, the amendment requires delay in the implementation of tuition fees until after the latest date for the next general election.

I know, as I said, that the Conservative Party has a different view on the issue of tuition fees, but I believe that it shares the view on the issue of the mandate. I hope that on this occasion therefore it will be able to support us. We have debated at some length in your Lordships' House the principle of tuition fees. I therefore do not intend to repeat that today.

This is an important issue. If the amendment is passed, it will be the only reference in the Bill to tuition fees. We have all of us made much of the general opaqueness of this part of the Bill, the difficulty in getting to grips with it, recognising exactly what it is about, and where the power lies. The amendment, which may not be technically perfect, is at least clear in its intention, and is one which I believe will command much support outside the House. I hope that it will command much support within the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, we have already had several full debates on students' contributions towards fees and on conditions to control top-up fees. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his noble friends even pressed Divisions on both these matters on Report. They lost those Divisions, and yet even now—on Third Reading—they are seeking other means of achieving the same effects. I do not believe that that is an appropriate way to proceed on Third Reading. Nevertheless, I shall address the substance of the amendment.

Through Amendment No. 40, the noble Lord would seek a funding scheme which would not require students to pay any contribution towards tuition fees until after 1st June 2002. It is, of course, the universities, rather than the Secretary of State, which charge students tuition fees. Students are already required to pay tuition fees, though some students receive grants which meet those fees on their behalf from public funds. So the only way that the Secretary of State could meet the terms of this amendment would be to provide grants that would meet tuition fees on behalf of students.

The implication is that the Secretary of State should provide grants to meet all tuition fees on behalf of all students in further and higher education—that is, including many who already meet their own fees. The Government would be expected to meet fees not only for home full-time undergraduate students, but also for FE students over 19, part-time higher education students, and even postgraduates. Nor would the noble Lord stop there; he would have the British taxpayer meet the tuition fees for overseas students as well. Indeed, the noble Lord is seeking, through this amendment, comprehensive financial assistance from the Government that will ensure that no student at all in any institution of further or higher education shall have to pay tuition fees. And students would receive free tuition, no matter what their own or their family's private means and no matter what financial advantages higher education would bestow on students themselves.

Once again, let me remind the House of the guiding principle underlying the Dearing Report, a principle which this Government have endorsed; namely, that the costs of higher education should be shared between those who benefit. Graduates earn on average 20 per cent. more than those without degrees. It is only fair that individuals who stand to benefit so much from higher education should also share some of the costs, even though we accept that the state should continue to bear most of the costs.

This amendment, however, would require the state and the taxpayers to bear the full costs of higher education at all levels, including the higher education of those who will stand to earn the highest salaries. It would also amount to a licence for those who were so inclined to become perpetual students, taking one course of higher education after another, never having to pay any fees and borrowing money for living expenses which they might never have to pay back. The noble Lord has yet to answer convincingly the question of how this can be fair, when many of the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill may not have benefited from higher education themselves and may earn far lower salaries than those who do benefit.

The noble Lord accuses us of not having an electoral mandate to require students to contribute to their own tuition fees. We made it clear in our pre-election document on lifelong learning that we opposed top-up fees, but we did not rule out requiring students or their families to contribute towards the costs of their tuition—

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With the leave of the House, will she confirm that on 14th April, two weeks before the general election, no less a person than the Prime Minister stated, "We have no plans to introduce tuition fees"? That statement was confirmed by his right honourable friend Robin Cook on 24th April, who said, "There are no plans to introduce tuition fees". That does not lie well with what the Minister is now saying.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, it is entirely consistent with what I have said. We did not rule out requiring students or their families to contribute towards the costs of their tuition on a carefully designated and designed basis which would enable all to afford higher education according to their own families' means. The Prime Minister said that we would wait for the Dearing Report. Saying that at that time we had no plans was entirely consistent with waiting until the publication of the Dearing Report. Indeed, by giving support to the Dearing Inquiry, which was set up by the previous government, we made clear that we were concerned about the funding crisis facing higher education.

Earl Russell

My Lords, next time the Minister says that she has no plans to do something, does she expect us to be reassured?

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I would expect the noble Earl to want to ask probing questions from time to time as to whether or not we had plans. Perhaps I may continue. We also made it clear that we were waiting for the Dearing Committee to report before taking decisions. I believe that we have sufficient mandate for this legislation and that there is no justification whatever for waiting until after the next election in 2002 before implementing these proposals.

For our part, we believe that it is only right and fair that the investment of the nation should be balanced by the commitment of the individual. The alternative approach underlying this amendment of subsidising all those who enter higher education or re-enter it, regardless of their families' income, would mean a heavier burden on all taxpayers. Let me remind the House of the Dearing Committee's figures for the longer-term funding requirements of universities. The committee put the figure at up to £2 billion, depending on the scale and pace of the growth in student numbers. The effect of these amendments would be that all this cost would fall on the taxpayer. Indeed, the true figure could be far in excess of that, as Dearing never envisaged that British taxpayers should subsidise overseas students as well.

However, given that the Secretary of State would have to set a maximum level of financial support for fees at the highest level of those fees in order to comply with this amendment, it would then mean that the Secretary of State could exercise no control over a university that decided to set fees at, say, double or treble or 10 times the current rate. Indeed, this amendment would allow universities and colleges to charge as much as they liked in fees. It would in essence amount to giving higher education institutions an open purse from the taxpayer or a blank cheque from the Government.

Only a party whose living members have never experienced government could come forward with such amendments. No government can write universities a blank cheque or give them an open purse on the taxpayer's behalf. That would be abrogating our responsibilities towards taxpayers, as well as many students and parents. Indeed, the only people who would gain would he some students whose higher education would be subsidised on demand by an élite group of universities.

As I explained on Report, the only way that the Government could keep the higher education budget under control would be to impose strict limits on the numbers of students that universities and colleges could recruit. That would mean returning to a system where only a privileged handful could benefit from higher education. The economic and social benefits of widening participation would be lost for the sole purpose of indulging a few self-interested universities and colleges and allowing them to make limitless demands of the taxpayer.

The amendment would take away the power of the Secretary of State to set a ceiling on the level of financial support that can be paid from public funds for fees and thereby remove an important safeguard for taxpayers. The noble Lord and his noble friends have already lost Divisions on Report on the principles underlying Clauses 16 and 18 and it would not be appropriate at Third Reading for them to press this amendment tonight. But should they do so, my Lords, make no mistake. This amendment is against the best interests of students, of parents and of taxpayers. It would destroy a careful balance of safeguards to prevent the taxpayer from being presented with an open-ended financial commitment to meet unlimited tuition fees for every student in the land, whether from home or overseas, and it would ultimately lead to a narrowing—rather than a widening—of access. I urge your Lordships' House to reject this amendment.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, the Minister has spelt out the dire consequences which would follow if the amendment were carried. However, the amendment provides that: the Secretary of State shall not introduce a scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date on or after 1st June 2002". If English words mean anything, they mean that the status quo will continue until then. Therefore, how can all those consequences flow if the status quo continues until 2002?

In my view, what the Minister has been saying is a lot of codswallop! I do not speak personally against her—she is one of my very good friends and I have tremendous regard for her. However, she has spelt out ridiculous consequences when the amendment merely provides that the status quo shall continue until after the next general election.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am not sure that "codswallop" is an entirely parliamentary term. Nevertheless, I shall accept it from my noble friend. I reject, however, what he says.

On the occasions when my noble friend has intervened in these debates, he has done so from a position of surprising ignorance on the part of someone who has so much experience in these matters. The fact is that we do not have free higher education at the moment as my noble friend has claimed on a number of occasions. Part-time students pay fees, as do postgraduates and overseas students. Nor is it the case that further education students over the age of 19, most of whom are far less privileged than those who go to university as full-time undergraduates, have free education. Therefore, this amendment would have all the dire consequences that I have described because it provides that there should be no scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date after 1st June 2002.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, will the noble Baroness say specifically what it is in the amendment which repeals automatically all the present schemes that are in place because they would have to be repealed in order to fit with what the noble Baroness said?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, my advice is that the amendment provides that the Secretary of State should not introduce a scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date on or after 1st June 2002 when in fact students pay tuition fees at present.

Under this legislation we are changing the nature of the grants that are paid so that students will have to make a contribution which is greater than that which they have to make at present if they can afford to do so. Therefore, under the Bill we are seeing a completely new arrangement for the grant for those who pay tuition fees. However, as I understand it, and as I am advised, the amendment will create a situation in which students generally will no longer have to pay tuition fees.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, again, with the leave of the House, I must return to the noble Baroness. She may be relieved to know that I shall not be supporting the amendment. However, I should point out that if this Bill were not before this House today, nothing would change in terms of the schemes which are in place at present. As far as I can tell from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, he is simply saying that a scheme—namely, that being proposed in the Bill—should not be introduced before there is an electoral mandate to support it.

The noble Baroness really must say to the House what it is in this amendment which repeals all the arrangements that are in place at present in other statutes and the way in which this amendment does anything other than refer to a scheme, another scheme; namely, the scheme that is proposed in the Bill.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, arrangements for paying fees are changed all the time. They are being changed because universities can charge fees as can further education colleges. Different arrangements are made by universities as private institutions. As far as I understand the matter, this amendment will have an effect on those arrangements in the way that it is drafted.

Lord Tope

My Lords, sadly I did not hear the Minister on "Any Questions?" last Friday but I did hear the response on "Any Answers.?" A lady rang in saying that when a government say they have no plans, it was her belief that they mean that they might do it. That is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves with this Bill and with the introduction of student payment of tuition fees.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, the Government went further than saying they had no plans. They said specifically that they would not do it. I listened with interest and concern to what the Minister said in reply. I was already concluding that this is a case of "the lady protests too much"—and not for the first time during the passage of this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who put the point much better than I can. The noble Lord expressed the matter extremely effectively. The effect of the amendment is to maintain the status quo. The effect of that is that the Government would have to think much more carefully than they have thus far about the funding of higher education and the specific issue of tuition fees.

