House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Feb 1990

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorely tempted to reply to that last question, but I will not. I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 538. [That this House is alarmed at the proposals of HTV Production Services to make 112 redundancies as a result of the group's decision to apply for a publishing/contractor franchise in the next round of ITV franchise changes arising out of the Broadcasting Bill ; notes that this decision puts all jobs in production in the industry at threat, damages the links between HTV and the local community in Bristol, damages the existence of local programme making and effectively establishes the profitable right to broadcast adverts ; and therefore calls on the Government to take note of HTV's proposals and ensure that the new franchise is allocated on the basis of quality production of programmes.]

I understand that consideration of the Bill has gone beyond that section where an amendment could have been moved, and I ask the Leader of the House to speak to his colleagues and to ensure that the necessary amendment is tabled in Committee or on Report so that no franchise is given under the new broadcasting arrangements on the basis of publishing alone, so as to protect the quality of programmes produced by companies.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I obviously cannot answer the hon. Lady in detail. HTV is an existing franchise holder. If it wishes to continue to contract under the new Broadcasting Bill, it will have to fulfil the programming requirements set out in the Bill. The staffing needed to achieve that level of service is a matter for the management, and the hon. Lady will have to find opportunities to raise her question when the matter comes to the floor of the House, as no doubt it will.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : Could the House have an early opportunity to debate local authority housing in London? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that five Labour-controlled London authorities have collectively failed to collect £58 million of rent? That must have

Column 404

serious implications for housing the homeless, and for the community charge for people who live in those local authorities.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I entirely share my hon. Friend's view about the grave impact of the matter to which he has drawn the House's attention. The House will be grateful to him for having done that. I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate on that subject.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Has the Leader of the House seen the message of my late colleague, Mr. Harold McCusker, to his constituents, in which he apologised for having asked them to have hope that this House would grant them equal citizenship. Could the Leader of the House find time next week to manifest the will of the Ulster people and the House, that the people of Northern Ireland be treated as equal citizens with their fellows in the kingdom?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our distress at the recent death of his hon. Friend. I have not studied the particular text to which he referred. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said many times, he is always willing to discuss any proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Following the Adjournment debate last night on the subject of the campaign by Parents against Tobacco, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an opportunity for more of these supporters of that cause in the House to have their say, and to raise the question of the non-enforcement of the law which prohibits the sale of tobacco to young people? There is also the issue of inadequate fines--25p for smoking on London Underground. Will he drop a hint or two to the Chancellor about pricing policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I have not yet had the opportunity to study the text of last night's debate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and our other colleagues in the Administration will be studying it carefully.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Can we have a debate on this somewhat remarkable report, which seems to have been well hidden away- -the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the House of Commons Refreshment Department? The report was published last July, and shows that the Refreshment Department has nearly £2 million in reserve, and that, in the year 1988-89, it made nearly £500,000 profit. At the same time, people are working in the Refreshment Department for little more than £100 per week. I raised this matter with the Leader of the House last week. What is going to be done to raise the wages of people working in the Refreshment Department? We do not want cheap labour, so can they be paid properly?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Member will understand that the terms and conditions of employment of people in the Refreshment Department are set in accordance with the ordinary prevailing rates. The level of money accumulated in that account is a consequence of the changes in arrangements for managing the Department. He will remember that some years ago there was a problem of chronic loss because of the proportion of expenditure borne by the Department and more widely by the

Column 405

Exchequer. The matter will be considered in due course by the House of Commons Commission and the relevant Sub Committee.

Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) : May I take up an earlier question? My constituency was probably the worst affected by the recent flooding. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to speed up an inquiry into whether the Bellwin scheme is applicable, or whether new legislation will have to be introduced to help those whose houses and property have been badly damaged through no fault of their own?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The Bellwin scheme was activated in the first instance on 26 January this year. It was subsequently extended on the sixth of this month. Details of the arrangements were sent to all the local authorities affected by the scheme, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's specific concern to my right hon. Friend's attention in case there is anything further to be said.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : When those of us who are inerested in textiles attended a debate on 12 January--which was a Friday, by the way--to discuss the multi-fibre arrangement, all who spoke, regardless of party, emphasised the need to continue protecting the textile industry. What was the point? The Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box yesterday and made off-the-cuff remarks which appeared to dismiss any possibility of the MFA's continuing. Surely, if he wants to make such statements, he should come to the House--preferably next week--and allow us to point out the difficulties that will arise for hundreds of thousands of textile and clothing workers throughout the country.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot answer for any construction that the hon. Gentleman may or may not have placed on what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, but he will know from the fact that we arranged for that debate to take place that we are paying some attention to the matter.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) : I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to hold an early debate on eastern Europe. In view of the problems faced by the hosiery, knitwear and textiles industry-- not least the difficulties about renewing the MFA, which I fervently hope will happen--will he consider arranging a debate specifically about trade with eastern Europe? Sooner or later we shall have to consider how to help those countries, if we are going to help them. We certainly do not want cheap hosiery, knitwear and textiles to flood into Britain, as that would cause further damage to an industry which is already suffering considerably.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that aspect of the position. Plainly, if the countries of eastern and central Europe are able to begin to improve their economic performance after years of being held back by Communist domination, problems will be posed for the rest of the world trading economy, including this country's economy. I believe, however, that those issues will fall within the scope of next Thursday's debate.

Column 406

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, if the Social Security Bill completes its passage, it will not immediately apply to Northern Ireland. As it contains provisions for additional finance for carers, the extension of mobility allowance to the deaf and the blind and the extension of attendance allowance to the terminally ill, will he assure the House that immediately after its passage the Northern Ireland order on social security will be presented and debated so that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from those provisions straight away?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : May I support the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) for a debate on the losses on the Humber bridge, which have so far amounted to £342 million? As the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election of January 1966, when Mrs. Barbara Castle--then Transport Minister--promised a Humber bridge, I find it hard to believe that it was worth £342 million of public money to keep me out of this place, and that for only four years.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I think that the House would have done best to have both the presence of my hon. Friend and the retention of the money.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : Following the tragedy at Donnington Park race course and at Hillsborough, and last week's semi- disaster at the Astoria concert hall, may we please have a debate on crowd safety before there are any more tragedies, so that we can discuss why the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are not in charge and able to impose some discipline on gatherings of young people, which are inviting tragedy again?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot promise a debate on such a wide-ranging topic as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could, of course, always seek an opportunity by way of a debate on the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 349--[ Hon. Members :-- "No."] I am sure that a copy of it would be handed to him if we were to wait--about Curry's and Dixon's repair policy?

[That this House deplores the policy of Dixons and Currys of charging £10 call-out fees to repair goods still under guarantee ; congratulates the Consumers Association and others who have condemned this policy ; and calls upon the Government to introduce legislation along the lines of the National Consumer Council's Consumer Guarantee.]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman join the Consumers' Association in condemning that practice? Will he ask the Minister for consumer affairs to make a statement in the House and to support the Consumer Guarantees Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot promise a debate on that matter. Nor am I sufficiently well informed to comment on it--nor would it be wise to do so--but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend who is responsible for consumer affairs.

