---

Division No. 3

CONTENTS
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Caithness, E.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. [Teller]
Colwyn, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Garden, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Greenway, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Laird, L.
Lindsay, E.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Mar, C.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Moynihan, L.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Noakes, B.
Northesk, E.
Onslow, E.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Peel, E.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. [Teller]
Renton, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roper, L.
Russell, E.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tope, L.
Waddington, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Billingham, B.
Borrie, L.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burns, L.
Carter, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
David, B.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dearing, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grantchester, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haskins, L.
Hayman, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollick, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jones, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McCarthy, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Nicol, B.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Palmer, L.
Parekh, L.
Patel, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Portsmouth, Bp.
Quirk, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Varley, L.
Walpole, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Wilson of Dinton, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.


Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1187
 

 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1188
 

7.26 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, before calling the next amendment I should point out that the line reference for this amendment has been incorrectly printed. It should read, "page 19, line 30".

Clause 38 [Provision of information]:

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 19, line 31, at end insert—

"( ) If so requested by the governing body of a relevant institution in relation to which an approved plan is in force, the Higher Education Funding Council for England must provide that institution with any information which is in its possession and is reasonably required to enable the institution to inform its students about the level of publicly provided resource for each category of course offered at that institution, and about the level that would have been available had the level of publicly provided resource for that category of course in the previous year been uprated by an index of higher education institution costs."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief; I expect that we need that by now.

At present, Clause 28(4) provides that any fees paid by students will be additional to and not in substitute for public funding. The Government opposed this amendment, and it may well be removed when the Bill returns to the Commons.

On Report, I moved but then withdrew an amendment to ensure that any reductions in funding for teaching were matched by proportionate reductions in student numbers. The Minister objected that such an amendment would require the Higher Education Funding Council for England to control student numbers more tightly than it does at present. The Government may also have opposed the amendment precisely because it would have made it explicit that reductions in public funding mean that, for any given level of fee, either numbers of places must be reduced or quality of provision must be lowered. That is the truth of the matter.

At this stage I wish to move a weaker amendment; that is why it relates to a different part of the Bill. Its aim is only to ensure transparency about levels of public funding for university teaching and courses of different categories.

On Report the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, supported the amendment that I had moved, pointing out the degree of transparency that it would achieve. He said:

"The Government will understand fully the implications of what they do, and that is good for good government. Taxpayers will understand why universities must be supported: they are not a bottomless pit of energy and talent that can be milked and milked. Students, their parents and sponsors will understand why, in the current situation, fees are necessary and they will see what they get for those fees. Finally, also in terms of transparency, universities will know what is expected of them, they will know what the resource is and they will be able to make proper plans over a foreseeable future".—[Official Report, 8/6/04; col. 251.]

Those are aims with which all of us can agree. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment. The amendment would secure a degree of transparency. It allows taxpayers to know the extent to which students on courses in different categories are supported from public funds. It allows students and
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1189
 
their families to know how far the costs of their education are met by their fees and how far by public funding. It allows universities to make a secure case for any fee they charge. It also allows them all to know if public funding is reduced or increased in real terms. In the past, the unit of resource for university teaching has very often been reduced by an adequate suppositious uprating of funding at less than the rate of increase of university costs, labelling the resulting gap in funding and efficiency gain, and in effect meeting the shortfall at the expense of students, who received less teaching, and academic staff, whose level of pay was eroded.

It would at least help to be clear about those matters. The amendment does not add to the burdens on universities. It neither requires nor allows HEFCE to exert more precise control of numbers admitted or of their distribution across categories of courses. It does not determine which index of university costs—whether the higher education pay and prices index or another index—should be used. That would be a matter for HEFCE in consultation with the sector. Universities that find the funds to admit more students, despite any future reduction in public funding per student, would remain free to do so. However, I think that students, their parents, universities and the public would be able to see what was going on. I beg to move.

---