asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, in 2001 we issued guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 specifically on services for deafblindness. The guidance has raised awareness among local authorities of deafblindness and services are improving. General measures to improve the accessibility and quality of NHS and local authority services to disabled people will also help deafblind people.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but in view of those activities can she perhaps explain the fact, as revealed by Sense, the organisation for deafblind people, that more than 50 per cent of deafblind people have not even been identified by local authorities and that more than 95 per cent of deafblind people do not have the services of communicator guides that are so essential for that double disability? Will my noble friend try to explain that to the House?

Will my noble friend also tell me if I am right in assuming that the Government made a big mistake in not backing the Private Member's Bill some four years ago? That Bill would have laid a definite duty on all local authorities to locate, identify and assess all deafblind people in their area and then provide the services. That would have been a clear obligation but the Government said, "No thanks", and opted simply for guidance. However, we all know that guidance can be ignored by local authorities. We need a complete change of policy.

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend for the fact that we have guidance in the first place. He may be disappointed that there was no Bill but the guidance is clear and is working effectively. My noble friend, who has been a friend for many years, will know that this is very much a developing situation. Figures from the Social Services Inspectorate show that in 2001 there was not a single senior manager responsible for deafblind people; now 98 per cent of councils have such a manager. Some 89 per cent of councils now make information available in formats accessible to deafblind people and 82 per cent have a database that identifies deafblind people.

I am the first to agree that a lot more needs to be done, but we are starting from a very low base. It is entirely due to my noble friend that deafblindness is recognised as a unique condition which needs a unique set of services. I hope that he will take some comfort from that and will look forward to more progress being made.

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that particular attention will be given to the needs of children so that an assessment is made as early as possible and a plan put into operation which will ensure their proper development so that in future we do not have the kind of situation that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, outlined?

My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. Deafblind children with communication problems that we can hardly begin to comprehend suffer an additional disability. Early assessment is absolutely essential. The early support pilot project will be one way of picking up these young children very quickly. However, much will depend on their assessment under the framework of assessment of children in need, which is a good framework. We need more interveners to work with those children to develop their communication and social skills. That is something that we are working on very aggressively at the moment.

My Lords, will the Minister add to her original Answer by also paying tribute to the work of the voluntary societies in this area that often work in partnership with local authorities under Section 7 of the Act? I speak from particular experience as president of the Cheshire Deafness Support Network, which last year opened a specific deafblind facility for people who are among the neediest in our society. One can scarcely imagine what it is like to be deafblind but the workers are very dedicated. They are enabled by Section 7 of the Act but work in partnership with a vigorous voluntary society. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to those people, too?

My Lords, I certainly shall. One of the major contributions of those people is the development of capacity in the service. They are doing so much to develop the specialist profession. I refer to social workers who are specially trained to deal with deafblind people, volunteers who can work on a one-to-one basis who know the real problems that these elderly as well as young people face, and the establishment of a deafblind studies diploma. There is a great deal of partnership with local authorities through the Department of Health. Deafblind UK and Sense are leading the field. I am delighted that we are working so closely with them.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the term "deafblind" covers people with a wide degree of problems, from those with a profound problem with communication—the classic example was Helen Keller—to people who are totally blind with hearing loss but would not describe themselves as deafblind? Even the description now used—dual visual and sensory impairment—does not really help, because it is the degree of difficulty of communication that is crucial in the definition.

My Lords, that is right, and it is why we owe my noble friend Lord Ashley such a debt for identifying it. We need specialists to address the issues of communication particularly. The effort going into building a capacity to understand the specialist assessments carried out by local authorities is the key to making sure that people get the needed services. Those services cross a very wide range of social services to do with disability and being elderly.

My Lords, has the Minister been made aware that there are many cases of people referring to the guidance being told by social services departments that it is only guidance, and that they do not have to do much about it? Does the attitude of those responsible for that build any confidence within the Government about any duty that there might be for, for instance, the promotion of equality through any future legislation?

My Lords, the guidance is statutory guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act. It has to be followed unless there is a very good reason for not following it. We would think it reprehensible for local authorities not to try. We have to allow for the building up of progress and capacity in new areas of policy. I reiterate that the guidance is compulsory; it is being implemented at different rates, but there is no excuse for not implementing it.

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend. To put this Question into perspective, is she aware that it was my noble friend Lord Ashley, 35 years ago in 1969, who led the way in enacting—as Section 25 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—the world's first ever legislation specifically to assist deafblind people? Is that not the very best of credentials for being listened to very carefully on the urgency of the need for further progress in reducing the handicapping effects of this devastating combination of disabilities?