Column 407

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his role as deputy Prime Minister, arrange for Government time to be provided for the Bill sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to repeal the law of blasphemy? Does he recognise that such a debate would enable the Government to invite the Law Commission to recommend whether any new public order laws should be introduced to replace the law of blasphemy? It would also enable the Government to call on Salman Rushdie to stop the paperback version of "The Satanic Verses" being published, which would bring an end to all protests against the book and isolate the tiny minority of men of violence who support violence and odious death threats against Mr. Rushdie.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I obviously support the general denunciation by the hon. Gentleman of threats of death in those or any other circumstances. I cannot venture to comment on the other complicated but important matters he raised, which I shall bring to the attention of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that yesterday, in the Oslo commission, Britain was isolated 13-1 on the issue of North sea dumping? He will be aware that Denmark is considering taking Britain to the International Court of Justice for failing to stop dumping, as agreed, in the North sea. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that we need an urgent debate in the House to stop Britain dumping in the North sea and, indeed, to initiate action to clear up the effects of dumping, about which fishermen have protested this week, having found their nets full of condoms, sanitary towels, syringes and all kinds of rubbish that is dumped into the North sea by the countries surrounding it? We need an urgent debate to discuss how Britain can clean up its act and work with others to clean up the North sea.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : That was a prolonged intervention by the hon. Gentleman, in which he failed to remind the House that the Oslo commission countries welcomed the restatement of the United Kingdom's commitment to ending the sea disposal of industrial wastes. Our attitude was there fully explained and showed the Government's recognition of the importance of the subject. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's particular concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : When the Leader of the House is discussing with the Secretary of State for Transport the recent decision over the Mersey tunnels' finances, will he draw to his attention the fact that the people of Merseyside are outraged at the prospect of having to pay £8 a head additional poll tax to bear those costs? Will he also point out that they are equally outraged over the fact that refinancing arrangements have been agreed for the Humber bridge but not for Merseyside?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : Obviously I cannot comment on detailed questions, but I shall bring the particular point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : Following the Government's refusal to refer the GEC takeover of Ferranti to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and

Column 408

bearing in mind the implications of that decision for some Ferranti workers who may now have to face the dole, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement to the House so that those of us with Ferranti factories in or near our constituencies will have a chance to question him on that decision?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to make a statement about that matter now, although I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to his attention.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about a debate or a statement on the high interest rates and the way in which they are affecting mortgages? Will he also bear in mind the fact that such a debate will enable us to ask the Chancellor whether he will allow banks additional tax relief to cover Third-world debts, which will mean that 8 million mortgage payers will have to pay more while the four top clearing banks will be making money hand over fist? Money for the Third world should not go to the top four banks in Britain ; it should be used for relief for Third-world countries.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman has linked a number of matters together in a very artificial fashion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take account of all the relevant matters when formulating his economic policy.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the secret decision taken by the Government to station the new American nuclear bomber, the F15E, in Bentwaters in Suffolk? Will he ensure that the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, attends that debate, because on 6 February he misled the House when he gave an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) that no decision had been taken, but gave me a reply stating that construction would be taking place at Bentwaters, meaning that the F15E will go there? Not only did the Minister mislead the House, but he broke American security, because that is classified information according to the American security budget. Will the Leader of the House consider prosecuting the Minister under the Official Secrets Act 1989?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : It is no part of my function to comment on a contribution that borders on a speech rather than a request or question relating to the business of the House next week. No doubt in due course there will be an opportunity to debate such matters when the House debates the Royal Air Force. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will then expound the Government's policy clearly and convincingly.

Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) : Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House on yesterday's anouncement that the Barry island resort will not be opening this season because of extensive storm damage? That will result in the loss of 120,000 visitors to the town of Barry and will be a devastating blow to the local

Column 409

economy. Will he impress upon his right hon. Friend the need for urgent Government action, because that disaster falls outwith the Bellwin arrangements?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : Obviously the House is concerned about any particular example of severe damage as a result of recent storms. However, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about it on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : The Leader of the House is aware that more than 100,000 people in Britain suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis. He will also be aware that a private Bill on that illness was brought to the House some 18 months ago. As enormous amounts of money are being found for research and compensation to farmers because of mad cow disease, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an opportunity to debate ME so that we might get proper levels of research on it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot promise to find a special opportunity, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : The Leader of the House will be aware that the present severe weather has resulted in a great many vessels of the inshore fleet being confined to port. He will be aware also that, with the allocation of quotas for white fish, the price of white fish at the quayside has rocketed. Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about arranging as soon as possible a debate on the crisis in the fishing industry and about ensuring that there are adequate supplies for processors? If something is not done to allocate quotas properly and efficiently, it will be cheaper to buy salmon and chips than to buy cod and chips.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : There was a debate on that general topic not many days before the Christmas recess. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Should not we abandon the debate on student loans--the debate that is about to take place--until we have had a chance to discuss the quite disgraceful leaflet on top-up loans that has been produced by the Department of Education and Science? The leaflet is clearly party political propaganda and should have been produced by Conservative central office. It is not something which should involve the expenditure of public funds and the use of civil servants' time. It tells us what we will decide later today in the debate. Does a Russian-type constitution now apply to this country, in that the state and the governing party are considered to be synonymous?

