Higher Education Bill

House of Commons, 31 March 2004.

New Clause 1 — General Duties of the Director

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2 General duties of the relevant authority in relation to Wales

(1) The relevant authority in relation to Wales must perform his functions under this Part in such a way as to ensure full access to higher education based upon academic ability and potential.

(2) In performing his functions under this Part the relevant authority in relation to Wales shall also have regard to—

(a) the desirability of promoting equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education,

(b) the requirement to maintain the independence of the procedures for the admission of students of individual institutions,

(d) the desirability of securing that his powers are exercised in such a way as to impose the minimum necessary burdens of cost and compliance with regulation on institutions.'.

Amendment No. 1, in page 14, line 6, leave out Clause 30.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 48, page 22, line 13, leave out 30(1)' and insert

[general duties of the Director]'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 22, line 44, leave out 30(2)' and insert

[general duties of the relevant authority in relation to Wales]'.

Amendment No. 99, in schedule 5, page 31, line 33, at end insert—

'(2A) In any report under sub-paragraph (1) the Director shall include an assessment of the factors which most discourage any particular class of person from seeking access to higher education, in particular factors related to income.'.

Amendment No. 100, in page 31, line 33, at end insert—

'(2A) Any report by the Director may include recommendations for public policy.'.

I rise to speak to new clause 1 and the other consequential new clause and amendments, tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. Four years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer began a process of Government interference in our universities that will, if the Bill goes through, establish the mechanism for the Government to dictate to them how they should select students. We all remember the case of Laura Spence, the applicant from the north-east who was turned down by Oxford university and subsequently admitted to Harvard. For some reason—and with what seemed like precious little knowledge of the detail of the case—the Chancellor thought that it was his job to come to Laura Spence's defence.

I have been looking back at the coverage of the case, and the events, and their consequences for our debate are clear. A report in The Times of 26 May 2000 stated:

"Gordon Brown embroiled the Government in a class war with Oxford University yesterday by attacking its "old school tie" interviewing system and the "absolute scandal" of the rejection of a comprehensive schoolgirl.

The Chancellor urged Britain's older universities to open their doors to "people from all backgrounds" after Laura Spence failed to secure a place to read medicine at Magdalen College. She has since won a Harvard scholarship.

Mr. Brown spoke with the full backing of Tony Blair . . . But he was promptly criticised by the university, whose Vice-Chancellor, Dr Colin Lucas, accused him of speaking without knowing the facts behind the headlines."

That is not entirely a surprise. The real message in that story was in the last paragraph, which stated:

"Last night the row was escalating as government sources made plain that universities could face sanctions if they fail to take more state pupils. 'These people have got to put their house in order', a senior government source said. Oxford and Cambridge have already suffered a cut of £11 million over ten years in the money previously allocated for college tuition fees. Officials say there is plenty of scope to impose further funding conditions."

Further funding conditions are precisely what are on the table today. They are forcing those people, in the eyes of the Government, to put their house in order. Our new clause and the related amendments seek to challenge that intervention, and to ensure that unwarranted political interference by the Government cannot happen.

James Purnell (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

In answer to a question that I asked in the debate on the programme motion, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that there were hordes of Conservatives waiting for the end of that debate so that they could speak in this one. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there are only three Conservative Back Benchers supporting him now, given the earlier claim that there was massive interest on the Conservative Benches in this important Bill?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he will find that much of the interest in speaking today is on his own Benches, where large numbers of people are only too keen to speak against the Government's ill-thought-out approach to higher education. The sad thing is that all too few of them will have the opportunity to do so—if, indeed, they have not already been cowed into submission by the intense efforts of the Government Whips Office.

It has been noticeable in recent weeks that some supporters of the Prime Minister have, perhaps with his retirement in mind, started to talk about "Blairism" as a political philosophy, although I am not sure whether that is a contradiction in terms. This measure is not about Blairism; it is about Brownism, and it is a sign of things to come if the country should ever be unfortunate enough to see the Chancellor move house from No. 11 to No. 10. The fact that the measure is before the House today is also a sign of just how weak the Prime Minister has become within his own party, and just how strong the Chancellor has become.

When I challenged the Prime Minister on this issue a year ago, he disowned his Government's own policy. I said to him:

"There are increasing reports of pupils of high ability and achievement being turned down by universities because of their social background. How would the Prime Minister justify that to the people who are losing out?"

The Prime Minister's response was:

"The simple point is that I would not. If universities are doing that, they are wrong. What is more, people should go to university based on their merit, whatever their class or background. That is what should happen." [Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 256—7.]

The purpose of new clause 1 is to ensure that it does happen, and if the Government are so enthusiastic for it to happen and if Ministers are so keen on it happening, I suggest that we stop the debate now so that they can accept new clause 1 and we can move on. Would they like to do that? [Laughter.] No, I thought not.

New clause 1 would write into the Bill the simple principle that the access regulator should be mindful of academic achievement and potential, and of that alone. That is where the Conservatives stand on this issue. Only those two factors should be taken into account when deciding who should go to university. The admissions system should not become a system for social engineering.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Has the hon. Gentleman had time, since the Bill was in Committee, to consider what he means by "potential"? Can he now give the House a better explanation of what he means by that term, and of what his objection is to fair access, which is something else that he could not get to grips with in Committee?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I suspect that the difference between the hon. Lady and me is that, as a politician, I do not think that it is my job to define "potential". I would rather leave it to the professionals in the universities to decide which young people have the potential to succeed. They do not need politicians to step in and do their job for them.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something wrong with a system in which, over the last 50 years, no more than 15 per cent. of people from C5 backgrounds have gone into higher education? Is he saying that the vast majority of such people—of whom I represent many—do not have potential?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but she should be looking elsewhere in the education system to deal with those very real issues. It is not a solution to gerrymander the higher education entrance system.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Speaking as someone who was a professional lecturer for six years in the kind of institute that encouraged wider access, may I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the unseen potential of people who come to higher education through non-traditional pathways? It is not a desirability but a necessity to ensure that such people have equal access to all higher education institutions, because they outperform people who come through with more traditional grade scores.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. He talks about his own experience in higher education and the role that he and his colleagues clearly played in selecting students with academic potential. It is the job of his colleagues who are still in the profession to take those decisions; it is not for politicians to impose those solutions on them.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

No, I want to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. The point is that it is exactly that principle that the Government are seeking to destroy today, and we want to prevent that from happening through our new clauses and amendments.

The proposal to introduce the access regulator represents all that is wrong with this Government. University vice-chancellors have told us that they hope that the regulator will prove to be a paper tiger, but they should have listened to the Minister when he spoke in a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall earlier this year. He said that

"this is a regulator with teeth." [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 32WH.]

Our goal this afternoon is to draw those teeth, and to establish the principle, which should be inalienable, that these matters should be outside the control and involvement of politicians.

Let us be clear: we believe that entry to university should be based on academic achievement and potential and on nothing else. It is not for politicians to interfere in this.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The hon. Gentleman may recall from Committee that my position is somewhere between his and the Government's on this matter. There is a serious point to be made: the university funding system is already subject to an element of political interference. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, for example, already sets a threshold for the number of applicants who must come from the 100 most deprived communities in Wales. Would the new clause weaken existing arrangements, or does the hon. Gentleman think that he is merely tackling the office for fair access? I am a little concerned that he may weaken efforts already being made in relation to access to higher education.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I see no reason why the new clause would have that effect. Nor do I believe that our universities would be enhanced by another layer of bureaucracy, which would make it more difficult for them to do the job that many of them are already doing.

The important point at the heart of this debate is that there is a need to create opportunity within our education system for those who are let down by it. There was no dispute in Committee about that, and there is no disagreement that there are young people who do not achieve what they could under our current education system. There are young people with the potential to go to university, who, for family or other reasons, such as the social environment in which they are brought up, do not end up doing so. That is wrong. There is agreement on both sides of the House about that.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is sadly not in his place at the moment, made an impassioned and important speech and quite a long one about the situation in his constituency, where anyone who stays on in education after the age of 16 is regarded, in his words, as weird. Clearly, that is wrong. I did not disagree with his analysis of the situation in his constituency, nor with the fact that it needs to be addressed, but I fundamentally disagree with him about the solution. The problem that the access regulator is being appointed to tackle is deep-rooted in our schools, and it is there that the change must come. That solution will not be found by gerrymandering the university admissions system, or by requiring university admissions tutors to follow anything other than their natural instincts and expertise in judging academic achievement and potential.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that we heard in Committee of examples of universities and schools working together in communities, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), to expose universities to young people who had no previous experience of them? The regulator will oversee exactly that type of access extension.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and anticipates the next section of my speech.

The frustrating irony of the debate about the access regulator is that good work is already going on in the university sector to try to attract students from non-traditional backgrounds.

In Committee, numerous Labour Members praised the efforts of their local universities in this regard. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who is not in her place today, said:

"Cambridge University has long been generous in providing bursaries to students from low-income backgrounds"

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said:

"we need . . . vice-chancellors to become far more a part of the education family". [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 4 March 2004; c.464—71.]

But he went on to praise the work done by his two local universities, Nottingham university and Nottingham Trent university, in seeking to extend opportunities for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

It is right that we gave examples of good practice in Committee, but we also said that it was not uniform, it was not across the piece, and that some universities were doing very well, and others were not. We want all universities to perform to their best in terms of widening access and reaching out into communities to young people who would not have thought about attending university. That is what the regulator will do: it is about spreading good practice.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The hon. Gentleman must understand that the fundamental difference between us is that we do not believe that we should pass laws to do that. One does not legislate best practice; one encourages it. The flaw in this measure is the belief that passing a law is the right way to deal with a genuine problem. That is the difference between Conservative and Labour Members.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the hard work going on in junior and primary schools as well as in secondary schools and universities. Alongside that good work, does he not recognise that there is a problem with people following their natural instincts, to use his words? Is not the problem that some people's natural instincts may not be benign, and some people's natural instincts may need some encouragement in a more generous direction?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

If the hon. Lady is right, and if the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is correct that there are potential students out there who will out-perform in higher education, by definition, those institutions that are good at recruiting them will rocket up the academic ladder, and others will realise that they are missing out. Surely best practice is best developed in that way, rather than through clumsy bureaucratic laws from the centre.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make some progress. I do not want to take up the whole debate with my contribution.

The problem is that when the Government feel that something is not right, they rush to pass a law. Although the natural instincts of Labour Members to nationalise everything have long been curbed, those instincts are still to look to interfere in every aspect of our lives. When there is something with which they do not agree, passing a law is their only solution. The introduction of an access regulator, whose job is to ensure that universities are pressurised into changing the way that they shape their future intakes, is based too much on class prejudice and not enough on academic good practice. We do better if we empower people to take those decisions themselves, rather than trying to be prescriptive from the centre.

I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that something must be done to address those failing schools and communities where education is an alien concept [Interruption.] He has just returned to the Chamber, and he missed my remarks referring to his speech. I very much agreed with his diagnosis of the problem in his constituency. My point is that that problem simply should not exist in a modern society in 2004. It behoves all of us as politicians to seek ways to address it. We differ not on the aspiration but on the solution. Fundamentally, we do not believe that passing laws is the right way to do it. Nor do we believe that creating potentially draconian regimes for the university sector is the right way to do it.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am going to conclude my remarks, as I want to allow other Members the chance to speak.

The Government have sought to assure us that they have no intention whatever of trying to become involved in admissions. The measure, they tell us, is all about applications, not admissions. They just want universities, they tell us, to cast their net wider. The problem is simple: we do not believe them. They have form in this area. They know that they have already gone back on a clear manifesto pledge on tuition fees, to which we will no doubt return later this afternoon.

When the Government tell us that the access regulator will have a light touch and confine his interest to a loose set of guidance in relation to the application process, I do not believe them. Do we honestly believe that two or three years down the road, if by some unhappy accident they are still in office and their goals are not being met by the higher education sector, they will stand aside if the changes that they want have not happened? No one in the higher education sector should be under any illusion about that. When the Secretary of State talks about substantial financial penalties £500,000 fines for universities that do not conform that is a threat to be taken seriously. In time, those threats will become a harsh reality.

There is a simple way of removing this threat. The new clause would limit the ability of the regulator to impose a social engineering agenda on our universities. It would ensure that our universities cannot be forced to admit students on the basis of any factors other than academic achievement and potential. The Prime Minister had it right a year ago when he said that anything else would be wrong. He was right then, this new clause is right now, and I commend it to the House.

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

I shall not detain the House, because I am sure we all want to proceed to the next group of new clauses and amendments.

The Liberal Democrats will support the new clause, because, as we have said from the outset, we consider the whole system of targets to be nonsense. The idea that precisely 50 per cent. of young people no more, no less should go to university is absurd. The target will probably be achieved quite easily anyway; it has already been achieved in Scotland, and the chances are that it will be achieved in England in the near future regardless of whether the Government take any action. What we should be doing is deciding how many university places we ought to be providing, and for whom they ought to be provided. We have long believed that places should be provided for all who have the ability, potential and qualifications to make proper use of university courses.