My Lords, the noble Lord reminds us of exactly how long a history my noble friend Lord Ashley has in developing this area of policy; as, indeed, he does himself. It would be a very unwise government who did not listen to my noble friend, and they would do so to their cost. In terms of implementing his advice, we have a new instrument in the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Its job, following the Social Services Inspectorate, will be to make sure that councils follow the guidance.

My Lords, the Minister said that the guidance was working effectively. Is she aware that, more than three years after it was issued, 13 per cent of local authorities still do not have any kind of services at all appropriate for deafblind people? Does she not agree that the Government have to keep a close eye on the area?

My Lords, I agree. The figures vary somewhat about who is implementing what at the moment, which is one very good reason for close monitoring. However, with the Commission for Social Care Inspection we have a new and more robust method for following the matter up. With the voluntary sector's participation, I am sure that we will be pressed to reduce the inequalities in the service, as is quite right.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, local health and social services partnerships are working to achieve the targets set out by the Department of Health in our public service agreement and priorities and planning framework, assisted by the £300 million provided in the three years to March 2006 to increase capacity and reduce inequalities. Future developments will be determined by recommendations in the National Service Framework for Children, which is due to be published later this year.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would she agree that, sometimes at a local level, the services are not adequate or given sufficient prominence? Will she give examples of good practice at a local level that might be replicated?

My Lords, 10 years ago, mental health services for children were nowhere on the political map, and the situation is now very different. One of the most difficult challenges is to get local authorities to work closely with health and education services, and we are beginning to see them do so. As the noble Baroness may know, the emerging framework of the National Service Framework for Children, which was published last year, set out a draft children and adult mental health service plan that local authorities could follow. It was a comprehensive plan for children's services, and they are beginning to follow it. It has a very heavy emphasis on partnership. The emerging framework spends pages talking about good partnership, what it should look like and how it should be achieved.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue is very broad? She will no doubt have seen the latest WHO study of more than 150,000 young people, which found that teenagers in England in particular, but also their counterparts in Scotland and Wales, have some of the highest rates of drinking, smoking, drug use and underage sex, and the lowest levels of life satisfaction. That is the root of some of the problems under discussion. What are the Government doing to work in conjunction with the Health Development Agency, particularly in schools, to try to root out some of the problems before they arise in the acute form?

My Lords, the WHO paints a rather dire picture. There has recently been a positive development in respect of schools. The National Healthy Schools Standard has published its module on promoting emotional health and well-being as part of the PSHE curriculum as a whole. We need to pay a great deal more attention to promoting positive mental health throughout the curriculum, and that is a place to start.

I shall deal with how we are responding to adolescent crises. We have created 41 early intervention teams to pick up early signs of psychosis, follow through with families, and provide the support to make sure that those young people are treated early. That will help a great deal. It does not deal with the preventive aspect, but it is a response that we need to make. In terms of what we do about the psychological health of our young people, we do not just start with mental health services, it goes very far back to family support during early development.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report last week from the Office for National Statistics that about half of the children in public care in Wales and Scotland have a mental health disorder? Are the one in four such children who are now fostered outside their local authority getting proper access to child and adolescent mental health services? Will she undertake to check that there are adequate relations between local primary care trusts and out of authority CAMH services?

Yes, my Lords, it is a serious problem because children who are taken into care, whether foster care or residential care, come with a history of trauma, abuse or neglect which sets them apart from other children. They have to be provided for properly. There is a series of innovative projects on children and adolescent mental health services being funded by the Department of Health that has just come to a conclusion. Many of those projects address the issue of children in care.

In terms of foster care, what we are doing to train foster carers and to enable them to draw on services in a more positive way will help a great deal, as will what we are doing in schools with designated teachers. I am absolutely sure that there is more that we should be doing. We should be closely watching the Quality Protects and Choice Protects programmes to make sure that they pick up on this.

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is aware that yesterday saw the launch of the Mental Health Research Network. Can she confirm that research into children's mental illnesses will be included in its portfolio and that funding will be made available for that purpose?

My Lords, the Mental Health Research Network will act as a host to partnership arrangements to promote high quality research on mental health across all age groups. So I am sure that there will be reference to children. It means that we can conduct bigger research studies that will involve more clinicians, researchers and so on. I should also tell my noble friend—I am sure that he has not forgotten, because it was such good news—that we have announced £100 million over the next four years, £25 million a year, to develop medical research. Two of the four priority groups will be medicines for children and mental health. So, we are looking to more activity in that field.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that adolescents often fall between the adults and the children as far as services are concerned? Will she tell the House if there are enough services and beds in this country for those people with eating problems such as anorexia?

