| Higher Education Bill
|
|
Dr. Francis: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the manifesto commitment by the Welsh Conservatives during the last Assembly elections to
2.45 pmMr. Collins: I am always intrigued when Labour Members quote from manifesto commitments on that topic, because I would not have thought that to be the strongest ground on which to propose their arguments. However, I am happy to do the hon. Gentleman a deal: if he stands by the manifesto on which he stood at the last general election to this institution, I shall be happy to comply with the provisions to which he referred, which my colleagues set out when they stood for election to an entirely different institution. As I said, we are not having a debate across the board on whether it is sensible to devolve Column Number: 129 responsibility for top-up fee policy to the Welsh Assembly. Rather, we are having a narrow debate about equality of opportunity. The hon. Member for Aberavon has intervened twice, while the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has done so once, but I am yet to hear an argument from the Government Benches—perhaps the Minister will give one—for why equality of opportunity for access should be interpreted differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. I do not think that that case can be made, but of course the hon. Gentleman might be about to make it.Mr. Allen: Is the question not whether people should be allowed to interpret things as they wish—they may choose to interpret things in exactly the same way as anyone else—but whether they have the choice to interpret under their own lights and their own values, rather than being given an interpretation by other people? Mr. Collins: Now we are beginning to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman referred to people making decisions under their own values, which is an important and interesting turn of phrase. Of course there are distinctions between Welsh and English circumstances: there are distinctions between the Welsh and English political climates, which are reflected by the different structure of parties. However, the key point is, as he said, about values—principles or adherence to political beliefs. I do not believe that anybody in any mainstream political party in either England or Wales has a different interpretation of what equality of opportunity to higher education means. That is a shared universal value, not a national value that differs from England to Wales. That is the point that we are trying to address and on which Labour Members have now made four attempts. Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC): The hon. Gentleman has chosen to dance on the head of a pin for this debate about the principle of equality, which he rightly said is a universal principle. In England, as in Wales, the plans will vary from university to university. He should bear in mind that in Wales we have only two universities: the university of Wales, which is a collegiate university, and the university of Glamorgan. He should understand that the ways in which the plans will work out in detail will differ. It is right and proper that the National Assembly should control that process in Wales, in line with the process of devolution, which I hope the hon. Gentleman's party now supports. Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because, by saying that I was dancing on the head of pin, he was, I think, suggesting that I am an angel. That was sweet of him and much the nicest thing that anyone has said to me in Parliament for a long time. Indeed, it is probably the nicest thing anyone ever will say to me here. His other point was also interesting. Of course I agree with him that the individual plans, whether they are for universities or otherwise, must reflect the differing circumstances for each higher education institution. We will come later when we debate those matters to a Column Number: 130 number of amendments tabled by different parties that would seek to maximise the extent of the discretion.Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD) rose— Mr. Collins: I shall finish my response on that point after taking the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Mr. Willis: I, too, accept the principle that the hon. Gentleman has established, although I do not understand his amendment. If we take into account amendments Nos. 255 and 256, clause 21(b) would simply read:
So what happens to Wales? Mr. Collins: I am happy to take that intervention. When my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest introduced the amendments, she explained that they were technically defective. They are probing amendments, and the hon. Gentleman may be reassured that we do not intend to press them to a vote for precisely that reason. He is correct that as drafted they are technically unsatisfactory. I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who was arguing that there are effectively two universities in Wales, and any plans produced under the Government's proposals by the Welsh Assembly or under our proposals by a united English and Welsh decision-making process should reflect the different circumstances in those two universities. I entirely agree, but I hope that his starting point of our principles, values and guiding lights—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North—of the importance of equality of opportunity for access would not differ, either between those two universities or between those universities and universities in England. So I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument helps rather than hinders me, but I am happy for him to intervene and show me how he is trying to hinder me. Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is slipping down from angel status. [Interruption.] He is indeed a fallen angel. He needs to bear in mind that the part of the Bill he is seeking to amend refers not to the principles, but only to the plans. Therefore, the Bill devolves control over the plans to the National Assembly for Wales, but not over the principles. Therefore the architecture of the Bill is not devolved. As a devolutionist and Welsh nationalist, perhaps I would want it devolved even more, but on this occasion the Government have got it about right. The principles remain the same for students in both England and Wales, because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly makes out, students study in both countries and there is a lot of exchange over the border, but the detail of the plan will be worked out by the National Assembly, the Higher Education Funding Council in Wales, the universities in Wales and by OFFA in Wales to meet needs in Wales and also the needs of English students coming into Wales. Surely that is the best way forward. Mr. Collins: We are debating amendments to the earlier part of clause 21 which directly refers to Column Number: 131 clause 31, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest pointed out, contains the language relating to equality of opportunity for access that we have been debating. Therefore, by debating references to a plan it is relevant—particularly when a clause refers specifically to another clause—to consider what the other clause describes the plan as being about. But it has been an interesting debate—Mrs. Laing: Just to clarify a matter, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North asked why ''they''—referring to the Welsh Assembly—cannot make up their minds for themselves how they do things in Wales, as if people in Wales are not part of our decision-making process; whereas the very presence here of the hon. Member for Ceredigion who has put his case so well and eloquently in speaking up for Welsh interests shows that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his nomenclature. We should not use ''we'' and ''they'' and ''us'' and ''them''. It is all ''we''; we are the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend makes, as ever, a powerful case. Of course, each hon. Member must be responsible for the language that they choose to use, but given that—as my hon. Friend will know—on Second Reading there was such a strong argument that Scottish MPs should vote because this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, it seems rather odd that when we come to Committee we are told that there is a distinction between different parts of the United Kingdom and it is implied that certain people are not represented here at all. I do not intend to prolong the debate. Having heard four attempts from Labour Back Benchers and a couple of amusing attempts from the Plaid Cymru Benches, we are interested in whether the Minister can say whether a case can be made for interpreting equality of opportunity of access to higher education differently between England and Wales. Mr. Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a short contribution. I apologise to the hon. Member for Epping Forest for missing her opening remarks. That was partly because I was writing down from the internet an interesting quote on the provision by a Conservative Assembly Member. The amendments must not be taken out of context. They are part of a series of Conservative amendments, all of which would remove Wales and the devolution of powers from the Bill. The present amendment removes the devolution of powers over plans for fair access to higher educational institutions. To be fair, Conservative Members have already admitted that the amendments are technically flawed, but they are even more flawed than they have said. If they were to be accepted—I hope that the Government will resist them—there would be no relation between the amount of tuition fees that may be charged in Wales and the fair access policy. In other words, if the amendment were to be acceded to, the link between tuition fees—I am opposed to them, and I intend to stick to my manifesto commitment—and fair access, a link that has been much discussed in the House Column Number: 132 particularly on Second Reading and which is a core part of the Bill, would be broken in Wales but not in England. That is more than technically flawed. It is philosophically and politically inept.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 12 February 2004 |