I explained at an earlier stage my party's alternative proposals. It is not appropriate for me to return to those now. But we do have them and, in the event of the status quo being maintained by the passing of this amendment, we shall be in a position again to project them.

I am sad and sorry that the Conservative Front Bench feels unable to support the amendment. We tried very hard to frame it in a way that met their concerns. I am not entirely clear why the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not supporting it. Almost all that she said appeared to support the amendment.

This is an extremely important issue. I am more convinced about the rightness of the amendment because the Minister, almost for the first time during the passage of the Bill, started getting quite close to abuse in terms of answering it. That is uncharacteristic and certainly uncharacteristic of our discussions on the Bill.

The Minister said that only a party which has no living experience of government would have proposed such an amendment. This amendment is proposed by a party that expects to be in government in the year 2002. For that reason, and because this is such an important issue, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should just say that I have it on clear legal advice that, de facto, this amendment would repeal existing legislation which requires students to pay fees.

Lord Tope

My Lords, the issue is clear. This amendment is drafted in words which are much clearer than anything that can be found in the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships are in no doubt as to the purpose and effect of the amendment. I repeat that it is an important issue of principle on which I wish to test the opinion of the House.

6.27 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	McNally, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Maddock, B.
Butterfield, L.	Meston, L.
Carlisle, E.	Methuen, L.
Dholakia, L.	Newby, L.
Ezra, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Falkland, V.	Redesdale, L.
Geraint, L.	Rochester, L.
Hamwee, B.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Holderness, L	Russell, E. [Teller.]
	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Hooson, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Jacobs, L.	Thurso, V.
Jeger, B.	Tope, L. [Teller.]
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Tordoff, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Lyell, L.	Weatherill, L.
McNair, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Howell, L.
Amos, B.	Howie of Troon, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Hoyle, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Hughes, L.
Barnett, L.	Hughes of Woodside, L.
Bath and Wells, Bp.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Berkeley, L.	Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.	Islwyn, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Janner of Braunstone, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Burlison, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Judd, L.
Carter, L.[Teller.]	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Kennet, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	Kilbracken, L.
David, B.	Kirkhill, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Longford, E.
Desai, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Diamond, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Mishcon, L.
Flowers, L.	Molloy, L.
Gallacher, L.	Monkswell, L.
Gilbert, L.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Nelson, E.
Grantchester, L.	Nicol, B.
Gregson, L.	Paul, L.
Grenfell, L.	Peston, L.
Halsbury, E.	Pitkeathley, B.
Hardie, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Haskel, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Hayman, B.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Sewel, L.	Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Shepherd, L.	Thurlow, L.
Shore of Stepney, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Simon, V.	Varley, L.
Simon of Highbury, I..	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Smith of Gilmorehill,B.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Southwell, Bp.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L
Stoddart of Swindon, L.	Whaddon, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.	Whitty, L.
Strabolgi, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.35 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 41: Page 14, line 3, leave out ("charged in respect of") and insert ("payable in connection with").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42: Page 14, line 7, after ("terms,") insert— ("() the Secretary of State has first commissioned an independent view and published the findings,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 43 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, and Amendment No. 44 which is tabled in my name. The Government have declared their intention not to raise fees for tuition paid for by students above £1,000 in real terms. If that is the case, then my amendment is inoffensive; but it would go a very long way to regain the trust of students which is somewhat dented by the debate so far on the Bill.

Such a review committee would offer independent advice and would consider the interests of both institutions and students in the context of any proposals by a future government to increase fees. So long as the increases were in line with inflation, there would be very little for such a committee to do. However, if this or any future government broke with the declared intention not to raise the proportion of fees, such an independent review would be most important. The Dearing Committee recommended such an independent review body. The Education Select Committee not only supported that recommendation but also stated that any Secretary of State contemplating an increase in the fees would be expected to defend such proposals to the committee.

The Secretary of State for Education said that he had an open mind and that he was open to persuasion on this point. However, the Government have quietly dropped the independent review recommendation from their response to Dearing, so what have they to lose? If, as they claim, they will not increase the fees beyond the rate of inflation, why are they so worried about an independent review?

As the Bill stands, the Government have built in to the proposals in Clause 18 a mechanism to punish financially any university or college which charges additional fees. Should this Chancellor of the Exchequer or indeed any future Chancellor of the Exchequer freeze or cut higher education expenditure to the point where staff cuts and course programmes suffer, the only outlet for increasing income would be by the Government increasing the proportion of fees paid by students. My amendment would at least offer some assurance that, should that eventuality come about, an independent review body could consider the case put by the Government to defend such proposals.

If the Government were to reject all three amendments, students would have every reason to remain very suspicious of the Government's intentions; indeed, they must be aware of what happened in Australia to Australian students. We are led to believe that higher education will he more generously funded in the future and that there is no intention whatever of increasing the level of tuition fees paid by students. Therefore, accepting Amendment No. 42 or my noble friend's Amendment No. 43, would hold no threat for the Government and, as I have already said, would go a very long way to reassure students who are much disquieted by the proposals in the Bill.

I shall couple with the students who are disquieted about the Bill's proposals the fact that many of the Minister's colleagues, both those sitting behind her in this place and many more in another place, are also disquieted by the Bill. As I have said, the promise of an independent review body would go a long way to reassure students that the Government will live by their intention not to raise fees. But, should the Government, or any government in the future, change their mind, at least an independent review body would take into account the interests of the students, of the institutions and indeed the case that the government put. I beg to move.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, 1 recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argued at Report stage—in relation to the wording of Amendment No. 42 that is now before us—that the Government have added a safeguard that the increase should be, no greater than is required to maintain the value of such grants in real terms". But, following the successful amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch at Report, which now forms subsection (6) of Clause 16 of the Bill, the matter goes beyond grants for tuition fees and now encompasses maintenance grants too. For that reason I have added reference to, maintenance grants and student loans", in the wording of Amendment No. 43. For, make no mistake about it, there is little public confidence in the Government in these matters. As my noble friend has said, there is little confidence among students who saw the Government's attempted simultaneous imposition of tuition fees and abolition of maintenance grants—the so-called "double whammy"—as a step too far. Every safeguard is needed.

I add how disconcerted I was to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, not only say on "Any Questions?" last Friday—I did hear her—that the Government would overturn in the Commons the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch (which is as unsurprising as it is unwelcome) but also assert that on the amendment (and I believe I quote verbatim), unelected hereditary peers defeated the Government". I am interested in the phrase "unelected hereditary peers". I am not sure whether the noble Baroness feels that she has some popular mandate to stand at the Dispatch Box in person. I am well aware that the present Government in their manifesto pledged to end the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers. But for the Minister responsible for the Bill to speak in that way of the result of a Division in your Lordships' House seems to me to border upon contempt of the House. Let me also say that until the Government put an end to the voting rights of hereditary peers they will have to put up with them. Moreover, noble Lords on the Benches opposite were happy enough when in opposition to use such votes to defeat the then government—for instance, on higher education Bills—when it suited them.

Do the Government assume that when the House is reformed—if it is—by the termination of the rights of hereditary peers, they will automatically win every vote, irrespective of the merits of the case? That is indeed what a number of commentators suspect; namely, that the Prime Minister's appointed quango will become the Prime Minister's poodle. But until that time we shall all, hereditary and life peers, try to do our duty. One of those duties is to point out the defects, and where possible to rectify them, in this rather unsatisfactory piece of legislation that is before us now, and therefore to introduce firm safeguards such as the present amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, I have not spoken in earlier stages on this Bill. I have just returned to the country from a trip abroad and I have missed most of the Report stage. However, I came back in time to vote in the Division to which my noble friend has referred, which was instigated—it must be said—by a life peer. I was one of the many life peers who voted on that amendment. Therefore I, too, resent the suggestion that somehow this was an act of the hereditary peerage. That is a misleading piece of information which emerges almost every time there is a Division in this House now, however many of us who are life peers have chosen to vote.

However, I rise to speak at this stage because I listened to the debate on 2nd March with interest. I heard the Minister say that she would separate the fact from the fiction. She then made many assertions about what the current state of play was and what the situation might be in the future. The reality is that we do not know what will happen. The reality is that when any government introduce major reforms of this kind we do not know exactly how they will work out.

Certainly there is no confidence among the students of this country that everything will be quite as satisfactory as the noble Baroness asserts. I can say that because as president of Cardiff University I have received two big bundles of letters from the students of that university within the past 48 hours in which large numbers of them express their acute anxieties about the situation. That is not surprising as these changes have been introduced quite hurriedly. There has been a speedy response to Dearing. The other day my noble friend suggested that there had been an over-speedy response to Dearing. Students have had to react during the course of their studies. Many of them are already committed. They are not fully aware of what is going on.

It therefore seems to me that we are dealing with an amendment which has considerable merit, even from the Government's point of view, because in the future the Government must be anxious that the measures they have introduced will have the support of and will gain the confidence of the universities and the student bodies. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss this as just another Opposition amendment. I hope she will see that it has real potential and strength—if these proposals are as good as she believes them to be—to reinforce the confidence that is required if universities are to recruit students as we all hope that they will. I hope that she will listen sympathetically to what has been said.

Earl Russell

My Lords, further to the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has made, it is at present a Standing Order of this House that all peers count equal, and has been so since 1621. I recognise that what the House does, the House can undo. I recognise that what Parliament has done, Parliament can undo. But at present that is the position. Were I to listen to too many speeches from ministerial Benches implying that I am in some way a second-class Member of this House, I might be slightly less ready to inconvenience myself to vote in the Government Lobby when I agree with them than I have hitherto been.

