House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Apr 1990

Column 1259

8.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Mr. Speaker : I undertook earlier, at the request of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to look again at my decision that Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are not covered by the money resolution in respect of the Bill.

The resolution in question authorises payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the forthcoming Education (Student Loans) Act. Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 would require payments to be made under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986 : in the case of Lords amendment No. 8 to all loan-taking students, whether or not they are currently eligible for housing benefit ; and in the case of Lords amendment No. 10 to postgraduate students even if they are not loan takers.

I am satisfied that both Lords amendments would have been out of order if it had been sought to move them in this House and that my decision that it was necessary to invoke Standing Order No. 76 in respect of those Lords amendments is correct.

Mr. Straw : I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the time that you have taken to reconsider the matter, although, naturally, Opposition Members regret that they will not have a chance to vote on the substantive issue of the denial of housing benefit to students. This matter will now return to the other place with a message from this

Column 1260

place. Will it be possible for their Lordships to amend Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 and, if they agree, to table an acceptable amendment on which the House could voice an opinion?

Mr. Speaker : Their Lordships would certainly have to consider any message from this place. It would then be up to them what they did about it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members, in the interim, will the Government consider a second money resolution that would take account of the implications of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986, which also could be sent to the other place for consideration?

Mr. Speaker : It is too late to do that in respect of Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10, but it is always for the Government to consider whether they should introduce further money resolutions.

Mr. Simon Hughes : On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the Minister twice made the factual statement--you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair at the time--that the Government had accepted 17 Lords amendments. From the papers before us, that appears to be incorrect. It appears that the Secretary of State will move three motions disagreeing with the Lords amendments. On the face of it, the Government have not accepted three of the Lords amendments. It is important that a misleading impression is not given, because Hansard will have recorded the Secretary of State as saying that the Government have accepted 17 Lords amendments.

Mr. Speaker : Until the House gets on to the amendments, it will not know whether the Government disagree with them. I think that we had better get on with them.

Column 1261

Orders of the Day

Education (Student Loans) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

Loans for students

Lords amendment : No 1, in page 2, line 11, at end insert "but before doing so shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable"

Read a Second time.

7.13 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (b), at end insert

including those listed in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to this Act'. Mr. Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider the consequential amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in Schedule 1, page 3, line 30, at end add--

(8) Bodies to be consulted under section 1(4) above shall include--

Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals

Committee of Directors of Polytechnics

National Union of Students

Advisory Board for the Research Councils

Association of County Councils

Advisory Centre for Education

Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services

Association of Graduate Recruiters

Association of Metropolitan Authorities

Association of Principals of Colleges

Confederation of British Industry

Council of Local Education Authorities

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

Department of Employment

Department of Education for Northern Ireland

Education Grants Advisory Service

Further Education Unit

Economic and Social Research Council

The Institute of Careers Officers

Universities Funding Council

Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

National Council for Vocational Qualifications

Scottish Education Department

Science and Engineering Research Council

Secondary Heads Association

Trades Union Congress

Scottish Trades Union Congress

Welsh Education Office

Council for National Academic Awards

Forum for Access Studies.'.

Mr. Straw : The amendments raise a short point, and, in view of the lack of time to debate other major issues, I shall be brief. In the other place, the Government accepted that there should be consultation on what additional courses should be eligible for student loans. That acceptance is encapsulated in amendment No. 1, but it is not specific about who should be consulted. We have tabled two amendments so that the Secretary of State and the House may have a chance to lay down who should be consulted. Amendment (c) lists all the major national bodies which, so far as we can see, have an interest and should be consulted. I should be glad to hear from the Secretary of

Column 1262

State that he accepts that organisations of that national stature and importance should be consulted, among others, if, as I anticipate, Lords amendment No. 1 is included in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) :I can be equally brief. The amendment amplifies an undertaking given by the Government in the other place. In Committee we debated at some length whether the student loans scheme could apply to part-time students. As the House knows, they have none of the advantages of a grant system and are not proposed for inclusion in the loans system. My colleagues and I advocated that extension and suggested that it would be proper to use them in the first pilot scheme for loans, if there were to be loans, rather than full-time students. Such an extension should be the subject of proper consultation.