We are particularly happy with new clause 1 because the Conservatives, who in Committee tabled an equivalent amendment proposing the removal of the clause in the Bill that insists on fairness, have now included subsection (2) in the new clause. It provides that the system of choosing between applicants must be fair and non-discriminatory. That addition makes all the difference: it enables us to support the new clause.

While we are thinking about fairness, we should bear in mind that A-levels are not the only measure of ability and potential. I was somewhat surprised, but nevertheless delighted, to find in Committee that the Conservatives held that view as well. There had been some concern about the issue over the past year. Some independent schools had seemed to think that A-levels were the only important measure of ability, and that those with the right A-levels should be chosen on those grounds alone. That, of course, has become impossible in the case of our most prestigious universities: so many applicants are achieving three or four A grades that it is impossible to choose between them purely on that basis.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Croydon Central)

While we are discussing the central issue of enforcing fairness, may I make a point about Oxford university? I should mention that I went there from a state school. Oxford accepts a proportion of applicants from state schools, but it is also true that more people from state schools will end up with better degrees the corollary being that those from the private sector will end up with worse degrees. Does that not imply that something is going badly wrong at the margin, and that there should be more factoring in of social backgrounds? That is the job of the regulator, and it should be enforced.

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

I do not think that those from state schools necessarily get better degrees. What is certainly true is that those from state schools who have lower A-level grades tend to do at least as well as those from independent schools who have higher grades. I do not think that that is quite the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, but it is my reason for thinking that A-level grades should not represent the only way of choosing between applicants. If we do not have other mechanisms, our most prestigious universities will not have the opportunity to admit applicants with great ability and potential who come from state schools and whose A-level grades may not be as good as those of others in their age group.

Barry Sheerman (Labour/Co-operative, Huddersfield)

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted my hon. Friend's point. The other side of the picture is that when people who have been carefully nurtured and groomed, and on whom an enormous amount of money has been spent in the private system who have been glossed up reach university, the glossing up does not persist. It gets them into university because they look good at their interviews and have plenty of self-assurance and yes, they have achieved three As at A-level but when confronted with the rigours of a university degree course, they do not perform as well as people from state schools with similar qualifications.

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

I suspect that, in fact, we are all misunderstanding each other. I think that what I was saying is exactly what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Those from state schools will not necessarily get better degrees than those from independent schools, but those from state schools with lower A-level grades tend to end up with the same degrees as those from independent schools with higher grades.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in commending to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) the Chairman of the Select Committee and to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) a report prepared for the Higher Education Funding Council? It concerns the effects of schooling on higher education achievement, and concludes that the difference in the degree performances of students with the same A-level scores from independent schools and state schools is very small indeed at the most selective and highly academic universities such as Oxford and Cambridge.

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

I think that we are all saying much the same thing, and that I should now make some progress.

At present, independent schools are selling themselves largely on their ability to produce better A-level grades than state schools for pupils with the same ability. Universities should therefore take the opportunity of choosing state school applicants with lower grades, rather than those from independent schools; but the choice must be made on the basis of a number of criteria. Past exam success clearly makes a difference, and it is one of the measures that universities can use fairly not just in respect of A-levels, but in respect of earlier exams. Current tests of potential along the lines of the American SATS are a possible method of differentiation. The application form itself may give universities a hint, and pupils could perhaps send examples of written work to show what they had achieved in the past. Interviews are another possibility, as are teachers' assessments. If teachers are at all fair in their assessments, the best way of judging the ability and potential of young people may be what is said by those who have known them best at school.

New clause 1 would, I hope, produce a fairer way of choosing university students than the methods currently used in some universities. It is only fair to add, however, that a certain level of resources would have to be invested. It is quickest and simplest for universities to choose between applicants on the basis of A-level grades; if these more complex and subtle, but fairer, methods are adopted, universities must put in more money than they do at present.

New clause 2 would remove from the Welsh Assembly some of its rights to determine how university admissions are handled. That clearly conflicts with the whole principle of devolution to the Assembly. I should like the maximum number of powers to be devolved, and I believe that these powers should be included.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

As the hon. Gentleman will know, new clause 2 is effectively consequential on new clause 1. Is he saying that he supports the principle that universities should not be subject to political interference in England, but does not apply that principle to Wales?

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

No, I am not suggesting that Welsh universities should not have a fair choice of applicants. What I am saying is that it should be up to the Assembly to determine how it will put pressure on universities to employ a fair and sensible way of discriminating between applicants. We in this Parliament should not make that decision.

I am not sure whether anyone will speak to amendments Nos. 99 and 100. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who tabled them, did not seem to want to speak a moment ago. In case he does speak, however, let me say that we consider the amendments unobjectionable but probably superfluous. I suspect that OFFA would work more or less in that way in any event. We see no great need for the amendments, but we have no great objection to them.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

New clauses 1 and 2 are important, because they give the House the chance to look very seriously at OFFA. In this context, I must allude to some remarks that I made earlier about Ofsted. Unfortunately, my new clause, which would have made OFFA into a body more like Ofsted, did not get the attention of the Speaker, but new clauses 1 and 2 bring to the House's attention the strength of OFFA. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made some telling points when he spoke earlier, but I disagree with him on the strength of OFFA. If we are to intervene effectively in what is an education market whether we like it or not, whether we would like to reshape it or not, and whether it is imperfect or not, we need the tools to do so. We had a good debate on how people can assess the market and adjust it for the benefit of all participants. OFFA is one of the instruments that could be used to make an imperfect market a little more perfect.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

My hon. Friend will know that the use of the word "market" has heavy political and social implications, especially for Labour Members. Although he accepts that there is now a market in higher education, does he agree that neither the current situation nor that proposed in the Bill will by any means produce a free market? The market is extremely restricted and contained, so that term must be used with the caveat that we do not, and will not, have a free market.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

The pretence that there has ever been a wholly free market—which is a theoretical concept—is an offence to logic, but it is equally an offence to logic to pretend that we do not currently have a highly distorted market. The problem is that if we want to clean it up and to the use the language of the market, people unfortunately bring to the discussion a lot of emotional baggage about what that means.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell kindly alluded to my remarks in Committee on how a distorted market affects my constituency. Nottingham, North sends the fewest young people to university of any constituency in the United Kingdom. The people in Nottingham, North are not congenitally thicker than people elsewhere, but their life chances are perverted at an early stage because the market of brains, ability and talent is not allowed to work. The way to solve that is not to preserve the current system in aspic, but to take on the market, make sure that it works effectively and remove as many of its imperfections as possible.

One tool that we can bring to bear on that process is OFFA. Unlike the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell—on occasion I have disagreed with Ministers, too, on this—I feel that OFFA is not the tiger that we need, but something of a pussycat.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

If we all agree that admissions are the sole responsibility of the institution, what additional powers does my hon. Friend advocate that OFFA should have?

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I shall gladly explain my request, but my hon. Friend will be bored because he heard it all in Committee. We have heard from Opposition Members, whose view is honest and sincere, that we need a light touch, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has taken that further by saying that we should have a light touch but not a soft touch. However, I think that we need a slightly firmer hand on this particular tiller. Statistics tell us that over the past 40 years, working-class kids' chances of getting to university have not improved one jot. There are still only 20 per cent. of working-class kids, and fewer in my constituency, who make it to university. I do not want to rush into legislation, to use the term of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, but concluding a 40-year experiment is not rushing. The need to ensure that the talent that is out there is allowed to breathe, and that talented young people realise their full potential, is long overdue. People whom we represent feel that it is long overdue, as does our party.

Barry Sheerman (Labour/Co-operative, Huddersfield)

My hon. Friend knows of my admiration for what he is doing in Nottingham, North to put right what has been wrong for far too long in terms of opportunities for children. However, does he agree that in the period since 1997, we have had the right strategy of intervening as early as we can, with Sure Start, free nursery places, and massive investment in primary, junior and secondary schools and in education maintenance allowances? All of us will agree that in one sense, 18 is too late. We must make the intervention earlier.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

My hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench repeat over and over, rightly, that the subsidy for education, which everyone in this country should be proud of, is far higher at the latter end of education than at the earliest moment. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee for repeatedly renewing calls on Sure Start, on all our schemes to improve emotional intelligence and social behaviour before school and on the effort to bring literacy and numeracy into play at primary school. When those measures were introduced, none of them found much favour from Opposition Members, but Ministers pushed them through with the support of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, and they are starting to make a real difference.

I repeat that the life chances of young people in my constituency and in the constituencies of many colleagues are not falsified at the age of 18; the dice are loaded from birth, and sometimes before. We need to examine a much wider picture and ensure that the money goes in at the earliest possible opportunity. If youngsters are allowed to flourish prior to going to school—we have all read primary school Ofsted reports from difficult parts of our constituency—they will benefit massively from the education on offer. That is how we must look at this particular question, and we must ensure that the process is pursued right up to the age of 18, through an OFFA with teeth.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Given how my hon. Friend described his constituency and his constituents, does he think that they would agree with the wording of new clause 1, which describes equality of opportunity as desirable? Would he choose a stronger form of words?

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I would choose far stronger words, and I did so in Committee. I still hope that the Government might consider my proposal. OFFA is essentially a reactive body. If we look at the way in which it was created through the consultative paper, and the way in which we talked about it in Committee, we see that OFFA is reactive to whatever universities propose in their access plans. However, I want OFFA to make proposals, to be innovative and to tackle some of the problems and their causes, just as we would expect any other body related to educational institutions to do. If Ofsted goes into one of my local primary schools, it comes out and produces not just a bland report on achievement but a sharp report on what is needed in that school, and on how to support teachers and end the problems that have caused under-attainment. Similarly, I want action-oriented proposals from OFFA.

I know that we have had to compromise to get parts of the Bill through, but we must return to that matter at an appropriate point. That is why one of my amendments in Committee referred directly to a proposal of the Chairman of the Education Committee, which has done such superb work in this field. Although it was able to undertake only brief, if comprehensive, pre-legislative scrutiny of the provisions, one of its proposals was that we review the operation of OFFA and see whether we can take it further and give it more teeth, so that we can assess how the problems are being tackled, rather than just providing a snapshot of those problems. I hope that the Minister will take up that idea informally, even if it is not passed as an amendment to the Bill.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with the premise that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward—that generations of young people in many constituencies have been denied access to higher education as a result of low expectation, and often as a result of low standards in local education authorities and schools. We both start from that point. What worries me about his language is the idea that, in a constituency such as mine, where about 70 per cent. of young people enter some form of higher education, those very young people should be penalised as a result of their efforts and the fact that many of them have been born into lower or middle-class families. Does he agree that it should not be a question of either/or? We are not seeking to replace certain groups of students with others. That is what worries us about the whole issue of social engineering within this framework.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Of course it is not a question of either/or, but let us be absolutely clear about this: social engineering is already happening, and we need to recognise it. There is already a market, and we need to recognise that. If we think that the current market is imperfect, which it is, and if we agree that the current social imbalance, which certainly exists, has not arrived by accident and is wrong, we need to do something about those things. The pertinence to the new clause is that OFFA potentially gives us a way to strengthen the teeth that will allow talent to flourish—not to give anybody an easy ride, not to give anybody access to university who does not have the qualifications, but to ensure that the abilities that are out there are allowed to flourish. It is a way of freeing up the abilities, not forcing people into university. In many ways, the hon. Gentleman is setting up a straw man, because the people who would like that the least would probably be those who were forced into a university when they knew perfectly well that they were not qualified. I accept that he was not intending to say that.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

I accept the genuine interest and expertise of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson on this issue, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that, over the past 40 years, social engineering has kept able, bona fide candidates out of higher education, as is evidenced by the fact that for 40 years only 20 per cent. of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds entered higher education?

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Labour Members should stop being defensive about the idea that intervention takes place in a market. That is exactly what this party is about, if we are about anything. The Conservatives practised intervention for decade after decade to the benefit of the people whom they represent. I do not quibble with them for doing that, but Labour Members must accept that, as John Smith used to say repeatedly, a market is a good servant but a bad master. By using methods such as those that OFFA will use, we can intervene to ensure that the market is properly regulated so that talent is allowed to flourish.

I return briefly to the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made. We do of course need to take a comprehensive view of the whole issue. For that reason, I implore my hon. Friends, whatever their views on particular aspects of variability, to vote with the Government tonight. If things do not go as I hope that they will, we might lose the other part of this vital package. The key is to ensure that, now that we have a higher education system in which youngsters can flourish, we allow them to get there.

The biggest problem faced by young people is not the prospect of paying back a fiver a week when they are on £18,000, or —25 a week when they are on £30,000, as a graduate; the biggest obstacle to kids in my patch, and in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House, is their fear that if they go to university with no money in their pocket, they will be unable to keep body and soul together. I have already written to the eight secondary head teachers in my constituency to tell them that, if the Bill is passed, they should spread the good news at their assemblies and other places and say, "You can go to university and we will pay you £3,000 to do it, because that is available"

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

And charge them.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

And they will not be charged. The hon. Gentleman repeats that assertion over and again. It needs to be refuted, even if it is only made from a sedentary position.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

rose

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I must answer the hon. Gentleman's sedentary point, and then I may give way to his standing point.