Let that pass. There is also a further procedural unusualness—shall I say?—in a Minister in this House announcing while the Bill is still in this House that an amendment carried here will be reversed in another place. It has in the past been the custom here—although I admit it has been honoured in the breach as well as in the observance—that we recognise the basic parliamentary principle that each House is sovereign over its own proceedings and therefore any announcement about what another place will do with our amendments is not made until another place has possession of the Bill. That, I think, was a good custom and I am sorry to see it broken.

To come to the specific matter of the amendment, in a rather unexpected speech which the Minister made on the previous amendment she complained constantly of an open-ended commitment she believed it imposed on the state. I do not entirely understand this because it was not my understanding that the previous amendment did anything to repeal anything in Clause 18. She might think about this from the other end. If you look at this from the university point of view, when we have a Government who believe—as the noble Baroness clearly does—that government have sole and unfettered authority to decide what things will cost, you are living in an open-floored room and dancing on the few remaining rafters comes to seem—shall I say?—a little uncertain. It is essential that government of any party should from time to time have to listen to other expert opinion, with an authority that they cannot ignore, on what things cost. If the Government cannot or will not absorb that principle, relations between universities and the state are likely to be very near their end. That, I believe, would be a desperate loss to us all.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I have been surprised—as I know other noble Lords must have been—that this debate, which seemed to be about a relatively straightforward series of amendments (albeit, in my view, unnecessary amendments) has turned into a semi-constitutional debate. First, we have the spectacle of noble Lords opposite posing to be the students' friends. The very same noble Lords—

Earl Russell

My Lords, may I ask the Minister to withdraw the charge of posing to be the students' friends?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate to withdraw that charge. The noble Earl and others who have spoken in this debate claim that they are protecting the students' fear of some Australian menace which is not likely. I shall give way in a moment. They are the very same Members of this House who have voted on previous occasions to prevent the Government stopping universities charging top-up fees which would hit in particular parents of poorest families. It is a hypocritical attitude. I think, therefore, that it is appropriate for me to say that those arguments are not in reality on behalf of the students of this country.

Earl Russell

My Lords, once again I request the Minister to withdraw that. It is a charge I do not believe he would risk repeating outside this Chamber.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw the charge. It is on the voting record and on the speaking record that noble Lords have spoken in this House against the Government's proposals in Clause 18 which would hit individual students—I have given way twice.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I move that the Standing Order on asperity of speech be read.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I have no doubt that the Clerk will find the appropriate place in a moment.

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, perhaps I may advise the House on this matter. The Motion that the Clerk reads the Standing Order which relates to asperity of speech is debatable; and the Clerk may only read the Standing Order if it has been agreed to by the House.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I move that the Standing Order be read.

6.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether Standing Order 30 shall be read?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Fookes, B.
Aldington, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Gage, V.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Geraint, L.
Annaly, L.	Glentoran, L.
Astor, V.	Goodhart, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.	Hamwee, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]	Harding of Petherton, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Harlech, L.
Bellwin, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Beloff, L.	Hayhoe, L.
Belstead, L.	Higgins, L.
Berners, B.	HolmPatrick, L.
Biddulph, L.	Hope of Craighead, L.
Birdwood, L.	Howe, E.
Blaker, L.	Inglewood, L.
Blatch, B.	Jacobs, L.
Boardman, L.	James of Holland Park, B.
Bowness, L.	Kenyon, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Kilmarnock, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Kingsland, L.
Burnham, L.	Kinnoull, E.
Butterfield, L.	Knight of Collingtree, B.
Byford, B.	Knutsford, V.
Cadman, L.	Lane of Horsell, L.
Caithness, E.	Lauderdale, E.
Calverley, L.	Lawrence, L.
Carlisle, E.	Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Lewis of Newnham, L.
Carnock,L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Chesham,L.	Liverpool, E.
Clanwilliam, E.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Coleraine, L.	Luke, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Courtown, E.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Craigavon, V.	Maddock, B.
Cranborne, V.	Mancroft, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Marlesford, L.
Cross, V.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Darcy de Knayth, B	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
De L'Isle, V.	Middleton, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Derwent, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Dholakia, L.	Montrose, D.
Dilhorne, V.	Mottistone, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Naseby, L.
Dudley, E.	Newby, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Norfolk, D.
Ellenborough, L.	Northbrook, L.
Elles, B.	Norton, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Onslow, E.
Elton, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Falkland, V.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Feldman, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Pender, L.	Strange, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.	Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
Platt of Writtle, B.	Swinfen, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.	Teviot, L.
Pym, L.	Thomas of Gresford, L.
Rawlings, B.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Reay, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Redesdale, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Rees, L.	Thurso, V.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.	Tope, L.
Renton, L.	Tordoff, L.
Renwick, L.	Trefgame, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.	Tugendhat, L.
Rochester, L.	Vinson, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.	Vivian, L.
Rotherwick, L.	Waddington, L.
	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Rowallan, L.	Warnock, B.
Russell, E. [Teller.]	Weatherill, L.
Saatchi, L.	Westbury, L.
Seccombe, B.	Wharton, B.
Selborne, E.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Sempill, L.	Wise, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L.	Woolton, E.
Skelmersdale, L	Wrottesley, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.	Wynford, L.
Stewartby, L.	Yarborough, E.
Stodart of Leaston, L.	Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Hughes of Woodside, L.
Amos, B.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Barnett, L.
Berkeley, L.	Islwyn, L.
Blackslone, B.	Janner of Braunstone, L.
Blease, L.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Jeger, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Burlison, L.	Judd, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Kilbracken, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Kirkhill, L.
Chandos, V.	Levy, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
David, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Tellers.]
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.	Mason of Bamsley, L.
Desai, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Donoughue, L.	Molloy, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Monkswell, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Nicol, B.
Gallacher, L.	Paul, L.
Gilbert, L.	Peston, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L .	Pitkeathley, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Grantchester, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Gregson, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Grenfell, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hardie, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Rea, L.
Haskel, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hayman, B.	Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Sewel, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Shepherd, L.
Howell, L.	Shore of Stepney, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Simon, V.
Hoyle, L.	Simon of Highbury, L.
Hughes, L.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Strabolgi, L.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.	Wedderburn of Charlton. L
Taylor of Blackburn, L.	Whaddon, L.
Thomas of Macclesfield, L.	Whitty, L.
Turner of Camden, B.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Varley, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

7.4 p.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments

"To prevent misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive speeches, when matters are debated, either in the House or at Committees, it is for honour sake thought fit, and so ordered, That all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborn, and whosoever answereth another man's speech shall apply his answer to the matter without wrong to the person: and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill taken, if the party that speaks it shall presently make a fair exposition or clear denial of the words that might bear any ill construction; and if any offence be given in that kind, as the House itself will be very sensible thereof, so it will sharply censure the offender, and give the party offended a fit reparation and a full satisfaction."

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard)

My Lords, as somebody who has never in his political career been guilty of personal, sharp or provoking speech, I am sure that the noble Viscount on the other side of the House has equally never been guilty of sharp or provoking speech; nor indeed, I am sure, has the noble Earl. Lord Russell, ever provoked anybody in any way, shape or form.

I was not present in the Chamber when this took place and therefore cannot pass judgment one way or the other on what occurred. It strikes me that perhaps it might be for the general convenience of the House if we were to adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes so as to allow matters somewhat to cool down. I move that we adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes past seven.

Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes.—(Lord Richard.)

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords. I support the Motion put by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It is wise counsel which the House would do well to heed. Perhaps it would be worth the usual channels having a quick exchange during the course of the 15 minutes. I am sure that the House will then be able to resume and proceed with due expedition to dispatch the remainder of the business this evening.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.5 to 7.20 p.m.]

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Amendment No. 42.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, in view of the recent excitement, I think I should make it clear to all noble Lords that no personal attack was intended in anything that I said. Therefore. I hope that noble Lords will accept it in that spirit.

Perhaps I may continue from where I was 25 minutes ago. In view of the circumstances, I shall also refrain from responding to some of the wider constitutional points about hereditary Peers which were made by various noble Lords in the context of the debate and concentrate instead on the text of the amendments before us.

First, perhaps I may repeat that the Government accept the need for limits on the level of fees for home and EU full-time undergraduates. That is why we are already offering safeguards under Clause 16(8) to ensure that the Government cannot increase grants for fees and hence contributions towards fees by more than the level of inflation without seeking the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I was going to make my constitutional points there, but that is an adequate safeguard for any increase above the level of inflation.

All three amendments take us further than that. Amendment No. 42 seeks to introduce an independent review before the Secretary of State may increase grants for fees. I accept that Dearing recommended that the proportion of tuition fees to be met by students' contributions should not be increased without an independent review. But that commitment, that view by Dearing, as I explained at Committee stage, was made in the absence of any mechanism or any self-imposed restraint on government such as Clause 16(8)(a) now provides. That clause prevents the Government, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament, going above the rate of inflation. That was not proposed by Dearing and is in a sense a tighter restriction than referring to an independent review which the Dearing Committee foresaw.

The noble Baroness's amendment appears to seek an independent review, even when the increase proposed will be below the rate of inflation. The provision in Clause 16(8)(a) is adequate to ensure that, broadly speaking, the 25 per cent figure would be maintained. In any case, there would be no increase above the level of inflation without the approval of both Houses.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, would go somewhat wider, as he acknowledged. It would extend not just to the reasons for increasing the level of financial support for fees but also to the whole question of the total strategy towards the financing of students, covering maintenance grants, student loans and so on. Frankly, this is a pretty wide-ranging amendment and it would require the whole of the Government's strategy on student support in effect to be referred to the independent committee when a very small change, possibly even below the level of inflation, was being proposed. That is bureaucracy gone a little beyond what is required by the situation.