My Lords, I cannot answer the last question. I do not think that I could ever answer a question which asked me whether there was enough of anything, particularly in mental health services. However, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the particular problems that occur with 16 and 17 year-olds, because often local authorities will provide well up to the age of 16 and then expect the adult services to take up the 16 to 18 year-olds, although some do not. The 16 and 17 year-olds sometimes fall into that gap, which is totally unacceptable. We expect the National Service Framework for Children to ensure that we have proper, coherent services that are accountable and which provide across that age group, because the answer to psychosis often lies with young people aged 16 and 17.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords—

Hear, hear.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their support.

We have developed several initiatives to improve skin disease services. In particular, we have funded the Action On Dermatology programme. New drugs for skin disease have been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Between September 1997 and December 2003, consultant numbers in dermatology increased by 35 per cent.

My Lords, I must declare an interest, having had a long association with dermatology and being a member of the all-party parliamentary group. I thank the Minister for her reply and apologise that she has had to work so hard on health issues today. I certainly recognise the importance of the Action On programme and the increase in consultant numbers. However, the Government now have the GMS contract for general practice. Given that 10 per cent of the population suffer from eczema conditions and 80 per cent of adolescents have acne, some of them so seriously that they are driven to suicide, there is a huge need for having skin disease represented in the quality framework for primary care, so that there is adequate education of the primary care team. The National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions seems to have omitted inflammatory skin disease from its long list of conditions that need ongoing care. Does the Minister intend to make sure that those two small omissions will be rectified?

My Lords, they are not small omissions in that creating a national service framework is a huge undertaking, which is why we only ever do one a year and is why we are currently preparing one for children. We may consider one on dermatology in future, but these exercises are major challenges to capacity in the health service and have good outcomes when they work. Regarding GPs, the best news that I could give the noble Baroness is that 104 GPs, 35 nurses and one combined service have opted to become GPs with special interests in dermatology, which is encouraging. It is also significant that that represents more interest than has been shown for any other specialism. I hope that that will spread because, the noble Baroness is right. The incidence of skin disease is extremely high and we may not have taken it seriously enough in some ways.

My Lords, after that good news, will the Minister confirm that the omission of inflammatory skin diseases from the White Paper to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred does not mean that those skin diseases will not be included in the establishment of chronic disease management clinics? Will those clinics also have the function of dealing with inflammatory skin diseases, which constitute something like the fourth highest chronic disease in the country?

My Lords, I simply cannot give the noble Lord the answer to that. I shall have to write to him. As he says, it would seem likely that they would, given that inflammatory skin disease is a chronic condition—although not necessarily life-threatening. However, I shall certainly find out and write to him.

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Psoriasis Association. Does the Minister feel that the waiting lists are adequate for people with skin problems, given that some parts of the country, including north Wales and the West Country, are very short of dermatologists?

My Lords, let me give more good news: consultant numbers have increased by 35 per cent. Interestingly, the number of doctors in training has also increased by 32 per cent, so we have a rosier picture in terms of recruitment and waiting times. No patient is waiting more than 12 months for admission to hospital—there were 74 in 1997. In March 1997 there were almost 29,000 patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment following GP referral. Now there are only 2,652. Waiting lists are coming down, particularly for skin cancer, where 98 per cent of people are seen by a consultant within two weeks of being referred by a GP. So there is some genuinely good news on waiting times.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government's main contribution to UNEP this year has been a £4.2 million donation to its main Environment Fund, making us the single largest donor to the fund this year. In addition, the UK provides funding for specific UNEP activities, such as on great apes and coral reefs. On World Environment Day the Government supported UNEP in its call for urgent international action on cold water coral reefs.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that countless marine species and important undersea habitats are at risk and that marine life, human health and livelihoods are threatened, largely by land-based sources of pollution? These are all exacerbated by climate change. Bearing in mind this important day, are any more initiatives likely to be founded?

My Lords, my noble friend is clearly right that the oceans are under significant pressure not only from global warming and climate change but also from development, over-fishing and pollution generally. It is important that the UK plays its part in tackling those problems. We set out our full policies in our first marine stewardship report, published two years ago. We are now taking that forward in an update, taking into account our commitments under the WSSD programme. As to today, which, as noble Lords are presumably aware, is World Oceans Day, the UK Government, along with our EU partners, will be calling for urgent action at the UN to protect high-seas biodiversity in particular.