The scare that is put about that poor students, poor families, rich students or rich families will have to pay back under this scheme, is nonsense. It will be graduates earning a wage earning £18,000—who will start to pay back at £5 a week, and those earning £30,000 will pay back £25 a week. What the hon. Gentleman does he does it so often that I begin to doubt that he is doing it inadvertently is frighten the very youngsters in my constituency whom I want to grasp this opportunity. It is an easy point; it is an easy misrepresentation. This morning I met a number of people who have lobbied us in the House. I corrected them, and they were amazed because they had swallowed the propaganda and thought this was a great debt burden rather than a very modest repayment that will be made only once graduates earn sufficient repay.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that poorer students currently pay no fees, so when they leave university they have to pay back their maintenance loan, whereas under the new system they will get a £3,000 grant, including the bursary, as they go into university, but they will have a £3,000 tuition fee to repay at the end? So they will actually get a grant of £3,000 and then have to pay back £3,000 in fees. How on earth is that an advantage?

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost every particular. I wish that I could take more time to refute the arguments that will be made in the later debate. I will be present in the later debate to do that, as I did repeatedly in Committee. Not every youngster will pay a £3,000 fee [Interruption.] I am sorry, not every university will charge

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your protection. How can you help Members who represent Wales in the House, who, it is now clear, will have no opportunity to debate the important issues, which are currently non-devolved, about how the Bill affects Wales? In its ignorance or with its disinterest, the House is about to legislate on Wales without allowing any Member from Wales to speak on that issue. Can you do anything to protect our interests?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is raising, but the House has decided the programme motion that we are now working under, and as far as I am concerned in the Chair I have no control over that.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) makes a strong point, and all that I can say to him is that this matter was covered extensively in Committee. I know that is of little consolation to him

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I have enjoyed listening at great length to my hon. Friend. Given the length of his contribution and in recognition of his efforts, OFFA should perhaps be renamed the Allen key to improve access.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I believe that several colleagues wish to speak and I shall bring my remarks to a close. I simply emphasise that we are creating an instrument for intervention in a highly imperfect market, and we should give it the necessary teeth. Unfortunately, this will not be the opportunity to do that, but I hope that perhaps under the auspices of the Select Committee we shall revisit this matter and ensure that OFFA is a regulatory body worthy of the name.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has just taken a third of the entire debate. I shall certainly be briefer, not least to try to allow some Welsh Members into the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) described amendment No. 1 as consequential. It may be, but I think that it also reflects amendment No. 268, which he tabled in Committee, in that it removes from the Bill the clause that allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to the regulator. That is the issue that most concerns me, because it allows the Secretary of State to give the regulator guidance, so the regulator will not be independent of the Secretary of State or of Government.

One can make a case, when dealing with rail, water or other issues, for the regulator to be directed or guided by the Secretary of State or the politicians of the day, but higher education is not the same as energy, water or railways. On the contrary, universities—even if Labour would wish it otherwise—are not public institutions. They are private institutions, and what is studied at universities and those who are admitted to them should, in the final resort, be matters for universities themselves. That is the principle of academic freedom, which I have yet to hear addressed, on Second Reading or today.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

No, I have very little time.

The Minister was brutal on that point in Committee. When he answered the debate on amendment No. 268, he said that the Government wanted the powers because

"we want to direct the regulator." [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 4 March 2004; c. 523.]

He made no bones about it: he wants the powers so that the Secretary of State can direct the regulator.

We have heard today Labour Members say—as they are entitled to do—that they want a regulator with teeth. Indeed, that was the gist of the 20-minute speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. That is fine, but the Bill will mean that we will have a regulator with the Government's teeth. It is wholly wrong of the Government to interfere in the operation of the regulator.

I shall lay my cards on the table and confess that I do not think that we need a regulator. Better practice could be spread in different ways, and there is no case for a regulator. However, if there is to be one, it should be independent of the Government and of the Secretary of State. It should carry out its duties, subject—of course—to the law and perhaps to review by the courts, but free from political interference.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly said that we do not want an either/or situation: we want to promote the opportunities for young people from working-class backgrounds to fulfil their potential and gain access to higher education institutes. We have heard a lot of scaremongering from the Conservatives about what OFFA will do, but the idea that it will involve social engineering is ridiculous—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) greets that with incredulity. OFFA will, with a light touch, spread good practice to ensure that institutions reach out to communities that are less well represented in higher education. OFFA will not be a punitive weapon that the Secretary of State can use, and that suggestion was clearly rebutted in Committee—and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) knows it. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) nods, but we remember the language that he used. He said that OFFA would be used if the Secretary of State took offence at an institution and that he could use OFFA in a vendetta against it.

The Opposition said that OFFA would be the Secretary of State's plaything, but that is ridiculous. Universities UK has been clear about the powers that OFFA will have, especially on the plan that will allow universities to charge fees of £3,000. If the plan is altered, it will be on the say-so of the institutions, not OFFA. It is important that OFFA is not involved in admissions, but the Conservatives want people to think that it will be. The universities know that OFFA will not be involved in admissions, the Labour party knows that and so do the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Tories know it, but they choose not to articulate it because it does not suit their opportunism. They constantly use emotive words, talking about social engineering, to create a pernicious impression.

Ian Taylor (Conservative, Esher and Walton)

I support the principles in the Bill, which is why I will not vote against it tonight, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provisions on OFFA are a cause for concern? The best universities want to try to broaden access: the problem is that only a quarter of 18-year-old A-level entrants get two decent A-levels. We have to find other ways, but that is not what OFFA will be set up to do.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

One in four youngsters from working-class backgrounds who get good GCSEs do not go on to higher education institutions. Perhaps if those institutions reached out, they might get on the radar of those youngsters. We will pile more money into universities and it is reasonable for a light-touch regulator to try to ensure that they reach out. Some of our universities do a fantastic job, while others do not do such a good job. If universities want to raise their fees, they will have to reach out as the best do.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

If OFFA were to be established, would any student of adequate or good financial means from a middle-class background find it difficult to go to university? I find it hard to conceive that that would ever be the case. It is also pertinent that while universities are independent, they rely heavily on public funding. Therefore, we have the right to ask something in return for that funding.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I agree. The judgment that we have to make is the extent of that intervention. The proposals in the Bill are reasonable. A series of amendments in Committee have assured Universities UK that OFFA will be light touch. It will also spread good practice and, together with other measures not least at nursery level— it will improve access for young people

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

In the unfortunately short time left, I shall be brief. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and I also support in their entirety the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). He was right to draw attention to the lack of independence of OFFA. It will be the creature of the Secretary of State and will act under his strict statutory guidance. Hon. Members should ask how OFFA will work under that guidance, because there will be a clear link between admissions and finance, and that is very disturbing.

My hon. Friend was right to refer to the £500,000 fine that can be imposed on universities, but whether universities are allowed to impose a variable fee will depend on the approval of OFFA. Whether they get that approval will depend on whether they carry out the activities required under the access agreement. The key point of how they will be judged on whether they are achieving the targets on outreach will be admissions—[Interruption.] Whoever said "No" should read the statutory guidance, which sets it out in black and white.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have two minutes before the guillotine falls, and clearly the House would like to hear the Minister's response to the debate. Have you received any representations from the Government that they might be minded to extend the guillotine under the programme motion? We would be happy to support such an extension.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Such things are not possible at this stage of our proceedings and would simply take more time from the debate.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

For the reasons that I outlined, OFFA is inconsistent with admissions based on merit. That will create a sense of injustice for many individuals, and might well lead to the lowering of standards in universities. It could result in a large number of this country's students going to universities in Germany—we have heard about that today—and perhaps the United States because they cannot obtain a place at a university in this country. They will be joined by those for whom a vast burden of debt will create a disincentive. I shall finish to allow the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) the chance to make his point on Wales, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

I have been to Wales.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) put on the record the Tory view that democracy is an unhappy accident. It is no doubt also his view that broadening access to university will happen only through an unhappy accident. He says that there is a problem with widening access, and new clause 1 says that it is desirable to promote equality, but his solution is to do nothing except to trust the instincts of those in charge of admissions policies, although they have failed over the years to do anything more, for example, than to lead Oxford and Cambridge to admit people from lower-income groups to 10 per cent. of their places. OFFA is necessary not only to help to develop outreach strategies, but to ensure that they make the difference that will be absolutely essential if the Bill is to have any meaning.

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].

New Clause 5 — Abolition of tuition fees chargeable to qualifying student

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount—

'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—

(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when an English approved plan is in force in relation to the institution are equal to the prescribed amount,

(b) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when no English approved plan is in force in relation to the institution, and

(c) to comply with the general provisions of any English approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and

(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which an English approved plan comes into force is to be taken to begin at a time when the plan is in force.

(3) A condition under this section must provide—

(a) in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(a)—

(i) where the qualifying fees are equal to the prescribed amount, for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements required by a direction under section 35(1)(a), and

(ii) where the qualifying fees exceed that amount, for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements required by a direction under section 35(1)(a) and of other financial requirements determined by the funding body in accordance with principles specified by the Secretary of State in the condition under section 22,

(b) in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(b), for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of financial requirements determined by the funding body in accordance with principles specified by the Secretary of State in the condition under section 22, and

(c) in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(c), for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements required by a direction under section 35(1)(a).

(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—

(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,

(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or

(c) the refusal to award (or to award to the extent expected) any other grant, loan or other payment under section 65 of the 1992 Act or (as the case may be) section 5 of the 1994 Act in respect of the grant period or any subsequent period.

(5) Where—

(a) a condition is imposed under this section in connection with any grants, loans or other payments made to the governing body of a relevant institution, and

(b) those payments are to any extent made in respect of persons undertaking a course which is provided in whole or part by any other institution,

then, for the purposes of this section, fees payable by such persons to the other institution are to be regarded as fees payable by them to the relevant institution.

(6) The first regulations to be made under subsection (11) prescribing the prescribed amount shall prescribe a single amount, except where subsection (8) applies, in which case a lower amount may be prescribed.

(7) The Secretary of State may not make the first regulations under subsection (11) prescribing the prescribed amount unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(8) This subsection applies where the qualifying fees are for—

(a) the final academic year of a course where that academic year is normally required to be completed after less than 15 weeks' attendance;

(b) a sandwich course where during an academic year any periods of full-time study are in aggregate less than 10 weeks;

(c) a course of initial training of teachers, including such a course leading to a first degree, where during an academic year any periods of full-time study are in aggregate less than 10 weeks;

(d) a course provided in conjunction with an overseas institution where during an academic year the periods of full-time study are in aggregate less than 10 weeks;

(e) a sandwich course or a course provided in conjunction with an overseas institution where the periods of full-time study at the institution in the United Kingdom are 10 weeks or more, but in respect of the academic year and any previous such academic years the aggregate of any one or more periods of attendance which are not periods of full-time study at the institution (disregarding intervening vacations) exceeds 30 weeks.

(9) Where regulations under subsection (11) have been made prescribing the prescribed amount no regulations under that subsection may be made increasing that amount unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the increase is no greater than is required to maintain the value of the amount in real terms.

(10) For the purposes of subsection (9) the Secretary of State is to have regard to such index of prices as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by him under this subsection.

(11) In this section—

"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;

"funding body"has the same meaning as in section 22;

"the grant period"means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 22 relates are made;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

"the prescribed amount" means the amount prescribed by regulations in accordance with this section;

"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"qualifying fees", in relation to a relevant institution, means the fees payable to the institution by a qualifying person in connection with his undertaking a qualifying course;

"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 22.'.

New clause 7—Condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount—

'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—

(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when a Welsh approved plan is in force in relation to the institution are equal to the prescribed amount,

(b) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when no Welsh approved plan is in force in relation to the institution, and

(c) to comply with the general provisions of any Welsh approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and

(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which a Welsh approved plan comes into force is to be taken at a time when the plan is in force.

(3) A condition under this section must provide, in the event of a failure of the governing body to comply with any of the requirements specified in subsection (1), for the imposition by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales on the governing body of financial requirements determined by the Council in accordance with principles specified by the Assembly in the condition under section 25.

(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—

(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,

(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or

(5) Where—:

(a) a condition is imposed under this section in connection with any grants, loans or other payments made to the governing body of a relevant institution, and

(b) those payments are to any extent made in respect of persons undertaking a course which is provided in whole or part by any other institution,

then, for the purposes of this section, fees payable by such persons to the other institution are to be regarded as fees payable by them to the relevant institution.

(6) In this section—

"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;

"the grant period" means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 25 relates are made;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Assembly;

"the prescribed amount" means the amount prescribed by regulations in accordance with this section;

"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"qualifying fees", in relation to a relevant institution, means the fees payable to the institution by a qualifying person in connection with his undertaking a qualifying course;

"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25.'.