I repeat that the provision in Clause 16(8)(a) is a clear commitment to the students of this country and one which did not exist in the Australian equivalent. It has perhaps been obscured in the campaigning and guidance given by students on what the provisions mean.

While Amendment No. 44 does not refer specifically to an independent commission, it offers absolutely no flexibility on increasing fees. On the one hand, it requires parliamentary approval through the affirmative resolution procedure for any increase, even if it were significantly below the rate of inflation. On the other hand, it also prevents any increase even with parliamentary approval, if it were above the level of inflation. Whether or not that is the intention of the amendment, it is what the drafting means.

The restrictions which the Government have put upon themselves in Clause 16(8) are adequate guarantees to students that the proportion will not increase, that these amendments are superfluous to that requirement and that what students seek is already reflected on the face of the Bill.

In the light of those assurances and with perhaps a better understanding of the implication of the assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness and others will withdraw or not move their amendments.

Baroness Blotch

My Lords, I rise, not posing as the students' friend, but to argue that the whole House has become the friend of students in the context of the Bill. Before the election students were approached informally by the government in waiting who persuaded them—and they acquiesced in the face of the proposition that was put to them—that they would stand by the Government if the Government decided to phase out the maintenance grants for students. They did so for two reasons. They accepted that there was a problem in funding higher education. They had no idea that it was in the context of abolition in one fell swoop: nor did they know at the time that the context in which they were answering the question was that tuition fees were to be introduced. Students can be forgiven for believing it, having heard the Prime Minister say in April that there were no plans to introduce tuition fees. Again, when speaking directly to students, the right honourable Member in another place, Robin Cook, also said that there were no plans to introduce tuition fees for students.

So students believed that there might be some diminution of maintenance grants over time. They also believed that there would be no introduction of tuition fees. Both those understandings on the part of students have been shattered as a result of the Bill. The Bill professed to be a response to Dearing. It was leaked the weekend before Dearing was published, and it was out before the ink was dry on the Dearing Report on the very day it was published. Therefore, the confidence that students have in what is happening has been badly dented.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned the affirmative resolution requirement. Incidentally, it was only due to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and the amendments that I put down in the House that we now have a commitment that should there be an increase beyond the rate of inflation, the matter will go before both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure.

It is not a constraint. There is a convention in this House—it was honoured for 18 years by noble Lords opposite and continues to be honoured by those on these Benches—that we do not vote against affirmative resolution procedures. When the orders come before this House, the Government know that they will be accepted. That is not therefore an argument which the noble Lord can deploy in the context of this amendment.

What can be healthier for open government and in support of the Government's declaration that they have no plans (we take with a pinch of salt what they mean by "no plans") to increase student fees beyond the level suggested in the Bill? What better support for the Government than to have an independent review? If they do not intend to break that declared intention, there is no problem. They can say that there will be an independent review should, in the mists of time, some government determine to break with the proposals in the Bill and increase the fees beyond the rate of inflation.

What do the Government have to lose? No costs will be incurred. They will not need to invoke the review. It will be neutral, but will give huge reassurance to students. On the other hand, if the Government, in the course of this Parliament or some other Parliament, wish to go against the declared intention, what better than to have an independent review? The review could listen to the case from the Government for increasing beyond the £1,000 or 25 per cent. level. What is wrong with their taking an independent view? They need not be bound by it. They could present their case, which would be considered taking into account also the case for the students and the institutions. The advice from the review would be made public and would be given to the Government. But, at the end of the day, it would be for the Government to make the proposal for Parliament to decide.

I can see no argument whatever for refusing the students' request. It would be consistent with the Dearing recommendation; consistent with the recommendation of the Select Committee; consistent with the wishes of students; and consistent with the wishes of those who spoke in support of the amendment that there should be a review providing independent advice to any government in the future that wish to break with the declared intention that there should be no increase above the level of inflation of tuition fees to be paid by students.

My final comment relates to references made to Clause 18 and the so-called "inconsistency". There is no inconsistency at all. This is a skeletal Bill which does not allow us to properly debate the policies which underpin it. We use mechanisms so that debates can be considered by way of amendment and there is nothing inconsistent in that. This is an inoffensive amendment. It is a modest request on the part of students to reinstate the recommendation of the Dearing Committee and the Select Committee report that there should be a review to consider any rises over and above the rate of inflation. I commend it to the House.

7.33 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Nicol)

My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 42 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.

Division called.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 42 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". The "Not-Contents" have it.

Amendment negatived.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43: Page 14, line 7, after ("terms") insert— ("() the Secretary of State has first commissioned an independent review of the finances of students in higher education, including tuition fees, maintenance grants and student loans, and has published the findings,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

7.39 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 5
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Maddock, B.
Astor of Hever, L.	Marlesford, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.	Montrose, D.
Bath and Wells, Bp.	Newby, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Beloff, L.	Perry of Southwark, B.
Belstead, L.	Pilkington of Oxenford, L. [Teller.]
Berners, B.
Blatch, B.	Rawlings, B.
Burnham, L. [Teller.]	Razzall, L.
Butterfield, L.	Redesdale, L.
Cadman, L.	Rees, L.
Carlisle, E.	Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Rochester, L.
Carnock, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Russell, E.
De L'Isle, V.	Seccombe, B.
Dholakia, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L
Dudley, E.	Southwell, Bp.
Falkland V	Stewartby, L.
Falkland, V.	Thomas of Gresford, L.
Geraint, L.
	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Goodhart, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hampton, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Hamwee, B.	Tope, L.
Hemphill, L.	Tordoff, L.
Jacobs, L.	Vivian, L.
James of Holland Park, B.	Waddington, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.	Wakeham, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Lewis of Newnham, L.	Warnock, B.
Linklaterof Butterstone, B.	Weatherill, L.
Lyell, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Amos, B.	Burlison, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Barnett, L.	Carter, L. [Teller.]
Berkeley, L.	Chandos, V.
Blackstone, B.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Blease, L.	David, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.	Longford, E.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Desai, L.
Donoughue, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Molloy, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Monkswell, L.
Gallacher, L.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Gilbert, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Nicol, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Peston, L.
Grantchester, L.	Pitkeathley, B.
Gregson, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Grenfell, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Hardie, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Haskel, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Hattersley, L.	Rea,L.
Hayman, B.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Sewel, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Shepherd, L.
Howell, L.	Simon, V.
Howie of Troon, L.	Simon of Highbury, L.
Hoyle, L.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Hughes, L.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Islwyn, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.	Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Varley, L.
Judd, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Kennet, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Weidenfeld, L.
Kirkhill, L.	Whaddon, L.
Levy, L.	Whitty, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.47 p.m.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Clause 18 [Imposition of conditions as to fees at further or higher education institutions]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 45: Page 15, line 19, leave out ("respect of") and insert ("connection with").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 47: Page 15, line 25, leave out ("respect of") and insert ("connection with").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 48: Page 16, line 7, at end insert ("to the extent that it is within the powers of the institution to control the level of such fees").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled similar amendments to Amendment No. 48 both in Committee and on Report and therefore the arguments have been very well aired. At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, generously said that the Government understood the argument very well, but to my disappointment he said that it was their intention to bring forward an amendment in another place to deal with it.

For the benefit of the House, perhaps I may briefly recap what the amendment is intended to address. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State power to require the funding council to sanction any university if either it or an institution connected with it charges fees which are more than the prescribed amount. This sanction can be the loss of some or all of the university's financial grant from the funding council.

In the case of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge that could mean that, if any one of their colleges in the future were to charge its students additional fees above the prescribed amount, the university and not the college would then be sanctioned. Oxford and Cambridge universities have no power over the financial affairs of any of their colleges, and the sanction would therefore be wholly unjust. This may seem like a technical detail, and it may well be that the Government and the department would like this issue simply to go away, but they cannot ignore the collegiate structure of Oxford and Cambridge.

The colleges of Oxford and Cambridge have served this nation well for many hundreds of years and I do not believe that it is the wish of this House to see damage done either to the collegiate structure of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge or to the universities themselves; nor do I believe that this House would wish to support legislation which would do injustice to the collegiate structure of the universities.

As I said, when I spoke to this point at Report stage I was very disappointed that the Government's response was that they would not bring an amendment to this House but would bring it to another place. I hoped very much that the Government would rethink. There has been considerable time since this point was first raised at Committee stage for the department to construct an amendment and bring it back to your Lordships' House. It would have been a courtesy to this House to have allowed the government's amendment to be seen and debated before the Bill went to another place. I am extremely disappointed that even after ample time we are not to be given the opportunity in this House to see what the Government intend.

I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support this amendment. It is a relatively simple one. It would be only a very few words and it would ensure that justice was done and that the collegiate structure of our two leading universities would be preserved. I beg to move.

Lord Butterfield

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I am speaking in order to protect the collegiate universities. In the past interest has been expressed in these matters. I have been Master of Downing College, Cambridge. I have been Vice-Chancellor of both the University of Nottingham and of Cambridge. So I hope that I am in a position to take a balanced view of collegiate universities.

The first point I want to make is that the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge go back to the 13th century. University College, Oxford, is reputed to date from the days of King Alfred. It was certainly well established by 1249, as was Merton in 1264, and Peterhouse, following Merton's regulations, was founded in 1284. In those days, of course, the colleges were in fact boarding houses protecting the students from the wickedness in the town. Many of the students were quite young. There were locked gates and all the things that were cast out in the student revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The colleges saw it as part of their responsibility to educate their students. By that I mean to nourish them and bring them forward rather than to examine them, which was the university's function. The colleges were small. It is very important that we realise that they were small. We should not confuse being small with being necessarily elitist. How small they were was borne in on me most clearly when I found that the wall I climbed along to get back into Exeter College as an undergraduate was in fact the wall of the old city of Oxford. That was just a little way from the Turl, which can hardly be regarded as the centre of the city, which has grown so much since.