My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what he believes the UN Environment Programme can do realistically in regard to, in particular, informing the developing countries of the seriousness of climate change? Frankly, I was unaware that today is World Oceans Day. But we must all be aware of the real threat that now comes from climate change. When developing countries put in new industrial equipment, does the UN Environment Programme not have a real role to play in helping those countries to ensure that that equipment emits less carbon dioxide than do the present, older industrial structures in Europe? Is that a programme that the UN Environment Programme will put in place?

My Lords, the UN Environment Programme will be looking at various impacts, including that of climate change on biodiversity, the nature of the oceans and the cleanliness of the oceans. The issue of switching away from carbon-based industrial development goes wider than the responsibilities of UNEP, and it is being pursued to a large extent under the Kyoto process and other commitments in which developed countries are taking the lead. But it is clear that the developing countries must be encouraged by all means possible—partnership, aid, trade and private investment—to engage in less carbon-rich technologies in the course of their development than we adopted in the West in previous decades. That programme is the responsibility of us all and it is being pursued by both UN agencies and the UK Government.

My Lords, the fact that many noble Lords, together, I suspect, with the rest of the country, are unaware that we have just had World Environment Day and that today is World Oceans Day says to me that the Government have failed to take advantage of what has been put in place to inform citizens of environmental issues. The Government should take a leaf out of the RSPB's book, in whose Big Garden Birdwatch an enormous section of the population of this country took part. I suspect that our beaches and marine environment would benefit from people being more aware of the issues that surround them.

My Lords, the Government certainly respect the requirement to inform the public and undertake to do so. If individuals and individual enterprises do not recognise the threats that exist to our environment and change their behaviour, then, in many respects, whatever the number of resolutions, designated days or programmes, they will not reverse the degradation of the planet. As I said, in this context the UK Government are the largest donor to the UN Environment Programme Environment Fund, which, in part, is about informing as well as delivering programmes.

My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that the theme chosen for World Environment Day was "Wanted: Seas and Oceans—Dead or Alive". As the main day was celebrated in Barcelona, were the Spanish Government, as one of the hosts, able to offer any concessions towards the conservation of fish stocks and marine life?

My Lords, I say with some difficulty that it is true that the Spanish Government have signed up to the changes in the common fisheries policy, which I know some in this House would wish us to withdraw from just at the point where it is becoming a conservation, rather than an exploitation, policy, and the Spanish Government are part of that.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us the purpose of World Oceans Day, which I, like most people, seem not to know?

My Lords, it is designed to draw attention to, and bring about some activity in relation to, the problems surrounding oceans. It has clearly failed lamentably in the case of the noble Earl and many other Members of this House. Indeed, it is important that we do not focus on such matters simply on the day designated by particular international organisations. It is important that we have a proper and sustained programme on these issues.

My Lords, following my noble friend's question, is not the problem in this country that many people probably know a great deal about the Great Barrier Reef or underwater fishing or swimming in the Red Sea but they are totally unaware of the richness of the marine environment around our own shores?

My Lords, I think that, regrettably, that is correct, but the Government have taken a number of steps to create and protect marine sites around this country. We are drawing attention to the problems of development and have restricted development in the most vulnerable sites.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, given that this country has an extraordinary reputation historically in linking science to all forms of changes in the natural world, the answers that he has been able to offer from the Dispatch Box today might, in 30 years' time to anyone reading Hansard, look extraordinarily complacent?

My Lords, I do not think that that is fair comment. This country is the lead supporter of the UNEP Environment Fund and we have probably put more than anyone else into the development of the programme to mitigate and tackle the problems of climate change. Indeed, some would say that the Kyoto process would not have been achieved had it not been for the intervention of this Government. In Europe, we are seen fairly widely as the leader on virtually all environmental issues. It is, of course, an uphill struggle. That is, in part, due to the fact that we need to change the behaviour not of governments and institutions but of a large range of individuals and commercial enterprises. We all need to recognise that we have a responsibility to safeguard the future biodiversity of the planet and, indeed, as the noble Duke mentioned, the life of our oceans and our atmosphere.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, before answering, I shall make my usual declaration of interest. I was a QC; my wife is a QC; and my brother-in-law is a QC.

Decisions on how long the interim scheme should continue and in what form will be taken in the light of the outcome of the longer-term study of the legal market and Sir David Clementi's review of the regulation of the legal profession.

My Lords, this is an issue of some importance, and I regret that the noble and learned Lord did not choose to make an oral Statement. That would have given us an opportunity for a short debate—or, indeed, given the number of QCs in this House, perhaps a long one. Does the noble and learned Lord recognise that the interim scheme is, in effect, the restoration of the status quo and must not be allowed to continue indefinitely? Is he prepared to set a timescale for the introduction of the wider scheme mentioned in his Written Statement and, if so, what timescale does he have in mind?