New clause 8— Condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)—

'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—

(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no fees are payable to any relevant institution by any qualifying person, and

(b) to comply with the general provisions of any English approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and

(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which an English approved plan comes into force is to be taken to begin at a time when the plan is in force.

(3) A condition under this section must provide, in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1), for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements determined by the funding body in accordance with principles specified by the Secretary of State in the condition under section 22.

(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—:

(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,

(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or

(5) In this section—

"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;

"funding body" has the same meaning as in section 22;

"the grant period" means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 22 relates are made;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 22.'.

New clause 9—Condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)—

'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—

(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no fees are payable to any relevant institution by any qualifying person, and

(b) to comply with the general provisions of any Welsh approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and

(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which a Welsh approved plan comes into force is to be taken to begin at a time when the plan is in force.

(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—

(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,

(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or

(5) In this section—

"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;

"the grant period" means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 25 relates are made;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Assembly;

"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;

"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25.'.

New clause 10— Access to student loans—

'In determining eligibility for student loans age may not be taken into account.'.

New clause 12—Fee repayments for graduates employed in public sector professions—

'The Secretary of State shall make provision for fee repayments to be met out of public funds for graduates employed as—

(a) teachers in state maintained schools,

(b) public law enforcement officers,

(d) social workers by local authorities, and

(e) any other public sector worker specified by regulations who is required to have a graduate level qualification to enter that profession.'.

New clause 13'Repayment of student loans through voluntary service or prescribed employment—

'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations allowing any borrower to repay any student loan, in whole or in part, through the performance of voluntary service or employment in a particular occupation.

(2) Any such regulations may prescribe the type of voluntary service or the occupations which are eligible for such repayment, and the minimum period for which the eligible service or employment is to be performed.

(3) Any such regulations may make different provision for different circumstances.

(4) Any such regulations shall be laid before Parliament at least two calendar months before they are due to take effect, and shall be subject to scrutiny in such form as both Houses of Parliament may prescribe.'.

New clause 17—Government interest rate and fee deferral—

'(1) All fees shall be deferred, to be repaid on an income contingent basis at a government rate of interest.

(2) A government rate of interest shall also be charged on all student loans.

(3) All monies raised from interest payments shall be used to finance loans to students, to be repaid on terms set out by the Secretary of State, which must take into account a student's personal and household financial circumstances.'.

New clause 19—Commencement of liability for repayment of loans—

'(1) The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000/944) are amended as follows.

(2) After regulation 11(1), there is inserted—

"(1A) A borrower shall not be liable to repay any of his student loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than fifteen years after the date on which his eligibility terminates under regulation 8 or 35 of the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2002.".'.

New clause 20—Commencement of liability for repayment of loans (No. 2)—

'(1) The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000/944) are amended as follows.

(2) After regulation 11(1), there is inserted—

'(1A) A borrower shall not be liable to repay any of his student loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than ten years after the date on which his eligibility terminates under regulation 8 or 35 of the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2002.".'.

New clause 21—Commencement of liability for repayment of loans (No. 3)—

'(1) The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000/944) are amended as follows.

(2) After regulation 11(1), there is inserted—

"(1A) A borrower shall not be liable to repay any of his student loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than five years after the date on which his eligibility terminates under regulation 8 or 35 of the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2002.".'.

Amendment No. 128, in page 8, line 37, leave out clauses 22 to 27.

Amendment No. 129, in page 8, line 38, clause 22, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 40 and insert

'The Secretary of State must, when making any grant to a funding body under section 68 of the 1992 Act or section 7 of the 1994 Act, impose under subsection (1) of the section concerned'.

Amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 41, leave out '23' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 53, in page 8, line 41, leave out '23' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 33, in page 9, line 11, leave out clauses 23 and 24.

Amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 25, clause 23, at end insert

'(d) to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees charged to any eligible student who has received an unconditional offer of a university place through the UCAS system prior to 1st April 2006 shall not exceed the basic amount.'.

Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 31, at end insert—

'"eligible student" means a student eligible for a grant under regulations made under section 22(2)(a) of the 1998 Act;'.

Amendment No. 130, in page 11, clause 24, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—

'(ii) each House of Parliament has at any time after 1st January 2010 passed a resolution that, with effect from a date specified in the resolution, the higher amount should be increased to an amount specified in the resolution, and the increase is an increase to the specified amount with effect from the specified date.'.

Amendment No. 34, in page 11, line 30, clause 25, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 54, in page 11, line 30, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 35, in page 11, line 37, leave out clause 26.

Amendment No. 36, in page 13, line 11 clause 27, leave out '23 or 26' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount] or [condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 55, in page 13, line 11, leave out '23 or 26' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)] or [condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 37, in page 13, line 18, leave out '23(6) or 26(6)' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](11) or [condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount](6)'.

Amendment No. 56, in page 13, line 18, leave out '23(6) or 26(6)' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](5) or [condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)](5)'.

Amendment No. 38, in page 13, line 32, leave out '23 or 26' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount] or [condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 57, in page 13, line 32, leave out '23 or 26' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)] or [condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 98, in page 13, line 33, at end insert—

'(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision for fee repayments to be met out of public funds for graduates employed as—

(a) teachers in state maintained schools,

(b) National Health Service staff,

(d) law enforcement officers,

(e) any other profession which the Secretary of State may, from time to time, determine to be appropriate.'.

Amendment No. 71, in page 13, line 37, clause 28, leave out

'Director (as defined by section 29(1)'

and insert

'funding body (as defined in section 22(2))'.

Amendment No. 72, in page 13, line 38, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.

Amendment No. 73, in page 13, line 42, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.

Amendment No. 74, in page 13, line 45, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.

Amendment No. 75, in page 14, line 1, leave out clause 29.

Amendment No. 76, in page 14, line 7, clause 30, leave out 'Director' and insert

'relevant authority in relation to England'.

Amendment No. 77, in page 14, line 8, leave out 'his' and insert 'its'.

Amendment No. 22, in page 14, line 16, clause 31, leave out subsection (1).

Amendment No. 110, in page 14, line 20, at end insert—

'(1A) A plan under this section relating to an institution must set out the policy which the institution will observe when determining the level of fees to be charged to qualifying persons.'.

Amendment No. 23, in page 14, line 21, leave out 'also'.

Amendment No. 24, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 14.

Amendment No. 39, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 10.

Amendment No. 40, in page 15, line 12, leave out '23' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 58, in page 15, line 12, leave out '23' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 41, in page 15, line 14, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 59, in page 15, line 14, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 25, in page 16, line 9, leave out clauses 35 and 36.

Amendment No. 78, in page 16, line 10 clause 35, leave out 'Director' and insert 'relevant authority'.

Amendment No. 79, in page 16, line 10, leave out from 'institution' to 'has' in line 12.

Amendment No. 42, in page 16, line 11, leave out '23' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 60, in page 16, line 11, leave out '23' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 43, in page 16, line 12, leave out '23(1)(a) or (c)' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](1)(a) or (c)'.

Amendment No. 61, in page 16, line 12, leave out '23(1)(a) or (c)' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](1)'.

Amendment No. 80, in page 16, line 12, leave out 'that requirement' and insert

'a condition under section 23'.

Amendment No. 81, in page 16, line 13, leave out 'Director' and insert 'relevant authority'.

Amendment No. 82, in page 16, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'impose' in line 15.

Amendment No. 44, in page 16, line 16, leave out '23(3)' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](3)'.

Amendment No. 62, in page 16, line 16, leave out '23(3)' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](3)'.

Amendment No. 83, in page 16, line 17, leave out 'he' and insert 'the relevant authority'.

Amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 21, leave out 'Director' and insert 'relevant authority'.

Amendment No. 45, in page 16, line 30, clause 36, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 63, in page 16, line 30, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 46, in page 16, line 31, leave out '26(1)(a) or (c)' and insert

'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount](1)(a) or (c)'.

Amendment No. 64, in page 16, line 31, leave out '26(1)(a) or (c)' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)](1)'.

Amendment No. 47, in page 17, line 3, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 65, in page 17, line 3, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 48, in page 17, line 5, leave out '26(3)' and insert

'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount](3)'.

Amendment No. 66, in page 17, line 5, leave out '26(3)' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)](3)'.

Amendment No. 85, in page 17, line 7, leave out clause 37.

Amendment No. 26, in page 17, clause 38, leave out lines 18 and 19.

Amendment No. 86, in page 17, leave out line 20.

Amendment No. 27, in page 17, leave out lines 22 to 37.

Amendment No. 122, in page 19, line 3, clause 40, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

"(2A) The maximum amount of a living cost grant available to any person prescribed by regulations under subsection (2)(b) in relation to an academic year shall not be less than 90 per cent. of the higher amount in relation to that academic year.

(2B) In subsection (2A) 'the higher amount' has the same meaning as in section 23 of the Higher Education Act 2004.".'.

Amendment No. 125, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (3) there is inserted—

"(3A) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(g) in relation to loans under this section may not include provision—

(a) for a borrower to be liable to make any repayment in respect of such a loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than fifteen years after the date on which his eligibility for a grant under regulations under subsection (2) terminates, and

(b) for such loans to bear interest before the day specified in paragraph (a).

(3B) In subsection (3A), 'year of assessment' means the period that begins with 6th April and ends with the following 5th April.".'.

Amendment No. 126, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (3) there is inserted—

'(3A) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(g) in relation to loans under this section may not include provision—

(a) for a borrower to be liable to make any repayment in respect of such a loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than ten years after the date on which his eligibility for a grant under regulations under subsection (2) terminates, and

(b) for such loans to bear interest before the day specified in paragraph (a).

(3B) In subsection (3A), 'year of assessment' means the period that begins with 6th April and ends with the following 5th April.".'.

Amendment No. 127, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (3) there is inserted—

"(3A) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(g) in relation to loans under this section may not include provision—

(a) for a borrower to be liable to make any repayment in respect of such a loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than five years after the date on which his eligibility for a grant under regulations under subsection (2) terminates, and

(b) for such loans to bear interest before the day specified in paragraph (a).

(3B) In subsection (3A), 'year of assessment' means the period that begins with 6th April and ends with the following 5th April.".'.

Amendment No. 13, in page 21, line 16, clause 43, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 49, in page 21, line 16, leave out

'24(1) or (2)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii)'

and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](7)'.

Amendment No. 14, in page 22, clause 48, leave out lines 7 to 18.

Amendment No. 28, in page 22, leave out lines 8 to 10.

Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 8, leave out '23(6)' and insert

'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](6), (7) and (11)'.

Amendment No. 68, in page 22, line 8, leave out '23(6)' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](5)'.

Amendment No. 51, in page 22, leave out line 9.

Amendment No. 15, in page 22, leave out lines 22 to 25.

Amendment No. 16, in page 22, leave out lines 30 and 31.

Amendment No. 17, in page 22, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 45.

Amendment No. 30, in page 22, leave out line 42.

Amendment No. 52, in page 22, line 42, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.

Amendment No. 70, in page 22, line 42, leave out '26' and insert

'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.

Amendment No. 31, in page 22, line 45, leave out 'section 36'.

Amendment No. 7, in page 31, line 1, leave out Schedule 5.

Amendment No. 8, in page 32, line 18, schedule 6, leave out paragraph 1.

Amendment No. 9, in page 32, line 35, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 36.

Amendment No. 10, in page 33, line 11, leave out paragraphs 7 and 8.

Amendment No. 11, in page 33, line 25, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 26.

Amendment No. 12, in page 33, schedule 7, leave out lines 34 to 36.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

We come to the heart of the Bill. There is only one place that the debate can commence, and that is with the words:

"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them"—

the clear, categorical, unequivocal manifesto pledge on which all Labour Members were elected and which their Government are proposing to strong-arm them into breaking.

New clause 5 and various amendments in this large group attempt to draw out the issue of fees. The new clause would prevent the introduction of top-up fees and tuition fees. Let us consider some of the views expressed about the proposed legislation by outside organisations— [Interruption.] We will come to universities, as the Secretary of State seems to be saying something about them.

The British Medical Association

"strongly opposes the introduction of top up fees for any students, including medical students."

The Secretary of State and others will no doubt say that they are introducing the fees to raise money in part to pay for university lecturers and university employees. The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education has said:

"Critics of the Bill should hold their ground."

It goes on:

"We know that when the lid comes off fees, all hell will break loose."

The Association of University Teachers opposes the proposals.

The Secretary of State and Labour Members—or at least some Labour Members—may claim that the package on offer is in the interests of students and that they should welcome it. Presumably they believe that the National Union of Students has organised today's lobby at the House to say how delighted it is with the Government's proposals. I have to disillusion them: it is here to encourage hon. Members to vote not in support of the Bill, but against it.