I believe that because the colleges are smaller institutions it is up to the university always to protect them. That is one reason why I am so much in favour of this amendment. The colleges were delighted when the book Small is Beautiful was published because they thought that it might apply to them. It indicated that the smaller institutions with fewer students were in a much better position to recognise the individuals in that institution, their aptitudes and abilities and to encourage them to follow their abilities. I was much helped myself by no fewer than four personal tutors, one of whom was a very brilliant neuro-physiologist.

One of the things that has always been said of colleges is that they try to ensure that the students are seen as being the same as the dons but younger, and the dons are seen as being the same as the students but older. I was astonished when, as a graduate student, I went back to Oxford and my former tutor, David Whitteridge, asked me a blunt question. He asked me whether he should apply for the chair of physiology in Edinburgh. That was rather like the head man of Rolls-Royce asking a young man off the floor what he should do about aeroplane engines. I urged him to go to Edinburgh on the grounds that if he went there they would notice that he was missing from Oxford and when the Oxford chair came up he would eventually get it, which I knew was his ambition. That is precisely what happened.

I want to make one or two strong points about the colleges and one-to-one teaching and supervision. I have knocked around a good deal in my life at different universities. I was at Hopkins as a medical student. I was astonished at how much weight that university in Maryland placed on the tutorial system at Oxford and Cambridge. I later went to Bristol. I was astonished to find there that people were very jealous of one's college associations. The same was true when I went to Guy's Hospital, where people coming from Oxford and Cambridge were recognised by the consultants as being very mature. They knew how to deal with the consultants. Other Guy's students treated the consultants with too much deference. Again at Nottingham, the original hope had been that the halls of residence would be similar to the Oxford colleges, but there was not the money to do it.

The college system is very interesting and attractive to overseas students. Therefore, the collegiate universities like Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, but particularly Oxford and Cambridge because of their age, have a great attraction to students from all over the world. That is what I have found. I also want to make the point that in the college system one is very conscious that students come first in almost everything that is done in the colleges. When the college council meets it looks at the college from the students' point of view.

I beg the Minister to bear in mind that my plea not to regard the colleges as élitist, but smaller institutions rather than necessarily élite, seems to have been borne out by what is happening. For example, Cambridge now has many mature students who would fit into the remarkable White Paper The Learning Age which was published by the department. I believe that the same may be said about the people who come into the university under the other influences like the University of the Third Age, which is very strong in Cambridge. We have a good deal of interaction with the Anglian University of Technology. I go to my drawing lessons there. So I am hoping that it will not be thought that the spirit within the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, which have wonderful buildings which we all appreciate and which we fight to maintain, is necessarily elitist. Therefore, I am anxious that we have an amendment such as this with regard to ongoing collegiate university arrangements.

8 p.m.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, only gradually have the Government begun to see that in treating college fees exactly as if they were top-up fees, they have been behaving unreasonably in the course of this Bill. College fees already exist. They have existed for a very long time, and they exist by statute. None of the colleges wishes to charge fees in excess of reasonable levels. Those would be top-up fees, but top-up fees are not on the agenda.

At Report, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at last began to see the light. He said: I recognise the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, we have looked at the wording, but we do not believe that any amendment should be made to this clause. Rather than amend subsection (4), we are prepared to look again at that part of subsection (8) which refers to fees payable to connected institutions with a view to bringing forward in another place an amendment clarifying that reference".—[Official Report, 2/3/98; col. 1045.] From Second Reading when my noble friend Lady Perry spoke on this very issue, to Committee, to the Motion that the Report be now received (when I addressed the issue much to the dissatisfaction of at least one Member of your Lordships' House), to Report stage, we have been making this point. And what sort of answer is that in your Lordships' House that at Report stage, not Third Reading, the Government tell us that they will bring forward an amendment in another place? By definition, there are no full-time educationalists in that other place, but there are quite a few here, as we noted earlier, who would be in a good position to scrutinise such an amendment.

The amendment has to be rather complicated because it has to be oblique—because the Bill is altogether oblique about the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. My noble friend Lord Butterfield spoke with great eloquence about the underlying issues, so I shall not do so further. I simply say that this is a necessary amendment to allow the good relations between the colleges and the university (at both Oxford and Cambridge) to be maintained; otherwise there are dangerous areas of uncertainty in the Bill, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already indicated, although he has not gone any way to producing a remedy. I support the amendment.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the central point of the amendment is simply that politics is the art of the possible. It is, I think, possible for governments to govern successfully in practically any philosophy—good, bad or indifferent. What is not possible is to govern successfully while unable to recognise that the world is as it is. The central point of this amendment is the legal relationship between the university and its constituent colleges, because the Bill as it stands, as I understand it, requires the universities to do what they cannot do.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, it is clearly a fact that the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, perhaps unlike colleges in some other places, are autonomous institutions. In saying that, I speak as one whose wife is a specialist university historian. The point is uncontested among those who know anything about it. The colleges are protected by charters and in many cases by private Acts of Parliament. At a previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, warned the House just how complicated a procedure it might be for the Government to untangle that. However, if the Government wish to take action against the colleges, it must be done by action directed against the colleges. It cannot be done by action directed against the university. In both our ancient universities, it was the colleges that had the money, the control of the teaching and the power. It was the meetings of the heads of houses that were important. The university was, in effect, a poor relation with very little power indeed.

The world has changed, but, as so often, the legal position has not changed with it. There are many reasons—good, bad or indifferent, although I believe many of them are good—why that is so. However, until the Government accept that the legal position is what it actually is, they cannot carry out any policy, whether soundly judged or not. I ask the Government to live in the real world.

Lord Desai

My Lords, whenever an Oxbridge question arises, it is fascinating to note how all the old arguments are trotted out. This has nothing to do with how old the institutions are or how good they are.

Indeed, they have not always been very good. If your Lordships read Adam Smith on Oxford, it is clear that it was a horrible place. I think that noble Lords are saying, "Top-up fees have been there for so long, please don't change them". Let us not be misled; that is what the college fees are.

Those who have opposed the Government's legislation on many other matters are once again speaking in defence of privilege. I am impressed by the whole Bill because the Government are trying to bring a little equality and redistribution into what is, unfortunately, a very bad world. I agree with what the noble Earl has just said and that the Government must accept the world as it is, but the Government were elected to try to make the world a little bit better. Obviously, it will be a very difficult task.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, in supporting the amendment strongly, perhaps I may say that it is not surprising that we are discussing the problems of Oxford and Cambridge colleges, because they are the ones with the problem. We are very happy to recognise all the other major problems with education and to fight for education as best we may, but it would surely be unreasonable to expect us not to point out the consequences of this particular, from the Government's point of view, quite small part of the Bill, which is a very large part of the Bill from the colleges' point of view.

It has to be remembered that colleges are families. That is one of the reasons why undergraduates love colleges. They feel that they are part of a small family. They look after each other. We all look after each other. That is something worth retaining, quite apart from all the other academic arguments. I return to the point that it is not reasonable to treat us as elitist and as thinking only of our own interests when, practically, we point out what the effects would be on those colleges and those universities alone.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, I shall abstain on this for a number of reasons. First, it seems to me that arguing that two universities should be allowed to opt out of what is otherwise to be imposed uniformly on all universities is rather odd. Secondly, it seems to me that we have been involved in an exercise in which the Government have been buying off Oxford and Cambridge. I speak as a former student of both universities, as a member of staff at Oxford for five years, and as the father of a student currently at Cambridge. I was one of those who—

Baroness Perry of Southwark

My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but I wonder whether he will accept that we are not asking to opt out of any system. We are making a simple technical point that the university—Oxford or Cambridge—would be sanctioned for something over which it has no control.

That is simply not justice. We are not asking not to be sanctioned; we are simply asking that the sanction should be directed in the proper place.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, I shall complete my remarks briefly. I was one of those who argued for reform at Oxford.

In the current debate I have been disappointed by what seems to me to be the failure of the two leading British universities to talk about the interests of higher education as a whole. I have made my views on that known to a number of people in both of those universities. I regret that failure and, for that reason, much as I sympathise with part of the argument being made, I must point out that Britain has other leading universities and that much stricter rules are being imposed upon them. I find the imposition of such tight controls on British universities one of the most deeply offensive aspects of the Bill. We should not allow only Oxford and Cambridge to argue their own corner; others also matter.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am sure that the House can, and no doubt will, have an interesting debate on the future of Oxford and Cambridge in relation to the higher education system as a whole. However, that is not what this clause is about. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not reply in detail to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, or to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who was kind enough to say that I had seen the light during Report stage. I must point out that shedding light does not always clarify an issue. This is a complicated matter. The noble Baroness in her intervention during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, clearly encapsulated the administrative problem. I understand that. I respect the view that the colleges which charge top-up fees should be penalised rather than the university, or at least that the relationship should be clarified in whatever legislation we end up with.

I do not entirely accept that in these circumstances the university has no power in the Oxbridge situation. I find it hard to understand that there are no other bargaining elements in its relationship with colleges. I do not see why universities should continue to claim grants from the higher education funding council for students who attend connected colleges if they are not prepared to use whatever powers they have to ensure that those students are not charged top-up fees.

Having said that, as was made clear at Report stage this is a complex administrative and legal matter. We accept that we may not have got the reference to connected institutions in Clause 18(9) quite right. On Report I said that the Government were prepared to look again at that part of subsection (9) which referred to fees payable to connected institutions. We are still considering an amendment to make clear that institutions can be penalised for top-up fees charged to students only if they are claiming funding council grants for those students. I made it clear—noble Lords have made complaints about this—that we would table an amendment in another place.

