| Higher Education Bill
|
|
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): Am I right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales believes that if all the devolution powers are included in the Bill, as he and I would like to see, the National Assembly for Wales could decide not to have any fees or top-up fees in future, even if they were imposed in England? Mr. Touhig: That is precisely the power that the Bill, if it goes through, will give to the National Assembly. The Assembly will have the right to make that decision. Mrs. Laing: I hear what the Under-Secretary says about devolution. However, if different rules are applied in different parts of the country and people are treated differently because of where they live or where they come from, how can he ensure the equality of opportunity that is the essential part of clause 31? We thoroughly support equality of opportunity. Will he ensure it? Mr. Touhig: I shall come to that point in a moment. There is a great distinction between Labour Members and the hon. Lady's party. We believe that going to university is an opportunity that can benefit people. They believe that it is a privilege for the privileged. Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so that I can utterly and totally refute that. We believe in equality of opportunity. That is why access to university education is so important for everyone in every part of this country, applied with equality. We do not believe in privilege—I certainly do not. Column Number: 136 Mr. Touhig: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying that point. She may care to pass that on to the shadow Secretary of State for Wales who, in the Welsh Grand Committee on 16 December said that
—meaning the Tories—
The Government of Wales Act 1998 allows the National Assembly to make secondary legislation. It is, of course, for the Assembly to determine how it wants to use the powers that it is given by Parliament in that context. It is essential and appropriate that the framework that we set here should be available for the National Assembly. Members will be aware that the Assembly has not yet decided whether to introduce variable fees. In this place we are charged with a duty to determine primary legislation for Wales. If the Assembly were to decide to introduce variable fees in the future, we have a responsibility to ensure that it could do so sensibly and in a regulated way: in the way that the Bill allows for England. That means that institutions would be required to produce plans before they are allowed to charge more than the basic amount for any course. The Bill, as drafted, provides the Assembly with the flexibility to do that in an appropriate way for Wales. The hon. Member for Ceredigion made a point on this: I do not know whether the National Assembly will decide to have variable fees at the end of the day. However, as Parliament legislates for Wales, it is right that a Bill providing further devolvement of responsibility for education policy in Wales should provide the Assembly with the freedom to act within the borders of that policy in determining its own policy. I do not oppose the amendments simply on principle. In practice, the amendments are unworkable. Without a definition of a ''Welsh approved plan'', as provided under clause 21, future references in the Bill make complete nonsense. For instance, let us take clause 26, which would give the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales powers to impose conditions on the governing body of an institution that require it to comply with the provisions of any Welsh approved plan. However, what is a Welsh approved plan and how do we have one if we remove the provisions in clause 21? Clause 34 would give the Assembly powers to make regulations enabling
What would a Welsh approved plan be, if we do not have a Welsh approved plan as agreed in clause 21? Under clause 36, the relevant authority may notify a governing body that they will refuse to approve new plans for Wales. Again, if we do not define an approved plan, what is it? The answer comes in clause 38, which states that a
That section is clause 21, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest is now trying to remove from the Bill. Column Number: 137
3.15 pmMr. Thomas: In July 2003, in its submission to the Richard Commission, the Assembly's Education and Lifelong Learning Committee recommended, and requested, that more powers be devolved to the Assembly in the areas of student grants, teachers' performance pay and the strategic planning of post-16 education. Did the Conservative members of that Committee oppose those recommendations? Mr. Touhig: I cannot really say for sure, as I do not know the answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does—I would not be surprised. Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way, not least because it enables me to recall my chagrin at having missed some of the debate, having come to it late. As he knows, I have an interest in the Principality through my family connections. Will the Under-Secretary tell us about ambiguous situations involving institutions that might be said to have a foot in both camps? I am thinking about a past situation, in which Gwent—alias Monmouthshire—was not defined as being part of the Principality. Of course, it is now, and I do not intend to reopen that debate. More particularly, if an institution were to have an interest over the border, would it be in one plan only? I take it that it could not possibly be in two plans simultaneously. Mr. Touhig: I think that that would be the case. We are talking about plans in Wales; the rest of the Bill deals with plans in England. I do not wish to prolong this debate, Mr. Hood, as we have devoted a considerable length of time to discussing opportunity, yet nothing in the amendments relates to opportunity. The hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the clause treats plans in England and Wales differently. It does not: English and Welsh plans will both have to comply with clause 31 and be approved under clause 32. I am at a loss to understand how the hon. Lady has developed that argument. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said that the principles should be the same in England and Wales. They are: the principles are set out in clauses 31, 32 and 34, which we will debate later. Of course, it is for the National Assembly to decide how that policy will be applied, as that power has been devolved to Wales. Chris Grayling: I have a question about hypothetical, would-be students living in a council house, perhaps, with relatively deprived means, just over the bridge to the west of Chester, which the Minister will know well, just over the border with Wales. Would they be subject to a Welsh-approved plan in Wales or an English-approved plan in England? Mr. Touhig: This is an education Bill; I suppose that God has given Labour Members a mission to educate. The answer is that it would depend on which institution they wish to attend, not on where they live—that would not apply at all. I do not wish to prolong this any further, Mr. Hood. Column Number: 138 Chris Grayling: I thank the Under-Secretary for that clarification. Is not he saying, therefore, that the Welsh Assembly will set parameters whereby Welsh universities will seek out would-be students in England? Does not that make a nonsense of the whole thing? Mr. Touhig: That question has nothing to do with the amendments that we are debating. We are talking about the meaning of a plan. We have had our levity on this subject. In the interests of supporting devolution—God help us and protect my sanity—I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. Mrs. Laing: I have listened carefully to the Under-Secretary, and the lawyer in me agrees entirely with everything that he says about the Bill. As I have said, the amendment is technically deficient. In tabling these amendments, my colleagues and I did not intend to disadvantage universities in Wales—far from it. We wanted merely to probe this issue, and to ensure that the Government have considered all aspects of maintaining and encouraging equality of opportunity in access to universities. The Under-Secretary has answered some of our serious questions on that issue; he answered our technical questions on Wales very well. I have no wish to press a provision that I know to be technically deficient, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 12 February 2004 |