Column 410

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I hope that the leaflet will enable the hon. Gentleman to make a better informed contribution than usual to today's debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Is it really right that on Tuesday evening, on the Church of England Measure, the most delicate matters, which have been considered deeply by the Synod of the Church of England, should be decided by such people as Scots Presbyterians married to Roman Catholics and by other assorted Members of Parliament? Without wishing to open 150 years of contentious history on the disestablishment of the Church, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government have any reckoning as to how many hon. Members are practising bona fide members of the Church of England? [ Hon. Members :-- "Too long."] This is a very serious matter. In all this, what exactly is the role of the Minister of Agriculture in purporting to make statements, which have given great offence to some senior deans and to others who are senior in the Church of England, about policy on which his Ministry does not speak officially? May we have some reflection on that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Member's ingenuity can be relied upon to tax my resources more than can that of most hon. Members. My response must be that that debate will take place in accordance with the established procedures of this House in relation to the established Church. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise these matters then. He knows as well as I do that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture takes part in such ecclesiastical debates in a non-agricultural capacity.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : After the traumatic two hours that I have just spent, I wonder whether the Leader of the House is aware of the significant problem that faces many people who want rented accommodation. Not just in the south of England, but particularly north of Westminster, there is an acute shortage of affordable accommodation. In view of the recent statement on mortgage interest increases and of the fact that more people will face homelessness, will the Leader of the House agree to an early debate on the situation?

As a result of the increased mortgage interest rate and the lack of accommodation, many thousands of people throughout the length and breadth of this country face a very difficult situation. There will be more homelessness. This is an important issue, which the Leader of the House ought to put on the agenda. I am asking for an early debate on it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is more than open to the Opposition to place that item on the Order Paper for an Opposition day debate. He will understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is giving the closest possible attention to the general question of homelessness, as he should be doing.

Column 411

Mersey Tunnels

4.29 pm

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the refusal of the Department of Transport to give Mersey Travel financial assistance with the funding of the Mersey tunnels." This matter is specific, because the case for assistance was put to the Minister as long ago as 28 November 1989. It is estimated that, without the assistance that Mersey Travel has asked for, each poll tax payer on Merseyside will pay £10 on their community charge. In addition to the other burdens that they will have to bear, that will be a great burden. The Department's attitude contrasts with the support that was given to the Humber bridge.

The matter is important because it will have dangerous effects on the economies of Liverpool, Birkenhead and Wirral. Traders and shops in central Liverpool and Birkenhead have suffered because of the tolls that have existed for years. Increased tolls will have a bad impact on them.

The matter should be given urgent consideration because, in the immediate future, Mersey Travel must make its budget for 1990-91. The voice of Parliament--several hon. Members have raised this matter today--should be heard before it makes its final decision. One hopes that we shall have convinced the Government to change their mind, at least partially, after the arguments have been aired. Labour Members asked for a meeting to discuss these issues, but we did not get

Column 412

one. It is therefore important for the House to discuss the matter, so that we can at least have a proper debate before it is finalised.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that be believes should have urgent consideration, namely, "the funding of the Mersey tunnels."

I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, I must decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether a debate should be granted to take precedence over the business set down for today or Monday. I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : On a point of order regarding your reply, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend--I use that phrase advisedly--the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) argued his case persuasively and well, and I do not disagree with your judgment. Perhaps it is not clearly understood, however, that that application was about not only Merseyside and the Mersey tunnel but the fundamental approach to estuarial crossings and the rights of people to have their roads, tunnels and bridges--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Walton asked for a debate under Standing Order No. 20. There are many other ways in which the matter can be brought before the House.