We saw perhaps only a little bit of light at Report stage. The period between Report Stage and Third Reading made it unlikely that we would be able to formulate an appropriate amendment in time to table it. That is the case. I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and others are concerned that we are not tabling an amendment before the Bill is considered in another place and that noble Lords will not therefore have a chance to comment upon it. For that reason, after consultation with my noble friend the Minister, I am happy to offer the noble Baroness a meeting with the appropriate officials in the Department for Education and Employment to discuss the format of that amendment in order that it can be tabled before Committee stage in another place. I hope that in the light of that commitment the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Baroness Perry of Southwark

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very full and careful reply. I understand that he fully appreciates the problem. I remain disappointed that we were not given sight of what the Government intended. I believe that this amendment would at least address the problem very simply. Nevertheless, I take note of the Minister's offer of further discussion with myself and perhaps others in this House who are connected with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and who may want an opportunity to talk through the difficulty. I repeat that we do not seek to opt out of any system. Top-up fees are not on our agenda. We simply want to have the relationship and structure of the collegiate university preserved. We are anxious that any amendment tabled in another place is not of such a nature that it destroys the independent and autonomous relationship of the colleges vis à vis their universities. We would appreciate the opportunity to see any amendments before they were tabled. In the light of that promise, and with some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 50: Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause— USE OF FEES BY INSTITUTIONS (" . In exercising his powers under section 16 the Secretary of State shall—

1. (a) ensure that all income derived from fees is used by institutions for the provision of courses of higher education and for connected purposes;
2. (b) disregard such income for the purposes of calculating the grant to he made available to the funding councils under section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; and
3. (c) require, as a term and condition of grant under paragraph (b) above, that the funding councils do not diminish the grants made to the relevant institutions in respect of any income derived from fees.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords have discussed Amendment No. 50 and similar amendments on a number of previous occasions and I believe that the points have been well and fully aired. I do not intend to take time tonight repeating them. Paragraph (a) recognises that the Government have said repeatedly that the income from fees will be retained by the colleges and universities. That is really not the issue at the moment. I believe that paragraph (b) is the real issue. It is meaningless if there is no financial benefit to the universities because later the Government simply take money from their HEFC grant. Were that to happen the students would pay the £1,000 instead of the taxpayer. Occasionally I have run into difficulty when I have referred to this as a tax but I cannot see what else it is unless the fee that is paid is directed to and wholly benefits higher education. That is the purpose of paragraph (b).

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has twice refused to commit the Government to the principle that this new tuition fee money represents in the long run a real increase in the funding of higher education. On 2nd March he said that public expenditure decisions were taken year by year; in other words, there is no guarantee that the Government will not find good reasons to take away the money in due course. The noble Lord's response to paragraph (c) of the amendment was that it removed the funding councils' flexibility in awarding grants to particular institutions. All we ask is that the funding councils do not diminish the grants. We propose the amendment because we fear that a back-door mechanism may be found by which the councils reduce the universities' grants rather than the Government.

This is an important amendment and I believe it is one that gives much needed reassurance to the universities. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was kind enough to say at Report stage that the amendment was more watertight than the one in her name. I was grateful then to hear her view on that. I hope that, having convinced the Conservative Opposition, we have now also convinced the Government and that at the closing stages of the Bill they will graciously accept the amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The rationale adopted throughout the Bill, and even before the Bill was laid before the House, was to put more money into higher education. Every argument that we have put at each stage of the Bill to get the Government to agree that this is additional money and that it will be disregarded for the purposes of the funding of higher education has been rejected. Either this is additional money or it is not; either additionality works or it does not. Whatever be the wording—this wording is the best that I have seen to date—the intention is to ensure that the money that is taken from students in fee income is regarded as additional money to the system both to alleviate present tensions and to fund expanding numbers, because the Government intend to lift the lid off numbers.

We have received guarantees that the £1,000 per student, whether it is paid in part or in whole by the student and/or the local authority, will follow the student into each university and college throughout the land. We are grateful for that. However, that is only part of the equation. If that is disregarded for the purposes of funding higher education one can genuinely say that it is additional money. However, if the higher education funding council simply tells a university that it has £500,000 from tuition fees and therefore the council will pay only whatever is the top-up amount to meet the average cost of course fees throughout the land then students will be asked to share the cost, and that will not be providing additional money for the universities from which universities and students will benefit.

Much has been made of the £165 million which is to go into higher education in 1998–99. That will be very welcome to the universities. However, it has been achieved by the re-jigging of payments which allows some expenditure to be moved into the next financial year. It is a fortuitous one-off saving which will go to universities this year. Unless that level of expenditure is maintained year on year the universities will start the following year down by £165 million. They will have two choices. If they spend the money on capital projects that is fine because that is one-off spending. However, if it is revenue spending the universities will find themselves in very real trouble the year after.

I am aware that £165 million is greater than the £120 million or £130 million—whatever the yield from tuition fees is—so the Government are saying that that is subsumed. But I have not heard the Government, at any stage of the Bill, say that they will receive £165 million, plus any income from fees, but when that £165 million has gone as expenditure for the coming year, we want to be certain that money raised from tuition fees from students is, first, spent exclusively in higher education, and not elsewhere, otherwise it becomes a tax; and, secondly, that it is genuinely seen as additional money going into higher education, which can be done only if it is disregarded for the purposes of the normal funding of higher education.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, I, too, hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment. We are all concerned about the immense financial crisis that universities face. We are all, I hope, including the Government, greatly concerned about maintaining and improving the quality of British higher and further education. The Government have made it clear since Dearing that they cannot and will not provide additional revenue to universities through taxation. The additional revenue must therefore come from fees. The amendment states that what comes from fees will, in effect, be used as additional revenue. On that basis, I hope that the Government will willingly and happily accept the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I admire the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This is the third time that we have debated an amendment along these lines. But, for all the debates we have had, this amendment remains inappropriate. I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint him. I shall try to explain why.

The amendment seeks, first, to ensure that all fee income is spent by universities and colleges on providing courses of higher education. Just as universities charge fees, so they receive fee income. That has always been the case, and it will remain so.

Students who have to find all or part of the fee themselves in future will pay that fee directly to their university or college. Where students receive financial assistance with all or part of their fees from public funds, that assistance will be paid directly to the university or college. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness understand, the university or college will keep all that fee income, whatever its source. Universities will not surrender any of their fee income, either to the Government or to the higher education funding council.

It will of course be for universities themselves to decide on how to use fee income from higher education fees. But there can be little doubt that it will essentially be spent on providing courses of higher education and for connected purposes. However, Clause 16 deals with not only higher education but also further education. And it would seem strange to require all fees charged by institutions to be used for higher education even though FE colleges exist primarily to provide further education courses. The first part of the amendment poses some problems, therefore.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that, if the amendment were correct and referred to money taken from students and their families in higher education, the amendment would be acceptable, or is she using the argument that we are cross-fertilising further education as well?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, for reasons that I shall explain, even if the wording of the amendment were improved it still would not be acceptable.

The second part of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to disregard fee income for the purposes of calculating grant for the higher education funding councils. I shall deal in a moment with the wider issue of the extra funding that the Government will be making available to universities and colleges as a result of the savings achieved through means-testing support for students' fees. But, before that, I should make clear how public funds for higher education are channelled to universities and colleges.

Some £3 billion of public funds for teaching higher education students will go through the funding councils in 1998–99. But, in addition to that, about £1 billion of public funds will continue to flow through support for tuition fees next year. Even when the new funding arrangements reach steady state, we estimate that just over half of universities' fee income will continue to be paid out of support from public funds for tuition fees. We clearly cannot leave such a large sum of taxpayers' money out of account when calculating the public funds for higher education that flow through the other channel of public support; that is, through grant to the HEFC. Nor can the funding council leave out of its calculations the fee income that is received by institutions, as the third part of the amendment would require. That is primarily because the funding council needs to ensure fairness in funding.

The HEFCE is aiming to fund similar activities at similar rates and to offer a standard price for each full-time equivalent student place. At present, tuition fees are paid on behalf of home full-time undergraduates up to maxima at three different levels to reflect the broad subject area studied. Next year, support will be available up to just one maximum level of fee, whatever subject the student is studying. As a result, it will be necessary for the funding council to make adjustments to the grant it provides to ensure that some institutions which concentrate on providing costly subjects do not lose out in consequence and that others which concentrate on cheaper subjects do not gain unfairly.

All that said, I should emphasise that the aim is that universities and colleges should receive similar support in grant and fees to fund similar activities. Institutions may receive more funding to educate a student in one subject than another because of the extra costs involved, but all institutions should receive broadly similar amounts to teach the same subjects.

In short, therefore, the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive in the requirements that it seeks to place on both the Secretary of State and the funding councils. But there should be no question that universities and colleges will benefit financially as a result of income raised from students' payment of tuition fees.

We have already announced a package of measures which will allow an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education in 1998–99. Universities and colleges will thus receive directly some £130 million in extra funding in 1998–99. As the noble Baroness said, by allowing an extra £130 million for universities and colleges, we are ensuring that they will benefit fully from the money derived from students' contributions to tuition fees.