The NUS has helpfully compiled considerable evidence from overseas on the attitude of students in other countries. We heard much in Committee, as we have at other times, of the Government's proposals for top-up fees modelling those in other countries, and of how the glorious successes and widespread popularity of what has been introduced in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere would be eagerly welcomed in the United Kingdom. The NUS has been in touch with its equivalents around the world, and that is not what they say.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

rose—

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt know about legions of students who support his Government's proposals.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

The new clause would remove the funding stream from universities. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman was unable to tell us how his party would replace that funding stream. Can he tell us now?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The hon. Gentleman is right in his characterisation of the new clause: it would prevent fees. There is no doubt about that; that is its intention and that is what it would achieve. He is also correct that it is the duty of Opposition parties to produce alternative proposals on how that vital funding for universities would be provided. We will do that, and we will do that earlier in this Parliament than the Government produced their final proposals on the subject in the last Parliament. The difference is that, whereas three months before the last general election the Labour party produced the final proposals that it now plans to breach, we will produce proposals earlier in the life-cycle of this Parliament, which we will implement on coming into office.

James Purnell (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

rose—

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, in a former capacity, may well have had a role in writing the manifesto, which he is cheerfully about to breach.

James Purnell (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

On the hon. Gentleman's policies, will he confirm that the envelope has been set for funding those policies by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and that that is a cash freeze and therefore a real-terms cut in higher education funding? If the extra money that will come from tuition fees is to be removed, how will the hon. Gentleman do anything other than cut quality and student numbers?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who was disappointed when he found that the Opposition's proposals on the pupil passport did not turn out to be what he had hoped and expected it to be. He will be extremely disappointed when he learns of our proposals on higher education; I urge him to wait for them. We are debating the Government's proposals, which are in clear breach of the manifesto on which he stood at the general election.

The Conservative party made exactly the same pledge at the last election. We are keeping our promises and the hon. Gentleman is breaking his. Playing party political games will not help him explain to his constituents why they should believe anything that he says at the next general election, given that he has so cheerfully broken his word from the last one.

Tony Wright (Labour, Cannock Chase)

Does the grand total of nine Conservative Members on the Opposition Benches accurately reflect the commitment of the hon. Gentleman's party on this issue?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Our attendance accurately reflects the eagerness of Opposition Members to allow Labour Members the maximum time for debate. We fully expect them to express more than one view, shall we say, on their happiness to break their manifesto pledge.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman reached the end of his list of expert witnesses. What does he have to say to the Campaign for Mainstream Universities? Its statement today reads:

"The loss of the Bill would deny universities the urgently-needed funding to provide quality education and would cruelly remove the promised improvements in financial support for the poorest students. This would damage the sector as a whole and would be particularly damaging to the Government's aims of widening participation and social exclusion."

That message is borne out by Universities UK. What does he have to say about that?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is true—it has been throughout the debate—that the majority of vice-chancellors support the Government's proposals. They are the one and only category of people who do so. The hon. Gentleman should understand that there has been a shift of opinion in the vice-chancellor community in the past few months—from unanimous support of the Government's position to a significant number expressing profound opposition to their proposals.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

rose—

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

No, I will not give way; I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's point. He wanted to talk about the attitude of vice-chancellors, so we will talk about that. Let us consider the attitude of Professor Gillian Slater, the vice-chancellor of Bournemouth university, who said:

"We don't have faith that the cap of £3,000 will not be raised very quickly indeed".

That is what she believes, and it is what many other vice-chancellors believe. She was one of 15 vice-chancellors, alongside 12 university lecturers, who wrote to The Guardian yesterday to express their opposition to the centrepiece of the Government's legislation. I make no pretence of the fact that the majority of vice-chancellors support the Government's proposals. However, they are the only category of people who have taken that position, and even they are not unanimous. All other organisations, including the Association of University Teachers, the National Association of Teachers, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the National Union of Students, are opposed to the Government's proposals. If all the hon. Gentleman can do is say that about 90 vice-chancellors like the proposal, when 55 million people are opposed to it, bring on the election.

I was going through the important comments that had been brought to the attention of the House by the NUS as a result of its consulting its opposite numbers in other countries, on which the Government have modelled their proposals.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

From the point of view of a vice-chancellor, is there any more plausibility in the Government's assertion about the firmness of their cap of £3,000 on tuition fees than there was about the Labour party's assertion before the last election that it would not introduce top-up fees? If those assertions are equally valid, does my hon. Friend think that the majority of vice-chancellors welcome the breach of the Government's undertaking or are appalled at it?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. No doubt we shall consider the Government's minor concessions on the extent to which their word on the £3,000 cap should be taken. The entirety of the Government's concessions amount to this: "It would require primary legislation, taken through both Houses of Parliament, for us to breach our solemn pledge not to raise top-up fees above £3,000." What is this Bill if not primary legislation designed to breach a clear manifesto pledge? I am at a loss to understand why the Government should think that that should impress Labour Back Benchers or anybody else.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

In the spirit of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), does my hon. Friend recollect that, in its manifesto, Labour not only promised not to introduce top-up fees but said that the Labour Government had legislated to prevent them?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The second sentiment of that part of the Labour party manifesto is particularly interesting given the Government's attitude to amendment No. 128. The Government's line is that the amendment would remove the cap and allow universities to charge any top-up fees that they liked. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which was so important that it was mentioned in the 2001 Labour party manifesto. It enabled the Government to say in the manifesto that they had legislated to prevent top-up fees. That legislation, by which they set such store at the last general election, remains on the statute book, and it is therefore an entirely spurious argument that amendment No. 128 would remove the cap and that universities could charge whatever they liked.

I see that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) is in her place. Given her present and former capacities, I am sure that she will be delighted to know that the co-president of the New Zealand University Students Association is named Fleur Fitzsimmons.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

That is a good name.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Perhaps it is. Fleur Fitzsimmons points out that the introduction of the scheme in New Zealand, which the Secretary of State says is in part the model for the proposals, has been

"an unmitigated disaster . . . Fees act as a significant barrier to participation. The increase in debt has forced a fifth of medical graduates overseas."

We hear similar stories in Canada.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I mentioned the hon. Lady, and I promise that I will give way to her in a moment, once I have finished this point.

We hear that, after 10 years of tuition fees in Canada, fees have jumped by an average of 99 per cent. That reflects precisely the fears expressed by students, the British Medical Association and even some vice-chancellors: once we start on the route of top-up fees, there will be strong, steady and substantial increases. That is justified by the very overseas experience to which Ministers try to turn our attention.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

My name is Fitzsimons, which is different from Fitzsimmons; anybody who could spell would recognise that. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman exchanges assertions for facts. Does he accept that, year on year between 1997 and 2000, the participation of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in New Zealand rose from 18 per cent. to 26 per cent? The number of Maori students—who, typically, are less advantaged and in lower socio-economic groups—rose by 46.1 per cent. between 1994 and 2000. I think that that is pretty impressive, does the hon. Gentleman not think so?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I apologise if I was wrong about the hon. Lady's name. I am delighted that she has made it abundantly clear that she regards New Zealand as a model for what the Government are seeking to do, because it has been reported in New Zealand that, after the introduction of precisely the sort of scheme that is proposed for this country, the result was as follows:

"Students from the richest schools are five times more likely to attend university than students from the poorest schools."

It has further been demonstrated that fees have impacted on where students have decided to go to university. New Zealand students therefore continue to oppose top-up fees, and I suspect that, if the hon. Lady was still an NUS office holder in this country—let alone running to become one—she might take the same attitude as all the current NUS office holders take.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many universities there are in New Zealand?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It was the hon. Member for Rochdale who said that New Zealand is a great model. I take the view that it is sensible to consider what is sensible for the United Kingdom and what UK organisations do. It is not the Opposition who have been saying, "Let's imitate New Zealand"; it is the Government and Labour Back Benchers, so the hon. Gentleman is only undermining his own side. [Interruption.]

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) must contain himself. There is little point in asking a question and not listening to the answer that is given.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

rose—

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I give way to my hon. Friend.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am afraid that I cannot illuminate the House on the precise number of universities in New Zealand. One of the reasons why I cannot do so is that I cannot recall, when I was the Higher Education Minister in 1994 and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) was the president of the NUS, her ever coming to me, saying,"The New Zealand approach is exemplary and we should follow it."

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I was going through the list of organisations in the education sector that do not support the Government's proposals. Dr. John Brennan, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, has said:

"After 2010, the Bill as it stands allows universities an essentially unlimited ability to increase tuition fees. We believe this freedom will seriously compromise the chances of young people from working-class backgrounds to attend certain universities."

As I said earlier, 15 vice-chancellors wrote to The Guardian yesterday to say that Government's measures would

"disadvantage the majority of students".

So I am afraid that it is simply not the case that the majority of those in the education sector enthusiastically endorse the Bill. On the contrary, the majority of those who work in education and the organisations that represent students are clearly, unequivocally opposed to the Bill and have called on Labour Members to stand by their manifesto pledges.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

rose—

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

rose—

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. [Interruption.]

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me a tiny bit more than he has mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), but there is time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but he makes assertions about my leadership. It is on record that, when I was president of the NUS, I believed that students would have to pay and that we wanted the money to be end-loaded, so that we could increase the maintenance grant. As for what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said about lobbying when I was president of the NUS, we were comparing a loans system introduced by his colleagues under which it would have been cheaper to give students the money than to administer the system, rather than comparing a variable system, which is what we are discussing now

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is very interesting that all those former presidents of the NUS believe that they can speak more for the interests of students than the current president of the NUS. I thought that I had made a flippant comment earlier, but Labour Members clearly believe that all those students have come to lobby Parliament today in support of the Government's legislation. I suggest that they go out to listen to them if that is what they believe.

Since the hon. Lady makes an important comparison about the cost efficiency of measures, let us consider the cost efficiency of the Government's proposals. To raise slightly less than £1 billion a year for universities, the taxpayer will have to spend about £1.2 billion. That does not strike most of us as remotely cost-efficient. In fact, it is an extremely inefficient way to proceed. That arithmetical link— the fact that it will cost the taxpayer about £1.25 for every £1 raised for the university—is clearly even more of a problem if, as is widely expected in the education sector, the £3,000 a year cap is only temporary and will be removed shortly. So the taxpayer will have an even worse deal as time goes on.

One of the most important aspects of the whole debate is the Government's assumption, which they have often repeated, that graduates will almost universally end up in a massively strengthened financial position compared with non-graduates. The figure of a £400,000 premium in lifetime earnings has been bandied around. That is simply not borne out by the latest evidence that is coming to light. Many hon. Members will have seen the report in The Times this Monday about a forthcoming book by Philip Brown of Cardiff university and Anthony Hesketh of Lancaster university, both of whom are leading political economists. They point out that even three years after completing their studies, 40 per cent. of recent graduates are in jobs that do not require degree-level skills. Their survey indicates that average starting salaries for graduates are falling. They have analysed American data—an example that Labour Members often cite—and they seriously query the Government's assumption that 80 per cent. of all new jobs will require degree-level qualifications. Ministers often cite the United States as an exemplar of graduate participation that we should follow. American data apparently show that just 20 per cent. of American workers—not 80 per cent.—make use of degree-level education.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Very interesting information has been quoted and some of us would want to make use of it, but do the Conservatives therefore now entirely reject the road that they initially went down with the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, which introduced the principle of student debt, and thus the problems of people being able to continue in education?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. It is, of course, common ground among all the parties represented in the House that student loans remain the best way to provide for maintenance. They are not ideal, but no party proposes to get rid of student loans that underpin maintenance. The hon. Gentleman takes a different view, but he has not managed to persuade his Front-Bench colleagues about the issues. The view of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties on that angle is that student loans should continue. We are talking about the principle of fees to pay for teaching itself. New clause 5 would strike out such fees, and we believe that the House would be very sensible to support that.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for a considerable time. The new clause is about abolishing fees altogether. However, as a former university teacher, I should be delighted if he could tell me how the Conservative party would find the money if not by introducing fees. This is an important debate, and it is right that the House is fully informed of the Conservative policy.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The hon. Gentleman basically repeats a question that one of his hon. Friends asked earlier, and I will not bore the House by giving the same answer. If it is the same question, it will get the same answer.

It is assumed that the Government's concessions on the Bill would ensure that students from lower-income backgrounds would not suffer adversely. Indeed, it is sometimes said that we can perhaps take a leaf out of the American experience and encourage students to work during their studies, because those who cite the American experience think that that is healthy. The Guardian has referred this week to unpublished research by Professor Clare Callender, who has indicated that those students who work for 16 hours a week in term time have an increased chance—of between 10 and 60 per cent.—of getting no better than a lower second-class degree or worse. Hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to reflect on that.

By all means, let us talk about the overall spending envelope towards which the Government propose top-up fees should contribute. The Red Book states that the Government

"will maintain per student spending levels in real terms over the 2004 Spending Review period."