Column 413

Points of Order

4.33 pm

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday 31 January, I presented a petition to the House calling for a ban on Rottweilers and other breeds of dogs as domestic pets. I told the House that 15,000 signatures had been gathered in support of it. I now recognise that that statement was wrong and that those 15,000 signatures were gathered in support of a separate petition calling for general legislation to control dogs. I wish to set the record straight on that matter.

Mr. Speaker : That is very good of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that note will be taken of that.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions, I mentioned a leaflet on student top-up loans, which we are to debate. The leaflet was available to hon. Members on the board two days ago. It sets out the provisions of the Bill and pre- empts the debate that we are about to have. To cover itself, it says only :

"The provisions of the Bill are open to amendment in Parliament. Some features of the scheme described below may consequently change."

The problem is that there is no opportunity for this to be distributed anywhere until we have had a discussion later today and moved to Third Reading. The Department of Education and Science is just assuming that the position of the Government will be carried and we will lose all the amendments that we have tabled.

On those grounds, I think that there should be a ruling.

Mr. Speaker : I do not think that I can give a ruling on that. It is a matter for the House to decide whether to accept or reject an amendment.

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the Department on the production of this most excellent leaflet.

Column 414

Mr. Speaker : Would the hon. Member mind doing that during the course of the debate, because it is not a matter of order within the Chamber?

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the guardian of access to this House, would you inquire from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the superintendent in charge of the area surrounding the Palace of Westminster about the arrangements that were made at midday and in the early afternoon to close roads along which we can gain access to the House? I understand from radio bulletins that this was caused by hundreds of coaches depositing thousands of students at Battersea park, I believe, so that they could begin a march relating to the matter that we are about to discuss. It seems to me that it is very serious when so many major roads, particularly the Embankment, are closed. This causes severe damage to the economy of London and to the free passage of the citizens of London. Can you inquire into this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker : Is the hon. Member alleging that he was prevented from getting to the House, because that is what the Sessional Orders are concerned with? They do not cover the other citizens of our metropolis.

Mr. Tracey : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I was indeed diverted on my passage to the House and it caused me considerable inconvenience.

Mr Speaker : I will look into it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Would you also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is one of your general duties to see that not only Members of Parliament are able to get to this place but also constituents, when it is necessary for them to come and lobby this place? If 25,000 students have joined together in a demonstration against this Bill on student loans, the only regret I have is that they were diverted the wrong way round the west end of London. They should have finished at Westminster bridge and shut the --

Mr. Speaker : Order. My responsibility is the Sessional Orders, although of course it is a citizen's right to lobby Parliament.

Column 415

Orders of the Day

Education (Student Loans) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

Student Loans Scheme Advisory Committee

.--(1) An Advisory Committee on the Student Loans Scheme ("the Committee") shall be established by the Secretary of State. (2) the Committee shall be composed of not fewer than 15 nor more than 20 members,

(a) of whom one half shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for persons who appear to him representative of vice-chancellors, polytechnic and college directors, of academic staff, of students and of employers ; and

(b) one half of whom shall be other persons appointed by the Secretary of State

(c) provided that, if there is an odd number of members of the Advisory Committee, members appointed under section 2(b) above shall form the majority.

(3) Secretary of State shall make annual reports to the Committee on the operation of the student loans scheme, and shall supply such other information to the Committee as the Committee may reasonably request.

(4) The Committee shall make annual reports on the progress of the student loans scheme, and may make such other reports as are required of it under schedule 2 or as it considers necessary.

(5) Any report under section (4) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament.'--[ Mr. Straw. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following : New clause 14-- Consultation over certification

Prior to the making of regulations under Schedule 2, paragraph 2, the Secretary of State shall hold consultations with representatives from the institutions which will be required to provide certification and jointly agree a method by which certificates are to be provided.'.

Next Section

Home Page