I was asked whether I could give an assurance that universities would continue to benefit from the income received from tuition fees. Yes, I will give such an assurance. I repeat the assurance that the Government gave in their initial response to the Dearing Report, in an oral Statement made in both Houses of Parliament on 23rd July last year: These proposals will mean more money for universities. The Government will ensure that savings are used to improve quality, standards and opportunities for all in further and higher education".—[Official Report, 23/7/97; col. 1447.] We recognise that, when they are making a direct contribution to the costs of their tuition, students are likely to be more demanding of institutions. They will rightly expect high quality and standards. That is in line without our own intentions. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said about the importance of that. It is evidenced by the funding package we have made available for 1998–99. Of course we are committed to maintaining and enhancing quality and standards in higher education and of course we shall do our utmost to ensure, as we have said, on a number of occasions, that the savings from the new funding arrangements are used for that purpose as well as for increasing and widening participation.

Of course we are not in a position to give cast-iron undertakings in relation to future years. We are in the middle of a comprehensive spending review, and it would be unrealistic for noble Lords to expect me to pre-empt decisions on public expenditure for future years or to put undertakings related to future public expenditure decisions on the face of the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said so eloquently on Report, no Parliament can bind its successors. We cannot now bind a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a certain sum of money into the budget for higher education. The amendment, however, would commit the Government to a spending decision years in advance.

Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches opposite, who have had more recent experience of government than the Liberal Democrats, would realise that no government can do this. While we can express intentions in general terms—and we have been happy to do that—it is simply unrealistic to expect more, as no one can foresee what circumstances may arise in future.

However, let me confirm that, on the present accounting basis, we estimate that the proposed means-testing of financial support for fees will bring in some £450 million to £500 million by the year 2015–16. And the words I have quoted from the Government's Statement of 23rd July last year make our intentions absolutely clear—as clear, I would maintain, as any Member of this House could reasonably expect, given the way in which government decisions on public expenditure have necessarily to be taken. The funding package which allows an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education next year demonstrates our determination to put our words into action and to live up to our commitments.

With that assurance, I return to the specific amendment before us. I repeat that it would be wrong, for the reasons I gave earlier, to leave out of the reckoning fee income for the purposes of calculating grant for the higher education funding councils. All public funds must be taken into account when assessing higher education's needs. Nor would it be right to place on the funding council restrictions which would in themselves lead to unfairness in the allocation of grant. Given the assurances that I have just made, and given that all fees paid by or on behalf of higher education students will remain with higher education institutions, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. If not, I ask your Lordships' House to reject it. While I accept that future spending commitments may be an entirely legitimate target for probing amendments, I wonder whether it is appropriate for your Lordships' House to divide on financial provisions of this kind.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. She began by expressing sorrow at once again having to disappoint me. To be disappointed means that one first had expectations. Therefore, she will understand if I say that I am not disappointed. However, I was looking forward to being pleased and I am not.

We have debated the issue on many occasions and I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances that she has sought to give. I am not sure that we have gained anything further. When I moved the amendment, I said that I believed the issue to be important. I am grateful to the Minister for phrasing the reply a little differently and suggesting what is undeniable—that we on these Benches have less recent experience of government than the Conservative Opposition. However, this is an important amendment and therefore I wish to seek the opinion of the House.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question in the light of her final comment. The amendment addresses the principle of additionality as opposed to voting money. If, as the Government have said, they intend that the money will go into universities and that they will benefit from it, there is no financial consequence in simply establishing the principle that this should be regarded as additionality, which is entirely in line with what the Government are claiming.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, the amendments would tie the higher education funding council in many ways which would be undesirable. That would lead to unfairness in funding and would mean that some universities which have many expensive courses would suffer as against those with cheaper ones.

I have tried to say as clearly as I can that we are committed to trying to find additional funding for universities. We recognise the financial crisis in which they have been left; but the amendment would commit the Government in ways which would have an undesirable effect on universities. Furthermore, they are also de facto public expenditure commitments.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for clarifying that point. I accept that the Minister has gone as far as she is able. As I said a moment ago, that is not far enough, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

8.35 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 6
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	James of Holland Park, B.
Beloff, L.	Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Belstead, L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Biddulph, L.	Lyell, L.
Blatch, B.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Maddock, B.
Butterfield, L.	Marlesford, L.
Byford, B.	Newby, L.
Cadman, L.	Northbrook, L.
Carlisle, E.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Perry of Southwark, B.
Carnock, L.	Razzall, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L.	Redesdale, L.
Cross, V.	Renton, L.
Dholakia, L.	Rochester, L.
Falkland, V.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Fookes, B.	Russell, E [Teller.]
Hampton, L.	Seccombe, B.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Hemphill, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L
Henley, L.	Stockton, E.
HolmPatrick, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.

Teviot, L.	Waddington, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.	Wakeham, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.	Williams of Crosby, B
Thomson of Monifieth, L.	Wise, L.
Tope, L. [Teller.]	Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Amos, B.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Judd, L.
Berkeley, L.	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Blackstone, B.	Kilbracken, L.
Blease, L.	Kirkhill, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Levy, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Burlison, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Mallalieu, B.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Chandos, V.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Molloy, L.
David, B.	Monkswell, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Nicol, B.
Desai, L.	Peston, L.
Donoughue, L.	Pitkeathley, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Falconer of Thornton, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Rea, L.
Fitt, L	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gallacher, L.	Richard, L. [Lord Prim Seal.]
Gilbert, L.	Sewel, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Shepherd, L.
Gregson, L.	Shore of Stepney, L.
Grenfell, L.	Simon, V.
Hardie, L.	Simon of Highbury, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Haskel, L.	Southwell, Bp.
Hayman, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Howell, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hoyle, L.	Varley, L.
Hughes, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Whitty, L.
IsIwyn, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.43 p.m.

Clause 25 [Orders and regulations]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 51: Page 25, line 24, leave out ("General Teaching").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 52: Page 25, line 27, leave out second ("made").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the controversy and excitement of the evening, I am glad to read the first two lines of my brief, which say: These 2 amendments have no practical effect whatsoever".

On Report, I moved amendments to ensure that the first set of regulations to be made on both the composition of the GTC and on the student support arrangements were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those amendments were widely welcomed. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 merely tidy up the drafting of Clause 25 to reflect the wishes of the parliamentary draftsman to produce a Bill without otiose material in it. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54: Page 25, line 32, leave out second ("made"). Page 26, line 5, leave out ("General Teaching").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 26 [General interpretation]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 55: Page 26, line 9, at end insert— (""the Council" means the body corporate referred to in section 1(1);").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 56: Page 26, line 40, at end insert— ("section (Duty to have regard to needs of disabled persons),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 59: Page 31, line 41, at end insert ("for England"). Page 32, line 5, at end insert ("for England"). Page 32, line 10, after ("Council") insert ("for England").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

8.47 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is customary at this stage for the Minister in charge of a Bill to say a few words of thanks. Although the Bill is relatively short in length, it has certainly not been short on controversy. That has been demonstrated by the lively and extensive debates which we have had on it.

This is the third Bill which I have taken through as a Minister and it has been an experience that I certainly shall not forget. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill. From the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Whitty has made a particularly large contribution. He has had to master the briefs for this Bill alongside all his other work in the House and I thank him warmly for that. I look forward to his support when the School Standards and Framework Bill reaches us from another place. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Sewel. The knowledge and extensive experience that he gained before he became a Minister has informed our discussions on the Bill's impact north of the Border.

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Carter and his colleagues in the Whips' Office, who have offered a great deal of support as the Bill has progressed.

I turn now to the Opposition Front Benches. I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She has been a formidable opponent and has brought us much of her knowledge as a former education Minister. She has secured a victory against me but, as she knows, we shall seek to overturn that when the Bill reaches another place. However, I have very much enjoyed our encounters and I look forward to more of those when the schools Bill reaches us. The noble Lords, Lord Pilkington and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, have also made very valuable contributions.

I want to thank also the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. They have made many constructive interventions on all aspects of the Bill. I am pleased that we have been able to take on board at least some of their suggestions. I am grateful also to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Addington, for their contributions. We have all been struck by the noble Earl's use of metaphor and his references to classical mythology.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, as ever, courteously represented the interest of the Church. My noble friend Lord Sewel and I both want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She has used her formidable knowledge of education in Scotland to excellent effect throughout the Bill's passage.

On the teaching aspects of the Bill, we have had the benefit of the wisdom of many Members of this House. I am most grateful for the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, the noble Lords, Lord Quirk, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young.

On the higher education issues, this House has, as so often, shown the unparalleled experience that it can bring to bear in scrutinising legislation. In particular, I believe that I can say that we are all grateful for the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Lord Baker of Dorking, Lord Beloff and Lord Walton of Detchant, the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Perry and Lady Park.

I want to thank also my noble friends on this side of the House who have provided both support and friendly and constructive criticism, sometimes at the same time. In particular, I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Desai, Lord Davies of Oldham, Lord Peston, Lady Lockwood, Lady David and Lady Dean.

I am sorry that despite all my arguments, my noble friend Lord Glenamara remains unable to support our proposals. I hope that perhaps eventually he will feel able to accept that the provisions in the Bill are working both in raising standards of the teaching profession and in providing continued expansion and quality in our universities.

I must thank also my private office, which, along with the Bill team and my other officials, has worked very hard to keep the show on the road both here and in the department. I want to thank parliamentary counsel for drafting the Bill and for providing an excellent service during its passage through the House.

Finally, I thank the doorkeepers and all the staff of the House. As ever, they have been extremely courteous, patient and helpful. I look forward with interest to watching the progress of the Bill through another place and considering it again when it returns later in the year. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very generous way in which she introduced this debate on the Motion. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble friends of the Minister who have worked with us on the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and their colleagues on the Liberal Benches, who have worked so hard. Of course, it would be wrong for me not to include my own colleagues. I have in mind in particular my noble friend Lord Pilkington for whom this was his first Bill. I am reminded of the tragic loss of his wife at the early stages of the Bill and the way in which he stalwartly saw through the work on the legislation.