Labour Members may not be aware of the fact that per-student spending levels are lower now than they were in 1997; that they are lower than they were before tuition fees were introduced in 1998, and that they have been lower every year of this Labour Government than they were any year of the preceding Conservative Government. So a commitment simply to maintain per-student spending levels is hardly an act of extraordinary political generosity.

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Conservative Government left office in 1997, the Government spending plans for the following two years involved a 6 per cent. decrease in university funding, and the Labour Government had to find the money to make up that deficit, having adopted the Conservatives' spending plans?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The hon. Lady knows that a large number of vice-chancellors are on record as saying that they felt they were duped—their exact word—by the Government when tuition fees were introduced, because the money was subsequently clawed back by the Treasury through lower than expected levels of public finance. That is why many vice-chancellors are not satisfied that, having done that once before when introducing fees, the Government will not do it again when introducing top-up fees.

Let us consider what the pledge means. The 2004 spending review period expires in 2007, which is just one year after the Government propose that top-up fees should come in. At that point the income from top-up fees will be well below the maximum levels that are usually quoted, because there will be only one year's cohort within the system paying top-up fees, yet at that point the Government's commitment even to maintain the present very low levels of student spending in real terms expires. So there is a very real reason for universities to fear that what the Government are giving with one hand, they may take away with the other—indeed, they may take away more than they give.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Given his criticism of the alleged claw-back, how can the hon. Gentleman be sure that there will be finances into the future out of general taxation? Can he be sure that his own Government, should there ever be one, would be able to match spending as the present Government can?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

As I said earlier, the hon. Lady will have to wait for our proposals. If she has the genuine interests of universities, taxpayers and students at heart, she will have a pleasant surprise when she sees those proposals unveiled. If she merely has her party's interests at heart, I am afraid it will be a very unpleasant surprise indeed. I look forward to seeing her expression when she sees our plans.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Barry Sheerman (Labour/Co-operative, Huddersfield)

The hon. Gentleman is reluctant to tell us the plans of a future Conservative Government for funding for higher education, but having forensically examined some of the comments of vice-chancellors on our proposals, he has said nothing about what vice-chancellors with any memory at all say about the funding of British universities under Conservative Administrations of the '80s and '90s. Will he enlarge on that?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say, as I indicated earlier, that the majority of vice-chancellors support the Government's proposals. That is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that there is a significant body of vice-chancellors who do not, so the Government do not have unanimous support for their ideas from any section of the education community. Most other organisations and most other groups in education are unanimously opposed to the Government's proposals. With reference to funding under previous Governments, I am sure vice-chancellors would have liked to have more funding, but the record shows that funding per student under every year of the last Conservative Government was greater than it has been under any year of this Labour Government.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I shall give way one last time, as I am keen to make progress so that others can speak in this important debate.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting comparisons. He said that there was no unanimity in the education field about the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Can he recall a time when there was unanimity on any proposal to do with education put forward by a Conservative Government?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is rare indeed that the Association of University Teachers, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the National Union of Students and a large bloc of vice-chancellors all strongly in agreement and, as it happens, strongly in agreement that the Government should not proceed with the Bill.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

rose—

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I said I would not give way again, but of course I make an exception for the Minister.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has a former higher education Minister sitting behind him. Will he confirm that all those forces—the NUS, NATFHE, the AUT and everyone he mentioned—came together in absolute coalition when a previous Tory Government moved from student grants to student loans?

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The interesting point is that the Secretary of State is not proposing to reverse that, is he? So that argument goes both ways.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who I know will make a constructive contribution.

Robert Jackson (Conservative, Wantage)

Part of the coalition that opposed us was the Labour party. I remember the speeches in the Standing Committee by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Foreign Secretary, anticipating many of the speeches that have now been made from the Conservative side in the course of the current debate. With regard to Conservative alternatives, my hon. Friend is a great admirer of Baroness Thatcher, as am I. Does he remember TINA—there is no alternative? There is no alternative to fees.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

As is well known, my hon. Friend does not agree with our position on that. He is perfectly honourable about that and has set out his reasons cogently. We must beg to disagree on that point. Those on the Conservative Front Bench intend to invite my hon. Friends to stand by the manifesto commitments we made at the last election. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage feels, for honourable reasons, that he cannot join us in that, but that will not deter the rest of us from continuing to advance what we believe to be the right course for the future of higher education.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

rose—

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I will not give way again. I have given way an almost unprecedented number of times, and Labour Members who have been intervening at such great length will no doubt start complaining that they do not have a chance to make their own speeches, so I am keen to bring my remarks to a close.

However, there are a couple of important aspects that need to be touched on. The first is debt. Why did the Government decide after the 2001 election that they needed to look again at student financing? One of the major factors was the reports reaching them about worries among students about how they would cope with the level of debt that they had. The Government thought carefully about how they could best address the issue of student or graduate debt, and came up with the proposal that the best way of doing that was to triple the tuition fees that students should pay. That seems an extraordinary way of dealing with debt.

However they slice it, the Government's proposals will result in future graduates leaving with unprecedented levels of debt, which will undoubtedly—academic evidence is unequivocal about this—have the effect of deterring some students from going to some universities to study some subjects. We on the Conservative Benches believe that we should have a system of access to university that proceeds on the basis of ability to learn, not ability to pay. That is why we will vote as we will on these matters.

I shall say a word or two about amendment No. 128. Our view is that new clause 5, which strikes out both top-up fees and tuition fees, is a powerful and important change to the Bill. Amendment No. 128 would strike out the five clauses that collectively not only provide for top-up fees, but provide the teeth for OFFA, the university access regulator, which rightly is strongly disliked in the university sector.

The Secretary of State may have a document from Universities UK in which it indicates—reluctantly, I suspect—that it is prepared to live with OFFA, but that briefing note from Universities UK makes it explicitly clear that it believes that admissions policies should be the responsibility of individual institutions of higher education. That is not what the Government have been saying. The higher education Minister has consistently said in Committee and elsewhere that he believes that admissions should be a matter for individual institutions, and admissions policies should be a matter for OFFA. That is not what Universities UK seeks. That is why we invite Members to support amendment No. 128, not least on the grounds that it would defang a very unpleasant piece of social engineering and interventionism.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

The hon. Gentleman has one last chance to give way.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The amendments and new clauses before us are, indeed, the last chance for the House to vote to uphold the promises all of us made at the last general election. They are the last chance for all of us to vote to give this and future generations of students the same opportunity of access based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, which many of us enjoyed when we were 18. They are the last chance for the House to vote for fairness for all classes and all students. We must say no to fees, yes to academic freedom, and yes to a better way forward for higher education than this dishonest and discredited Bill.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I wish to speak to amendment No. 128 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and on which I shall seek to divide the House. It was recommended by the Public Bill Office as the only way to remove the introduction of variable fees from the Bill, and that is the position that I take. We can talk about OFFA in more detail later. It would be a functional organisation and its work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England would be important. If the amendment were agreed to, that would not be eliminated as an arena for discussion where we could ensure that universities had the right access policies.

Variable fees are a really bad idea because—

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I do not wish to take too many interventions because I wish to give others the chance to speak, but I give way to my hon. Friend.

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

Is it not the case that the amendment would remove any incentive whatever for universities to get their access plans through OFFA, because it will remove OFFA's teeth and make it completely ineffective?

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I have much more faith in the university system than my hon. Friend appears to have. The universities try hard and they have new projects, with science ambassadors, and so on, and we are encouraging that. More and more people will be coming in and are coming in because of such projects initiated by the Government.

My concerns are not new; they have been voiced many times during the Bill's anguished course, but they have not yet been satisfactorily dispelled. Variable fees will tie students' choice of degree and career to price. The choice of those with the greatest aversion to debt and those who are likely to feel its burden most—those from lower-income backgrounds—will be affected most. It was pointed out in Committee, whose debate on this matter I have read five times—it was an excellent debate and many of these issues were well and truly discussed—that higher education will be seen as a financial investment and a route to a highly paid job, rather than something to be done for love of learning, and that a variable fee makes the student concentrate more on the marketability of the course that they are about to study. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises those words, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

It was also pointed out in Committee and by at least 15 vice-chancellors yesterday who wrote to The Guardian—I am aware that others have contradicted this—that variable fees will further widen the difference in income between universities. Those with a higher profile and a smaller proportion of students from lower-income backgrounds, namely the Russell group, will be able to charge higher fees and generate much more income while others will be forced to charge less. There will be no redistribution of income among institutions.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

Will my hon. Friend accept from someone who as president of the National Union of Students campaigned for him in the seat that he now represents, that it has been an historical anomaly that those people from the lowest socio-economic background have never achieved more than a maximum of 15 to 20 per cent. representation during the past 40 years in higher education, and that 51 per cent. of students studying in higher education institutions—postgraduate, overseas, mature and part-time students—are subject to variability, and none of the matters that he is addressing and which amendment No. 128 will remove, will address the fact that variability has not done what he claims for the 51 per cent. of people studying in higher education, and will not address the issue of getting better representation in higher education for the people whom he and I came into politics to represent?

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I thank my hon. Friend for her creative work in Norwich during that election. She may or may not think it was valuable looking down at me now, but she is absolutely right about this issue in other areas of higher education. I do not particularly endorse that, but I noticed in the Committee proceedings that some Members said that in those areas that my hon. Friend mentioned, there may not be as much variability as one might think. I see much effort being made to try to eliminate that in terms of part-time students, and others, to try to make it easier for them with bursaries, and so on.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I really do want to allow others time to speak, but I shall give way one last time.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

My hon. Friend made a point about the differential income of universities that he believes would arise from variable fees, and that was my concern before the Government agreed to take responsibility for the cost of the disbursements in grant that the university would have to make. Because of that adjustment, it now seems likely that some of the modern universities, which are teaching-led, will gain up to a 50 per cent. increase on their current income, whereas universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, that are basically research-led, will have increases in the order of 10 per cent. or less. Therefore, the statistics show that the modern universities, which we all seek to support because they are doing most to widen access, are the ones that will benefit from the new income regime.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

That is a fair point, but if one looks at the whole picture, some universities are enriched, with all the extra money for research from their colleges, and so on, while others do not have such a privileged financial background.

Barry Sheerman (Labour/Co-operative, Huddersfield)

My hon. Friend chairs the Education and Skills Committee as I do, and we usually work well together, but what does he say to the general criticism that his amendment has been construed as a wrecking amendment, because he is a bad loser, having lost on Second Reading. [Interruption.] Is that a fair criticism?

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

Those are really kind words. [Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Will hon. Members try to contain themselves when others are on their feet so that we can all hear what is being said? I am afraid that I could not hear most of that intervention.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I shall treat that intervention with the disdain that I and many other hon. Members believe that it merits.

Part of the argument for variability has been that there are real differences between courses, which should be reflected in their fees. I do not know how we will quantify those differences. Do we match some arbitrary notion of quality to a figure, or do we measure courses against their potential financial pay-offs for the student? Do we judge it by reputation of the institution? How do we think that it will work? The market is unpredictable, and once we further extend the market principle into higher education, we do not know how things will turn out.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Is it not already well documented by Universities UK research that young people from the lowest socio-economic groups invariably attend the modern universities and stay at home because that is the cheapest way that they can study? Is it therefore not clear that such students will always attempt to achieve the lowest cost to themselves and the lowest debt on leaving university? That is the iniquity of variable fees. The Russell group universities will charge much higher fees.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I do not particularly subscribe to my hon. Friend's conclusions, but I admit that there is a problem there that needs addressing. I am sure that other Labour Members will be glad to take up that issue. I want to bash on to give others a real chance to speak.

The need to attract students to under-subscribed courses, say in the sciences—others may deal with that—may lead to such courses being offered at a lower price that neither reflects the cost of running the course or what a graduate might earn in the future. If lower fees are to be used as an incentive, can we reasonably argue that higher fees will not act as a disincentive? I welcome the aid packages that have been put in place to reduce the deterrence factor, but I am not convinced that they will be enough.

Robert Jackson (Conservative, Wantage)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is addressing his own Benches, but some Opposition Members would like to hear what he has to say.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I explained on Second Reading that I had to watch where I turned my back, and nothing has changed much since then.

I welcome those aid packages, but many students who do not qualify will be basing their decisions primarily on price. Even those who do qualify will still be looking for the so-called best deal—a phrase that has been used often.

One of the more seductive arguments for variability has been that while it allows universities to charge higher fees, it also allows them to charge less. I have already spoken about why universities might charge less. The argument concerns me because I can see it being used in the not-too-distant future in favour of raising the cap. Universities are already arguing that £3,000 is not enough to close the funding gap. I know that it is some way down the line and that there have been attempts to restrict that, but it is not ruled out for ever. Once that door is opened, it will happen. Those words are not mine, but those of esteemed vice-chancellors who have supported the Bill.

The same arguments will no doubt be rehearsed again, although the intensity of the debate will depend on which Government are in power. The cap will rise and divisions between rich and poor institutions and students will widen further. The money from the new legislation will only just have begun to reach the universities when the promised review of the system takes place. By then, it will be both too late and too soon to turn back, and we will, most likely, have no option but to continue down the same path, which we still have a choice about embarking on today. Can we honestly expect that the other funding models that we have not been able to debate openly will be considered if top-up fees do not appear to be working?