Some of us are worried, having listened to the earlier debate, that even after consultation the Government may not listen. We live in hope, however. It is better that all those with an interest are the subject of consultation and we are specific about who should be consulted. I hope that the Government will respond generously and will say not just that they accept Lords amendment No. 1, as we heard from the Government spokesman in the Lords, but that they are willing to be specific that all the bodies listed and any others with an interest will be consulted about any extension or variation in the number or nature of institutions which will be beneficiaries of the proposed scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson) : Lords amendment No. 1 was tabled in the other House by Baroness David, but it was a Government amendment offered to her by Lord Caithness as she had taken the lead in urging the need for it and I pay tribute to her. The amendment qualifies the power in clause 1(4) to amend schedule 1, which is a list of eligible courses, by requiring the Secretary of State to consult before using the power. I commend the amendment to the House.

The Government intend loans to be available for all higher education courses below postgraduate level so long as the student is following the course full time and meets the residence requirements. Accordingly, schedule 1 lists as eligible all types of course at higher education level except postgraduate study. We do not expect to need to revise schedule 1 frequently because it is already comprehensive but, as is generally accepted, we must be able to keep it up to date without resorting to both Houses of Parliament for fresh primary legislation.

Amendments (b) and (c) would insert a requirement into the Bill that the consultation by the Secretary of State before amending schedule 1 should be undertaken with certain specific bodies. It would make consultation with those bodies a statutory requirement, which we are not prepared to accept. To be productive, consultation must be manageable. There is a wide range of interests potentially concerned in these matters and the Secretary of State must be able to decide whose views to seek in a particular case. That will depend on the particular change contemplated at the time. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will be attentive to

representations from all quarters, but it would be wasteful and unnecessary to have a long prescribed list for every change to schedule 2.

Column 1263

There are further common-sense considerations. What would happen if a body in the schedule changed its name or went out of existence? Would we have to post letters to an organisation which no longer existed? What would happen if there was a new body which it was sensible to consult about a particular proposal? Those arguments show that it would be absurd to fix a list in the Bill. The Government are serious about consultation. We consult and listen. I recommend the rejection of the two amendments to the Lords amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment : No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert-- "(5A) The power to make orders under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lordin the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments :

No. 3, in page 2, line 14, leave out from "make" to "subject" in line 16 and insert

"regulations under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which, subject to subsection (7) below and paragraph (1A) of that Schedule, shall be"

No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert--

"(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament and those regulations shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House."

No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert--

"(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament ; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.

(8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House ; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5, in paragraph (7),, leave out first'.

Mr. MacGregor : These amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of the orders and regulations made under the powers of the Bill. The bulk of these are Government amendments which discharge commitments made in another place in response to comments made in this House.

Column 1264

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the power to amend schedule 1, which lists types of course for which loans are available. Clause 1(4) provides power to amend schedule 1 by order. This House and the other place expressed concern about the conferring of power to amend primary legislation. We have responded to it through the requirement to consult imposed by amendment No. 1. We do not expect frequent revision of schedule 1. It is already comprehensive, but we must be able to keep it up to date.

Amendment No. 2 applies the affirmative resolution to the order amending schedule 1. We have heeded the concern that the negative procedure originally proposed gives insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment.

Opposition amendment 2(a) has exactly the same effect as Lords amendment No. 1, which we have just agreed--that the Government are required to consult before amending schedule 1--and is therefore superfluous. I invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Lords amendment No. 4 applies the affirmative resolution to the first use of the regulation-making power to establish the scheme. Regulations made later for further development of the scheme will be subject to negative resolution. The amendment covers the main aspects of the scheme and it is important that I emphasise them. They are the conditions of eligibility, except the list of eligible types of course in schedule 1, which are made in clause 1 ; the terms of the loan made in accordance with schedule 1(1) ; and the involvement of higher education institutions in securing access to loans for students.

I hope that amendment No. 4 meets the concerns expressed by hon. Members on Report. We reflected on that debate, which is why I was happy to accept the amendment in another place. I had hoped that it would meet the concerns of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who spoke in favour of the amendment on Report, but I see from Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 that he has ignored the arguments and returned to his old position. The Opposition amendment would make all orders and regulations always subject to the affirmative procedure. It is right to provide flexibility to develop the scheme once it is established through regulations, subject to the negative procedure. That was our original intention even for the first use of the regulation-making power.

Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 has not been selected.

Mr. Speaker : I was about to say that, but I thought that the Secretary of State was coming to the end of his preliminary remarks.

Mr. MacGregor : You are right, Mr. Speaker. I failed to observe that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 was not selected. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) for drawing that to my attention. However, I imagine that he would wish me to make my remarks about amendment No. 5 and amendment (a) to it, which has been selected, because this is probably the most material part of this debate.