I should also like to thank my noble friends Lady Seccombe, Lady Park of Monmouth, Lady Young, Lady Byford and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding whose thanks and gratitude to the Minister I mentioned earlier today. There is also my noble friend Lord Renfrew to thank and my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Indeed, I join with the Minister in thanking her for fighting the corner for Scotland. I should also like to thank the people who advised her with regard to amendments for Scotland. I express my thanks also to my noble friend Lady Perry, who came to our debates with great experience, as indeed is the case with my noble friend Lord Renfrew, and to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking and my noble friend Lord Butterfield, who has worked so long and hard for his general teaching council which he now sees coming into fruition. Of course, I should not forget my noble friend Lord Beloff.

Having said that, I am afraid that Third Reading debates are also for putting on the record our views about the legislation overall. It has been a sorry saga and very unedifying. The Dearing report was commissioned with all-party agreement. Before the election, the Prime Minister and his right honourable friend Robin Cook both claimed that there were no plans to introduce tuition fees. However, within 100 days of saying so, tuition fees have been proposed and the Prime Minister said in Parliament quite specifically that, on student finance, the Government would accept the Dearing proposals. We know that the Government did not accept those proposals which relate specifically to student finance.

The Government claimed that these proposals were in response to the Dearing report, yet details of them were leaked the weekend before publication; and, on the day of publication, the proposals were announced within hours. The proposals have the hallmark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer all over them. Within a day or two those students who had accepted places following a year out—a gap year—queried the unfairness of being trapped by the proposals. Their concerns were dismissed by the noble Baroness. However, the U-turn was made and the announcement that gap year students could be exempted on condition that they undertook worthy voluntary activity was then accepted. That was followed by another U-turn when it was realised that any system of verification would be unworkable. Therefore, all gap year students were finally exempted.

The Scottish Office Minister then announced a concession for Scottish students on the grounds that degree courses were usually four-year courses in Scotland and that its school system was different from that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was then realised that EU citizens had to be treated equally with Scottish students, which gave rise to a preposterous situation; namely, that students from EU countries, including Southern Ireland, would enjoy the concession while students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland would not. The point was also made that there were many four-year courses in England and Wales. But that point was lost on the Government.

As for the Scottish school system being different from the school system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should point out that it is also very different from that in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece and all the other EU countries. Noble Lords took a different view and voted for equality of treatment for all EU students. There can be no defence whatever for disadvantaging English, Welsh and Northern Irish students within the European Union. Any attempt to overturn that amendment will be received with incredulity.

The Bill was introduced with indecent haste; it was skeletal and it lacked detail. It had poor information backing it and we were given confusing answers to the many questions posed on Second Reading and in Committee. Consultations on many of the measures contained within the Bill are either to be carried out yet again, are not yet completed or have yet to be undertaken. There are no drafts of regulations and none has been prepared. Therefore, we have had sight of none of that information while discussing the Bill. For example, I have in mind information on the GTC, induction arrangements, the professional qualification for head teachers and inspection for teacher training. We have not been able to discuss any of the background information which will appear in the regulations. Therefore, much of the Bill has been discussed in a vacuum.

Clauses 23 and 24 place an unfair burden on business. My comments in that respect were well recorded at earlier stages of the Bill. Clauses 16 to 22 have been nothing short of a fiasco, as regards gap year students; the Scottish students' concession; specific promises by the Prime Minister and Mr. Robin Cook; precipitate publication of proposals following the Dearing report; and the broken promise over the introduction of tuition fees.

The proposals regarding the rejection of the Dearing Committee's carefully thought-through recommendation that 50 per cent. of maintenance grants to students from lower income families should be retained have not been thoughtfully considered. For a Labour Government to propose and defend to the barricades a system of financial support for students which will hit the students from low income families the hardest, is frankly incomprehensible. Despite what the Prime Minister and the Minister said, students from low income families, who may pay only part or even no tuition fees, will, however, lose maintenance grant and leave university with a greater burden of debt than their fellow students from more affluent families. As I said before, students do not make the distinction between tuition and maintenance grants; they must consider how much they will have to borrow in order to study at university.

The student from a low income family today pays no tuition fees, receives grant to cover up to 50 per cent. of maintenance costs and repays not one penny of that loan until he or she is earning just under £16,000 a year. The debt is written off at the age of 50 or after 25 years, whichever comes first. Under these proposals, the same students from low income families, who possibly pay no tuition fees depending on the means test, will have to borrow the whole of their maintenance. Following a three-year degree course, they will go from a debt of approximately £4,600 under the present system to more than double that level of debt under these proposals. They will begin to repay the loan at an income of £10,000 a year, albeit over a longer period; and, if the loan remains outstanding, it will continue until they reach the age of 65.

On the issue of repayments, I should point out that, at an income of £16,000, a student under the present system who borrows £4,600 (the maximum amount of loan for a student) will repay it at £76 per month over five years. However, at an income of £16,000, a comparable student under the proposed arrangements would have to borrow at least £10,000 and repay it at £45 per month for 18 years.

I turn now to Clause 18. Officials at the Department for Education really must be shaking with excitement over the inclusion of Clause 18, albeit with modifications. Clause 18 powers go much wider than top-up fees. Over time, I predict that the effects of this clause will run the risk of some universities going independent. For the Secretary of State to take a power, which will hang like the sword of Damocles over universities and colleges, does very little to sustain the autonomy of what are, after all, "free-standing chartered institutions".

When this or any future Chancellor of the Exchequer is much less generous to the funding of higher education, given the sword of Damocles represented by Clause 18, the only course for survival will be to cut staffing and/or courses of study. The only alternative source of funding will be for the Government to raise further tuition fee income from students.

We are in the process of passing legislation in this House with an unprecedented raft of consultation and regulations to follow, which will expose much of the detail that we have tried to elicit during the Bill's passage. Opposition amendments have been made to the Bill; for example, on the general teaching council, which has had the effect of turning what was an expensive talking shop into a body that will now concern itself with professional standards, on equality of treatment for all students throughout the European Union and on the retention of 50 per cent. maintenance grant to students from lower income families.

As the noble Baroness has said, it is of course for the Government in another place with their overwhelming majority to consider accepting amendments or to revert to the proposals which disadvantage English, Welsh and Northern Irish students within the European Union, and to remove maintenance grant from students from low income families against the recommendations of the Dearing Committee and against the wishes of Members from all sides of this House. If this amendment is reversed in another place, these students will leave university with the greatest burden of debt. How can that be justified? We have fought throughout for fairness and justice for students, and for students from low income families in particular.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, either in length or content. We have spent many hours on this Bill and we have debated it fully. We on these Benches have set out our position clearly throughout and I do not think it is necessary or appropriate for me to repeat that now.

It has been an interesting experience. The Bill itself is a Bill of contrasts and the way in which this House and the Minister have dealt with it has been something of a contrast. I believe we have improved considerably Part I of the Bill, skeletal though it was, during its passage through your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the Government for the way they have responded to many of the concerns raised in all parts of the House. Part I of the Bill now leaves this House in a much better condition and is much clearer than when it began many weeks ago. Almost the opposite is true of Part II where there has been considerable disagreement. I think we expected that from the start. If there has been any occasional irritability, it has arisen on Part II. Perhaps that was inevitable.

My one regret is that Part III of the Bill has gone largely unnoticed. There was some reference to it in the early stages but there was almost nothing at Report stage and certainly nothing today. Perhaps that is because it is comparatively uncontentious. Nevertheless it is a shame that it has not received the attention which it merits. I do not wish to say any more about the Bill tonight. I echo the comments of the Minister and of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in thanking the staff of your Lordships' House and others who have helped us to produce the Bill. I, of course, thank the Minister and her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, particularly in reference to Part I of the Bill. I am less sure that I have much to thank them for as regards Part II of the Bill. However, I thank them for the mostly courteous way in which they have responded to us. My relationship—if I dare call it that—with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has had its ups and downs during the course of the Bill, but I hope it is now restored to an even keel. I put it no stronger than that.

I wish particularly to thank my colleagues. I thank my noble friend Lady Maddock. I believe that this is the first Bill she has dealt with in your Lordships' House. At first the noble Baroness told me that the proceedings were just like those "at the other end"; but then she told me that the proceedings were not at all like those "at the other end" and it was all very strange. I believe that we reached the ultimate in "bonding" last Monday at the Report stage when both of us had spent many hours on the Front Bench vying with each other as to who had the worst cold. I believe that I have made the more rapid recovery so perhaps I must concede the worst cold to my noble friend.

I must also thank my noble friends on—dare I say it'?—my Back-Benches. I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire with whom I share an office. We retreat there and he tells me where I went wrong and, very occasionally, where I nearly got it right. I of course thank my noble friend Lord Russell. It is occasionally unnerving to have the noble Earl sitting just behind me. I wonder what will happen next and never more so than today. I am sure I can say that today was for all of us—as perhaps befits an education Bill—certainly a learning experience. I pay warm tribute to and give warm thanks to the team who have supported us through this Bill. I know that I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Maddock in this respect. They have worked enormously hard when short staffed. They have briefed us well. I feel that I have not always done justice to that briefing. We are enormously grateful to them for their support and their help throughout this Bill.

I have just received a note from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who apologises that he has had to leave. He has asked me—if I have the opportunity—to add his thanks and congratulations to all and especially to the Government for their many constructive responses to amendments. I am pleased to take the opportunity to convey those thanks although I suspect that he, too, was referring more to Part I of the Bill than to Part II. As I said, I am happy to pass on his thanks to all concerned.

As the Minister said, we now pass this Bill to another place to see what they can do with it. I believe that it leaves your Lordships' House in a better condition than when it arrived although it still leaves much to be desired. We now look forward to the arrival in this House of the schools Bill. I feel more at home with schools than I do with universities. Therefore I look forward to that Bill.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.