Amendment No. 128, which I and colleagues have tabled, has aroused lots of confusion and controversy. I firmly resent the allegation that I have been colluding with the Opposition in an attempt to derail my own Government. I regret that this issue has been turned into a matter of loyalty; it is a matter of principle that strikes at the very core of what Labour Members stand for. The amendment was tabled in good faith by those who wish to keep intact the positive aspects of the Bill, but prevent the introduction of variability as a matter of principle and for the reasons that I have outlined.

The effects of the amendment were checked with the Public Bill Office. If the amendment is passed, section 26 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 will remain and prevent universities from raising fees. That will be the case unless the Government themselves repeal section 26. It will be open to the Government to introduce amendments in the Lords to change the level of the current fee should they so desire.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I accept, because he is an honourable man, his assurance that he has not colluded with the Conservative party and does not consider the amendment as seeking to wreck the Bill. Did he hear the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Opposition spokesman, say on the "Today" programme of the amendment:

"I think it was quite rightly described yesterday morning . . . by the Higher Education Minister . . . as a wrecking amendment. It undermines the Government's whole policy."

He said that it takes away the powers that the regulator has to impose any kind of sanction on universities. Does he accept that that is the view of Her Majesty's official Opposition?

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. I am very glad that I am not associated with that particular view. I do not agree with that view at all, as that is not my reason for tabling the amendment.

Clare Short (Labour, Birmingham, Ladywood)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Parliament, we are supposed to respond to proposals that come from the Government, and we often find ourselves voting with the Opposition on issues such as peace in Northern Ireland? It also happened on the war in Iraq. The suggestion that those of us who want to adhere to our manifesto commitment and ensure equity in access to higher education are playing games with the Opposition is a dishonourable attack.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

I am told that the restoration of student grants and the proposed repayment scheme that will be introduced by secondary legislation" again, this comes from the Public Bill Office—would not be affected by the amendment and should not be dependent on the introduction of variable fees. I am told that the office for fair access would still be able to monitor access. These are progressive measures that only our Government, a Labour Government, could put forward. The already rising amounts of student debt and increased hardship, as well as widening access, all need to be addressed. I feel that introducing variable fees is a heavy price to pay for these measures that counteracts any improvements that can be made.

I am told that the Bill would not have to be withdrawn if the amendment were passed. That would be a travesty because of the positive things that it contains. The issue of variability has been presented as non-negotiable from the start. If any issue needed and was crying out for negotiation, variable fees would be it.

Ultimately, a decision needs to be made on whether variable fees are essential for developing our universities into a truly national system based on excellence where innovation and scholarship flourish. On balance, I believe that the Government would be making less of a compromise if they were to support the amendment, scrap variable fees and prevent a divided and divisive university system.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).

I wish to speak to a series of amendments. In particular, new clause 8 would remove all fees in exactly the same way as new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) tabled. New clause 9 is consequential on new clause 8 and would remove fees in Wales. Amendments Nos. 53 to 58 and 71 to 86 are also consequential on new clause 8 and new clause 9. New clause 10 deals with age discrimination, and new clause 12 relates to public services.

One of the saddest sights in the past few weeks since the conclusion of the Committee stage has been the witch hunt that has been conducted against the hon. Member for Norwich, North because he happens to disagree with those on the Government Front Bench. For any member of the Government party to be called disloyal for supporting his own manifesto seems the most absurd piece of skullduggery from those on the Government Benches that one could imagine.

May I also say to the Secretary of State and the Minister that the disingenuous comments made on yesterday's "Today" programme, which have been repeated today, suggesting that amendment No. 128 would open the floodgates in allowing universities to charge fees in excess of £10,000, are absolute nonsense. In reality, two amendments have been tabled—[Interruption.] The Minister will have to contain himself. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 would restore to the Bill those elements of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 that the Government wish to take out and replace. Nevertheless, the Minister and the Secretary of State should be honest enough—I believe that they are honest gentlemen—to say that there is no evidence to show that, before 1998, any university in the United Kingdom charged either tuition fees or differential fees. They did not do so, because measures in the Education (Schools) Act 1992 and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 prevented them from doing so. Of course, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and its predecessor bodies had powers allowing them not to give grant funding to universities that misused their charter. Those powers were put into the 1998 Act primarily as a result of Labour Back Benchers' concerns that there was nothing in the measure to limit the powers top-up fees or further fees. That was the reason for it. I suspect that HEFCE's powers will be exactly the same as those before 1998, and I expect the Minister to address that specific issue when he winds up the debate.

New clause 10 addresses age discrimination, which was briefly addressed in Committee, and many organisations that work with older people such as Age Concern and the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education support it. The Government have recognised that, for a variety of reasons, people will work longer in the workplace than was assumed 10 or 15 years ago. When I was working in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we all assumed that we would have so much leisure time that we would scramble around and not know what to do with it. In reality, many people will certainly work until the age of 65 and beyond, and to deny them access to the same conditions as under-55s is fundamentally wrong.

In October 2000, the UK Government signed the EU directive on equal treatment for older people, and they are committed to implementing age legislation by 2006, but if the Bill is enacted in its current state, it will directly contradict that intention. The Government have moved on supporting students over 55 years of age, and I hope that they agree to examine that issue in their review of the funding arrangements. Although I will not ask for a separate vote on new clause 10, I trust that the Minister will address that issue in his winding-up speech.

New clause 12 is the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) new clause, and it is the direct response to what he claimed he had achieved when he decided not to support those who oppose top-up fees by voting for the Second Reading of the Bill. On Second Reading, he said:

"My fear is for the next poorest, particularly those who wish to make a career in the professions and public service and are therefore likely to incur above-average expenses while studying"—[Official Report, 27 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 191.]

In the round of broadcasts conducted by him, it was assumed that he had received a concession from the Secretary of State that there would be legislation, or certainly regulation, to allow those people going into the public sector to have preferential treatment on fees and the interest paid on those fees.

The issue is serious: however income-contingent repayment of debt is presented, we want many of the students who graduate from our universities—the Government anticipate that 75 per cent. of universities will charge the maximum top-up fee—to go into the public services. We want graduates to become policemen, social workers, teachers and health professionals, which is right and proper. As an employer, the Government are right to ask, "What should we put in place to support those people?"

If somebody who works in the public sector moves into the private sector, however, it is not the taxpayer's responsibility to support them by contributing to their fees and associated costs, which private sector employers should support. The Secretary of State was bold to state in the White Paper that he and his colleagues must get to grips with that issue. Whether the Home Office pays the costs of graduate policemen, whether other Departments pay or whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pays, is not an issue for this debate, but it must certainly be addressed.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government support people who go into public service? For example, teachers engaged in postgraduate training receive £6,000. Indeed, support for the public services in the south-east has been enhanced, and there has been a further announcement on the keyworker initiative, which assists front-line public sector workers with the expensive cost of housing in the south-east—it is all money.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Before the hon. Gentleman gets excited, I have always conceded that the Government assist in many of those areas, but that is not the point of my argument. My point is that after the Bill is enacted, top-up fees will result in significant debt from 2006 onwards, which will be a whole new ball game. We should not cherry-pick the way in which we support people who take certain subjects—

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Why not?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I will tell the hon. Gentleman why not. The housing costs for a teacher of religious education or music in London are exactly the same as those for somebody teaching mathematics. The idea of giving one of them a £6,000 golden hello—

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

rose—

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; I am answering his question, for goodness' sake. [Laughter]. I am sorry—I sometimes forget that I am not a head teacher any more. [Hon. Members: "You will be."] No, they would not have me.

The new clause would ensure that once someone has become a key public sector professional such as a teacher or a nurse, where a degree is an entry requirement, the 9 per cent. of disposable income payable and the interest on any remaining debt is paid for by the state, and if that person leaves the profession after two years, as they are entitled to, they pick up the costs. I hope that hon. Members will see that as a simple and positive mechanism for supporting public sector workers. I intend to press new clause 12 to a vote.

I turn to new clause 8 and amendment No. 128. We support Conservative Front Benchers' basic principle on the removal of fees, as stated in new clause 5, as well as the removal of top-up fees. We certainly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Norwich, North, and we will vote with him on that.

In his speech, the hon. Member for Norwich, North mentioned the notion of generous grants. That was picked up by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who accused the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives of scaremongering. Let us at least understand the basis on which we are having this debate. At the moment, poorer students pay no fees at all. It was a Labour Government who in 1998 introduced up-front fees. Labour Members are now railing against them and saying what a wonderful job they are doing in removing them.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

The hon. Gentleman has made many points about fees and debt. Does he accept that the fees and costs combined will be repaid at a gentler rate, which equalises the situation between students and makes the whole situation much easier for them all?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I have never denied that. The reality is that the debt will be no smaller as a result of the new proposals; graduates will simply repay it for a lot longer. The hon. Lady fails to understand that. In fact, a person's debt gets bigger if over a number of years their income does not qualify them to pay the 9 per cent. of disposable income, because the interest is added every year after that.

I was responding to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. At the moment, the poorest students pay no fees and get a maintenance loan of £4,000. They pay nothing up front, and when they have graduated they start to pay it back. I can see that the new system is more generous in terms of paying the money back over a longer period.

In future, poorer students who go to a top university will pay a fee of £3,000, which will be deferred because they get a loan to cover it. They will therefore not have to pay it up front and they will get another £3,500 in grant. At the end of their time at university, they will have not £4,000 of debt but £6,500 for every year. That is £19,500 of debt for the poorest students. I accept that they have had the money as disposable income during their time at university, but they will be worse off and have a bigger debt than current students. If Professor Callender is right and every study that the Government have carried out is right—

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

My goodness—I should like to make some progress.

If every single item of research is right, the Government will know that debt deters poorer students—the very students whom the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and I want to encourage to go to university.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

Given that the hon. Gentleman is making a great effort to be sincere, will he deal with a genuine point about Liberal Democrat representation on the streets of Rochdale about current provision? It bears no resemblance to his comments. Liberal Democrats in Rochdale claim that all students have to pay up-front fees. Will he disassociate himself from rank-and-file Liberal Democrats who misrepresent policy? Does he accept that students do not have to pay back the grant? His calculations are simply wrong.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Lady's first comment was unacceptable and I hope that she will withdraw it.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

What about Rochdale?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

What happens on the streets of Rochdale, God only knows. I have never claimed that the £2,700 plus the £300 bursary has to be repaid. I do not believe that any hon. Member has ever heard me say that. However, students will have to repay the loan of £3,500 plus the tuition fee of £3,000. That makes £6,500 every year. So much for generous grants.

Amendment No. 122 tabled by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) hits the nail on the head. When we began the debate, the £3,000 in grant and bursary was roughly equal to the top-up fee of £3,000. However, that sort of balancing equation will not occur in the future. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but by 2010, top-up fees may increase to £5,000 or £10,000 but there is no commitment in the Bill to increase grants and bursaries commensurately. The hon. Member for Hemsworth said that he wants a 90 per cent. link. I would be happy with any sort of link to ensure that students get that support in future.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

The hon. Gentleman is making a case for no fees, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) presents a rational argument in his amendment. As my hon. Friend knows, because I have spoken to him, the only problem that we have with it is inscribing in legislation a percentage that we might want to change more beneficially. If we were to accept the amendment, we would always be stuck with 90 per cent. That is why we prefer to leave percentages out of primary legislation and put them in regulations.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I accept that there are difficulties, but will the Minister accept later an amendment to include in the measure an affirmative resolution to cover the £3,000 and any cap on the fee above inflation after 2010? It is right to establish mechanisms to ensure that students at the top universities, which charge the highest fees, get commensurate grants.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I hope to speak later if I can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point of my amendment is to probe the Government. By 2010, a higher rate of fees might well have let rip: the upper limit could be £10,000 or even £15,000. What would then happen to the £3,000 grant and bursary? There is no linkage in the Bill, or in anything that Ministers have said so far, to provide for working-class kids and kids from poorer homes to get the £10,000 to £15,000 that might be being charged by then. That is the point of my amendment, but, so far, the Government have given no indication that any such linkage would exist.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he does not get the opportunity to speak, at least he has put that point on record. I hope that my description of his amendment was accurate.