On Lords amendment No. 5 we have agreed that regulations first made to establish the scheme should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have placed that requirement in the Bill by means of Lords amendment

Column 1265

No. 4. That means that, when the regulations are made for the first time, they will be debated by both Houses and approval of both Houses will be required before they come into force. That meets one of the key points in Lords amendment No. 5, but the amendment goes further because it seeks to allow either House to propose amendments to regulations.

As the House knows, Parliament cannot normally amend under either positive or negative procedure--it can only approve or reject. If either House makes its objections clear, the Government can withdraw the regulations. Otherwise, under the affirmative procedure, either House can vote against them.

On the main issue of principle, the effect of the normal affirmative procedure and that proposed by the amendment could be similar in certain circumstances. For example, under the amendment, the House could vote to amend and under the affirmative procedure it could vote to reject. The Secretary of State would then have to take away the draft regulations and return with fresh regulations to seek approval once again.

Lords amendment No. 5 introduces serious practical complications, and that is why I shall urge the House to reject it. The first complication is that one House might propose an amendment conflicting with one proposed by the other House. What would happen in that case, and which view would take precedence? The amendment provides no mechanism for resolving such questions.

Secondly, the amendment would add undesirable delay to the making of the first regulations by imposing a 40-day period after the draft regulations are laid before Parliament, during which time either House can approve amendments. If an amendment were passed during that period, fresh regulations would have to be presented and a further 40-day period would apply. That process could continue indefinitely. I have already made it clear that it is desirable to have the loan scheme in place at the earliest practical moment so that students can take advantage of it. Undesirable delay should not be agreed to. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 would keep this cumbersome arrangement in place for all future regulations as well as for the first set, and would apply the affirmative resolution to them as well. For the reasons that I have given, I would not wish to see this unnecessary and wasteful process of amendment applied to future regulations. The Government accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but we invite the House to disagree with the Lords on amendment No. 5 and to reject Opposition amendment (a).

7.30 pm

Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East) : We had much debate in Committee on the need for the affirmative resolution procedure on the regulations. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were advanced there. It is worth underlining that that matter is especially important when debating a Bill such as this, which contains so little detail about the administration of the scheme. Much is being left to regulations and that makes it all the more important that the House and the other place should have a meaningful opportunity to shape those regulations.

The Lords amendments represent a Government concession made under acute pressure. They conceded to the arguments that we advanced in Committee, in the House and in the other place and that is welcome.

Column 1266

However, they have not gone nearly far enough towards providing proper opportunities for democratic involvement and public input into Parliament's deliberations on the formulation of regulations that shape the way in which the scheme is to operate.

The affirmative resolution procedure should operate for each set of regulations and not merely for those introduced in the first year. The Government's proposal falls considerably short of the concession that Lady Young and her Conservative and Cross-Bench sponsors believed that they had won in the other place. In reply to Lady Young, Lord Caithness said :

"We accept the principles behind the amendment of my noble Friend Lady Young."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 1990 ; Vol. 516, c. 1322.]

Lady Young had made it clear that those amendments were intended to cover three areas. Those were : the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans, which were subject to no parliamentary scrutiny under the Bill as drafted ; the making of any orders to amend in the first year the list of courses for which loans will be payable ; and the financial regulations and other details that were already under the negative resolution procedure.

Despite the apparent concession by Lord Caithness, on the basis of which those amendments were withdrawn, his amendment brought forward on Report in the Lords covered only the second and third areas. It did not cover the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans. Therefore, it was deficient in that respect.

The other Lords amendments result from the narrow and welcome victory secured in the other place by Earl Russell.

Mr. Jackson : By a majority of one.

Mr. Smith : That was a narrow majority but it was nevertheless a majority.

The amendments succeeded in inserting an ingenious procedure that has been used in the past. It would effectively give both Houses the opportunity to do that which the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 5 December said that he thought that the House itself had the power to do. He said then that it would be open to the House to amend the regulations, but subsequently recognised his error. The ingenious procedure proposed by Earl Russell would enable both Houses to amend the regulations by requiring the drafts to be submitted for a 40-day period, within which either House could pass a motion commenting on the terms of the regulations. If any motion were passed that would require the regulations to be amended, the Secretary of State would be required to withdraw the regulations and re-lay them. The procedure is a simple but effective way to scrutinise the detail of regulations without necessarily going as far as rejecting them in principle. There is considerable merit in that ingenious procedure and we think that it should apply not only to the first regulations but to all subsequent regulations. That is why amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 proposes the deletion of the word "first".

The Opposition and many people outside the House regard the Bill as an affront to democracy, and the improvements that the Lords have succeeded in extracting from the Government would undoubtedly reinsert a small but welcome democratic opportunity for input from both

Next Section

Home Page