| Higher Education Bill
|
|
Chris Grayling: Could the hon. Gentleman explain how the university of Wales in Aberystwyth, which takes 74 per cent. of its students from England, can put together a Welsh plan for widening access—unless the intention is to cut the number of English students and increase the number of Welsh students? Mr. Thomas: Cutting the number of English students will not widen access, and I would not support it. I look forward to English students coming to Aberystwyth, as a great number vote for me. They have the opportunity to vote for Plaid Cymru for the first and perhaps the only time in their lives. The plans for each of the constituent parts of the universities of Wales and of Glamorgan take account of the whole range of access, not just for students domiciled in Wales but for students from elsewhere. The specific answer is that the National Assembly and the funding council has already decided that a certain proportion of students applying for places in higher education institutions should come from the Communities First 100 poorest and most deprived wards in Wales. That causes pragmatic and practical problems, but the principle is obvious and can be read across. It will inform the plans differently in Wales from in England. That, in itself, does not change the fundamental principle referred to by the hon. Gentleman about equality of access. That is about detail, not principle. The hon. Gentleman is mixing them together. Mrs. Laing: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not here for the first few minutes of our debate. I said for the avoidance of doubt that if one reads clause 21 as amended by amendments Nos. 255 and 256, it suggests that nothing should happen in Wales and that the process should occur only in England. The amendments are technically deficient, but they are probing amendments. My hon. Friends and I have no wish to put people in the universities of Wales in a worse position than those in England—quite the opposite. The Chairman: Order. Interventions should be a little shorter than that. Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Hood. Again, I acknowledge what the hon. Lady said. I accept the technical flawedness of the amendments—all the amendments that I have ever put to Committee have been technically flawed or at least that is what the Government always told me—but in moving these amendments the hon. Lady and her colleagues have failed to address the gap that is left. It is fair enough to say that these are probing amendments, but these are serious matters that deserve some explanation. If one part of the United Kingdom is to be treated differently from another part, that might lead to a rise in the Plaid Cymru vote, but I suggest it is not something in which this Standing Committee wants to get involved. Column Number: 133
3 pmChris Grayling: Let me then ask the hon. Gentleman a specific point. He has talked about different plans for England and for Wales. Take the example of the north-east Wales institute of higher education and the college of higher education based in Chester, which are relatively close to each other and both of which will be focusing, in a similar area, on people in the category of those to whom we need to widen social access. Does he therefore accept that they could be operating to different plans and different rules in trying to attract those same students? Mr. Thomas: Even if the amendments were agreed that would be the case. It is not different plans for England and for Wales, it is different plans for each higher education institution. Mr. Allen: They do not want that. Mr. Thomas: That is the architecture of the Bill that we are discussing and that is what we are amending here. The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be addressing the Chair and not having a conversation across the Floor of the Committee. Twice I have had to ask Members to remember that. Mr. Thomas: I shall be very careful not to be tempted down Nottingham way in future. Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): The hon. Gentleman has brought me back to the point in which I was originally interested. From his knowledge of these matters—which unfortunately I do not share to the same extent—can he give us some indication of the proportion of students who will be coming from the scheme he referred to, Community First? Mr. Thomas: If I can be of any help, from the top of my head, the figure is something like 8 per cent. I think the National Assembly have set a target of something like 11.5 per cent. That is a rough figure, but when we get to the relevant part of the Bill I will want to talk in more detail and hope to have more precise figures, which may be illuminating. In conclusion on this part of the Bill, it is perfectly honourable to oppose the imposition of variable tuition fees, whether it is in Wales or in England. It is perfectly honourable to be opposed to tuition fees, but I note that the Conservatives have not tabled amendments addressing that issue. What they have tried to do instead, in a curious way, is to take Wales out of the Bill. That leaves the impression that for the Conservative party it is more about stopping Wales having more power than about making sure that this Bill does not impose variable tuition fees in Wales. Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Thomas: In a moment. If I can just quote from what I heard earlier on, because the view in the National Assembly has been somewhat different. There the Conservative AM, David Davies, has said very clearly that the Conservatives are opposed to the devolution of powers on tuition fees. He said that they were opposed to them and, what is more, they wanted to keep the powers in Westminster in order to enable a future Tory Government to scrap fees in England and Column Number: 134 Wales. For a start that suggests that the Conservatives recognise that they will never be in power in Wales, so will never have the opportunity to use those powers if they have been devolved to Wales. Secondly, I would not want to put all my eggs in that particular basket. I want to make sure that this Bill does not bring variable tuition fees into Wales. That is my standpoint. I do not want to do that by not devolving the powers. Let the people of Wales decide these matters.The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can help him. In his diary, the BBC Wales correspondent says,
I do not know whether that helps. Mr. Thomas: It does not necessarily help, but it brings to mind a previous Conservative faux pas over higher education. Hon. Members may recall an earlier Conservative proposal to privatise Channel 4 in order to pay for higher education. Unfortunately, they did not consider what that meant for S4C, the public service broadcaster in Wales, which we do not want privatised, thank you very much. Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently from the Welsh viewpoint. However, this is not only an attempt to prevent the people of Wales from deciding on their own futures, this whole seam of Conservative amendments would prevent every university from deciding on its future. The Chairman: Order. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Hood. I sense that I should not go too far down that avenue now. However, I accept the principle of what the hon. Gentleman said. I accept that the Conservatives have genuine concerns about the workings of the Bill. I remember that, on Second Reading, some of those concerns were spread across Opposition parties and, indeed, throughout the House. It is right for any of us to seek to amend the Bill in order to highlight such concerns and to drive forward the arguments around them. However, I find it curious that the way in which Conservative Members have chosen to do it seems always to take Wales out of the equation—that starts here but continues through a series of amendments. One is left with the impression that they are driven by a lack of support for the devolution process, rather than by questioning what the Bill is about. On this matter, the Conservatives should concentrate on the principles lying behind the clauses rather than on the devolution detail. It is the principles with which I have problems, and I should think that they should do so too. Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are times when duplication of bureaucracy, organisation and process between England and Wales represents bad value for the Welsh taxpayer? Column Number: 135
Mr. Thomas: No, I do not accept that. What the hon. Gentleman calls duplication, I would prefer to call specialisation—[
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman tempts me to bring him to order.
Mr. Thomas: I do not want to tempt you too much, Mr. Hood. I shall leave the point there. It is a matter of principle. Devolution attracts costs on occasion, but the benefits have to be weighed as well. I do not think that the Conservatives do a cost-benefit analysis on every occasion.
Mr. Touhig: I am disappointed that Conservative Members feel it necessary to table these amendments, although, when the hon. Member for Epping Forest refers to devolution as a technicality, perhaps I should not be disappointed. We have already referred to the importance that we place on the devolution settlement. It is a pity that there have been yet more amendments that can be interpreted only as an attack on the devolution settlement that has been agreed by Parliament and by the people in a referendum. It is entirely right that if we are taking new powers in primary legislation for England, we should give parallel powers to the National Assembly for Wales.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 12 February 2004 |