Those Labour Members who intend enthusiastically to support the Bill and oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and others must understand that the only way that poorer students will gain any advantage in 2006 will be if they take their £2,700 grant and go to the cheapest university offering the cheapest course. That is the only way in which they will be better off under the Government's proposals, unless they invest the whole £3,000 on the stock market and hope that they make some money.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

No, I want to make some progress because I appreciate that a lot of people want to speak.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North rightly said that the Government's proposals would create a market in higher education. We have had many debates on this issue, and I conceded in Committee that there is currently a social market in higher education. Given that students from the lower socio-economic groups make up only 9 per cent. of those who go to Oxford and Cambridge, we should ask whether that is because the lower socio-economic groups are intellectually inferior, as has been suggested.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the £3,000 bursaries—[Hon. Members: "£4,000."] They have gone up already. Will he welcome the £4,000 bursaries that Cambridge will make available to poorer students? That move has come in on the back of this Bill. The Bill is changing the whole atmosphere, and more and more universities are proposing similar schemes.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends a little time in the Library and consider the wealth that many of the Oxford colleges have at their disposal? He should consider the £4,000 bursaries in relation to that wealth. He might then like to consider the wealth of Wolverhampton university, 47 per cent. of whose intake is from the three lowest socio-economic groups, or of the universities in Hull. He would see a totally different picture there. If he is saying that every university in the land, even the least endowed ones, will give all students a £4,000 top-up to their grant, then heaven has arrived here in the House of Commons. The reality, however, as he knows, is that that is arrant nonsense.

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

Does my hon. Friend recall that the vice-chancellor of Cambridge university recently came to this place and was asked what proportion of Cambridge students come from the lowest socio-economic groups now, and what proportion she expects to come from those groups under the new scheme? She said that the proportion from those groups on which Cambridge is budgeting in order to be able to give this £4,000 bursary is just 11 per cent., and that if the proportion exceeds that, it will not be able to afford any more bursaries.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

My hon. Friend makes a most telling point. That is the reality. If a cash-rich university such as Cambridge cannot afford more than a 2 per cent. increase, what chance is there across the piece?

Robert Jackson (Conservative, Wantage)

The hon. Gentleman has been comparing endowments. He should consider the matter more broadly, rather than just what happens in this country. If he compares the endowments of Oxford and Cambridge not just with Harvard, Stanford, Princeton or Yale but with American state universities, which have been building up endowments, he will find that they pale into significance, and yet those are the universities with which Oxford, Cambridge and a few other universities in this country must compete.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Harvard and Yale, which are the two best-endowed universities in the world—not just in America—achieve through all their glorious endowments and bursaries 4.7 per cent. of students from the lower socio-economic groups in the United States. If that is the vision for the United Kingdom's higher education system, there is no point any of us being here, because it is a travesty in terms of ambition. I want the students whom I have taught for most of my life, who come from very poor backgrounds, to be able to get into the top universities, rather than choosing their course or university on the basis of how much they can afford.

Fees and top-up fees will create a financial market that will be ruinous to our higher education system. If the Secretary of State were proposing variability that was uncapped, his argument would have real integrity. Some people argue that those who spend £10,000, £20,000 or £30,000 educating their sons and daughters in the sixth form of a private school should not receive tuition for nothing when they go to university. That is not what the Government are proposing, however. They are proposing a cap on variability, which is a contradiction in terms. I said that on Second Reading, and I say it again, because that is the reality. By 2010, that cap, by the Government's admission, will starve universities of the cash that they need now—[Interruption.] Labour Members must not believe all the rhetoric that comes out of fairy house down at Millbank—[Interruption.] That was a Freudian slip.

In the first year of variable fees, the maximum additional income that universities will get—all our universities, given the Government's figures—is about £300 million—[Interruption.] That is so. In that first year, only one year of students will pay top-up fees. It will take three years before three cohorts are in and the universities get the maximum amount of money.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

The hon. Gentleman's proposal would remove £800 million that the universities currently get from fees. He cannot argue that they will have to wait a few years for an extra £1 billion while proposing that they should immediately lose almost £1 billion in revenue, which they receive at the moment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister has been characteristically honest, but that is not what I am proposing at all. The Liberal Democrat position is clear: we want to raise the higher rate of tax to 50p in the pound. That would apply to incomes of more than £100,000 a year.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

rose—

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am trying to reply to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman should not get so excited.

According to the Treasury, what we propose would raise £4.7 billion. The £2 billion that we would spend would give universities £1.1 billion immediately, and would replace the fees now paid by students. The Conservative Front Benchers who tabled the new clause would not give universities a penny extra. They would do no more than decimate the number of university entrants, and they would use the additional resources elsewhere. Please let them not accuse the Liberal Democrats of not having a solution.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I want to finish my speech, as many other Members wish to speak.

We support the removal of fees and top-up fees, as an issue not of popular politics but of principle. We opposed the introduction of tuition fees in 1997 and 1998, and we stated in our 1997 manifesto that we opposed both top-up and tuition fees. I have here a copy of the Labour party manifesto, entitled "Ambitions for Britain". It states on page 19:

"We will not introduce 'top up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."

What is in that document is nothing but a deception of the British public. Page 19, like the rest, needs to be ripped out and torn up.

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

I shall speak to new clauses 6 and 7 and the consequential amendments Nos. 32 to 52. I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 129 and 130. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept amendment No.129, and I am happy to allow the Minister to speak to it. I am pleased and grateful that the Government have made such an important concession.

Let me explain what my new clauses are all about and why I cannot support amendment No.128. New clauses 6 and 7 and the consequential amendments would remove the provision for variable fees and replace it with a provision for a fixed fee. To that extent they are similar to amendments that I tabled in Committee that were defeated, although they were supported by the Liberal Democrats.

My new clauses and amendments would strengthen OFFA, the regulator. They would remove the basic fee altogether. In order to charge fees at all, universities would have to draw up credible plans to improve access, which would have to be passed by the regulator. Having negotiated that hurdle, they would be able to charge a fee; but it would be a fixed fee. I have not specified the level of the fee, but I would expect it to be set somewhere between £2,500 and £3,000. Once fixed, it could be raised only with inflation. I stress that my proposal would leave the Bill intact.

Valerie Davey (Labour, Bristol West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her cohesive new clauses and amendments, which offer a constructive alternative to variable fees. Does she agree that the possible polarisation of universities, which variable fees could allow to develop, is an element that is not addressed in the Bill?

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, about which I have great concern. I represent a city constituency with two universities: Cambridge university and Anglia polytechnic university. I am aware of the wide differences between those universities and I should certainly not want to see them become wider.

I want to emphasise that mine are not wrecking amendments, and if the Government wished to, they would be able to operate within the regime defined in the amendments. In proposing my new clauses and amendments, I believe that I am carrying out the wishes of the majority of my constituents. Although in the constituency survey that I conducted there was considerable support for the student support package in the Bill, many people, particularly students, said that they did not want a variable fee. It is true, of course, that some of those people did not want a fee at all. Most students, when asked, say that they would prefer not to pay fees and for all the funding to come from general taxation. However, that is not the view of the rest of my constituents, and I must also take their views on board. I believe that it is right for students to make a contribution towards the cost of their education, which is the only realistic way of getting the extra money that is so desperately needed into universities.

I do not like variable fees because I do not like the prospect of introducing a market into higher education.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Does my hon. Friend believe that there are lessons to be learned from the United States of America, whose marketisation of higher education began in 1979? In that year, four times more undergraduates from the top 25 per cent. by income of the population attended university than their less-well-off compatriots. After 25 years, that ratio has now grown to 10:1. Is that not the real risk of marketisation?

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I do not think that the Government's proposals are as damaging as the provisions in the US. Although marketisation might bring some damaging effects, I do not believe that the damage here will be as great as in the United States.

I am worried, however, that students might choose courses because they are cheap, rather than because they are really suited to those students' aptitudes and abilities. I am also concerned that some universities might decide to charge a lower fee because they cannot attract enough students with a high fee. They will not then have the cash to pay for good quality staff and equipment, and standards will begin to spiral downwards.

I am also concerned that the modern universities take by far the highest proportion of lower-income students, and that their ability to pay generous bursaries is compromised to some extent by sheer numbers.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

Does my hon. Friend agree that she has just set out the case for why it is highly unlikely that a market will develop in higher education? That is precisely because no university, whether Cambridge, Oxford, Wolverhampton or Huddersfield, can afford to forgo the income that it would secure by charging variable fees—top-up fees or, as they now are, top-down fees, and fixed fees with discounts. Does she have any evidence that a market will develop in higher education?

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

That remains to be seen. If my new clauses and amendments are not successful this evening, and if the Bill goes through, there will be a review after a three-year period so that we can examine the situation that has developed. I have set out the fears, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has just pointed out the damaging situation that there has been in the US. The worry is that the same situation, to a lesser extent, might develop here, although, as I have said, I do not think that the proposals will be as damaging here as the United States provisions have been.

Tony Wright (Labour, Cannock Chase)

Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the Bill offers a highly regulated market in higher education? The consequence of a highly regulated market model failing is a cutting-loose by those parts of the system that want to create an unregulated market. If that happened, we would get not the status quo, but an unregulated market.

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

That is the very thing that my amendment is trying to avoid. I hope that by replacing the variable fee with a higher fixed fee, it will give the universities extra money, which they so badly need, and would at the same time prevent marketisation from developing.

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I just want to probe whether my hon. Friend's amendment is a probing amendment or whether she intends to press it to a Division. If she does press it to a Division, and if the amendment is successful, have the Government already given any indication of what would happen to the Bill? Have they, for instance, indicated that they might withdraw the Bill if the amendment is passed?

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

I would like to press the amendment to a Division and I have said that already. I believe that the Government have made some indications to other people about what would happen in the event of the amendment being passed, but I am afraid I have not had any indication so far of what would occur. However, I stress that the amendment is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. It is a very carefully constructed amendment, which would leave the Bill intact.

It has already been mentioned that Cambridge university has proposed paying bursaries of £4,000 to students from lower-income backgrounds. That means, of course, that with the £2,700 that is available from the Government, lower-income students in my constituency would have £6,700 per annum available without any need to take out a loan. I believe that that is very generous. However, students who are fortunate enough to get a place at Cambridge are likely to do much better for financial support than those who go to one of the ex-polytechnics.

I should like briefly to discuss my amendment No. 129 and then give my support to amendment No. 130, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). Amendment No. 129 is very important as it changes the powers of the Secretary of State into an obligation. Under both the current legislation and the proposed legislation, the Secretary of State has the power to prevent universities from charging more than the cap, but he does not have a duty to do so. This means that if the legislation passes tonight without the amendment, a Secretary of State who does not wish to enforce the legislation has no need to do so and the House could not compel him to do so. If for instance, Dr. Richard Sykes comes along in a few years' time and says, "I cannot manage with a fee of £3,000 so I am going to charge £5,000", we may have a Secretary of State at that stage who thinks that that is probably correct, but does not wish to go through the burdensome process of either secondary or primary legislation or even the affirmative resolution process. That Secretary of State could say, "I do have the power to stop you, but I am not going to exercise that power, so go ahead." There is nothing at that stage that Parliament could do because we have left it to the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as she did in Committee. But is it not the case now that universities can charge as much as they want? Obviously, they would not receive any money from HEFCE, so is there not a real danger that unless universities of the type that my hon. Friend is describing receive a steady income stream now and for the future, some universities might decide to go it alone and charge enormous fees, and the type of access to which we all aspire would simply go out of the window?

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

That is the situation that the amendment is intended to address. My amendment would make it very clear that the Secretary of State is obliged to prevent the university from charging the higher fee—not just having the power to do it, but an obligation to do it. I therefore consider this to be an extremely important amendment—without it, the debates that have raged on the cap and on variability and whether to charge fees at all simply fade into insignificance. It is an important amendment and I hope that hon. Members will support it this evening.

I also wish to support amendment No. 130, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and others. It would mean that the cap could not be raised above inflation before 2010 without primary legislation, and beyond that point only by amendable resolution on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament. I tabled similar amendments—Nos. 123 and 124—but I have withdrawn them in favour of amendment No. 130. A new higher education Bill would not be the best way to raise the cap, but that would have been the effect of my amendments. I congratulate my hon. Friends on finding a way that makes the condition much stronger than the secondary legislation would have done, because the resolution would be amendable and would give rise to a debate on the Floor of the House. I strongly urge all hon. Members to support that amendment.

I shall now explain why I cannot support amendment No. 128. As it stands, the amendment would remove clauses 22 to 27, which impose the conditions under which fees can be levied. That would mean, for one thing, that amendment No. 129 would fall, because it relates to clause 22 and the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) believes that if we passed his amendment we would revert to the current legislation as defined in the 1998 Act. He suggests that the Government would have to introduce further amendments in the House of Lords to raise the fee to a more realistic level. However, given the current state of relations between the two Houses, I do not share his optimism that their Lordships would play ball.

There is a more important objection. Without any further amendments to remove the repeal measures of the 1998 Act, as defined in schedule 6, the effect of my hon. Friend's amendments would be to deregulate fees completely, because that schedule will repeal the parts of the Act that refer to the current fee regime. The Conservative spokesman pointed out that amendments have been tabled that would remove the repeal of the provisions in the 1998 Act, but they were not tabled by my hon. Friend. To my surprise, they were tabled by the hon. Members for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). Are those amendments really intended to be consequential amendments to amendment No. 128? If so, how come they were tabled by the Conservatives and not by my hon. Friends? I have to ask what is going on there.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.