My Lords, it is not a continuation of the status quo in that the decisions about who should become a QC will now be taken by the professions—namely, solicitors and the Bar—as opposed to the Government. We felt that it was wrong to abolish the rank of QC when there was considerable evidence that it benefited the market—in particular, so far as concerned the international business that came to London in relation to legal services.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that uncertainty is a great disadvantage to busy barristers? It is essential that the Government reach a final conclusion in this matter—preferably one which enables Queen's Counsel to continue as before.

My Lords, so far as concerns the uncertainty for barristers, the Written Statement that I made to this House made it clear that we hoped that the professions would put in place a scheme that allowed practitioners to apply for Silk towards the end of this year with a view to decisions being made early next year. I hope that that deals with the question of uncertainty relating to individual barristers.

Dealing with the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I believe that it would be wrong to set a time limit on the length of the interim scheme because we need to see both the results of the market study and the report of Sir David Clementi.

My Lords, given that last year was regrettably a fallow year in the appointment of Her Majesty's Counsel, will that be taken into account in the numbers that are envisaged when normal service is resumed, albeit in a different form? I declare my interest.

My Lords, plainly it is for the professions to determine how the decisions are made. But my noble and learned friend is absolutely right: it was a year when no QCs were appointed, and no doubt that will have an effect on the applications.

My Lords, will the scheme worked out by the professions be subject to the agreement of the noble and learned Lord? If so, will he bear in mind the necessity for playing fair by the provincial Bar and by the specialised Bar?

My Lords, as I made clear in the Written Statement that I made on this point, it is for the professions to work out of what the scheme should consist. The role of the Minister is to pass the recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen. I would do so only if I were satisfied that the scheme was fair, that it promoted fairness and diversity and that it ensured that merit was the criteria.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he was a QC. Would the present tense be more accurate? I was invited to a nice lunch today, at which he spoke and on the invitation he was described as a QC. I am not sure what he considers his position to be at present.

My Lords, my understanding is that on becoming Lord Chancellor I ceased to be one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the law because I became one of Her Majesty's judges.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise not only that counsel—who have been very well represented in the House—should have a say, but that the solicitors' profession is very important in this matter? Would my noble and learned friend underline that?

My Lords, I welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He is the first person to have spoken in the debate so far who is not or has not been at some stage a QC. My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke of World Oceans Day in an answer, so perhaps we should describe this as "World QC Day". Of course, there is an important role to be played by the solicitors' profession in the selection of people who are to become QCs. Both professions will play a role in the selection.

My Lords, I speak as someone who has no interest to declare in this matter, unless the noble and learned Lord wishes to change his mind. Does the noble and learned Lord consider that it would have been better to have instituted a scheme before getting rid of the old one?

My Lords, the criticisms made about the way in which the old scheme operated, in particular by Sir Colin Campbell and the Judicial Appointments Commission, made the Government conclude that it would be impossible to continue on the old basis. The arrangement that we have made allows for the market to be looked at and, at the same time, the position of QCs will not be prejudiced. For example, because of the arrangement that we shall put in place for the professions, those who apply this year may be selected as QCs next time.

My Lords, given that there is a backlog caused by the hiatus, does the noble and learned Lord consider that the interim scheme will be able to double the number of QCs—I plead guilty to being one—or will there be roughly the same proportion as in the past? Will we see a shoal of QCs appointed this year?

My Lords, that is roughly the same question as my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon asked. It is a matter for the professions when they set up the scheme as to who they select. I know there was a year when no appointments were made. No doubt that will be taken into account in the arrangements that are made.

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government seem to be losing control of the supply of Queen's Counsel, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the whole matter should be referred to the Office of Fair Trading and to the Monopolies Commission?

My Lords, I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, because he is the first non-lawyer to have spoken on this subject. The OFT considered the matter, and we considered what it said before drawing the conclusion that the right course was to continue on the basis that I have described, but also to look at the market overall. No doubt, the views of the OFT will be taken into account when we do that.

rose to move, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

rose to move, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of:

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Filkin.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This amendment addresses an issue which was discussed at length in Standing Committee in another place.

Clause 21(1) provides that a person will not be regarded as having changed gender solely by virtue of having changed gender under the law of another country or territory. This is necessary because standards for recognition are not uniform throughout the world, and we wish to ensure that the UK grants recognition only to those individuals who have recognition in a country or territory with criteria at least as rigorous as our own.

Where other countries' criteria are as rigorous as our own, people in that position should receive recognition under a simpler process, and this is provided in Clause 1(1)(b). Conversely, if the recognition is from a country or territory with criteria that do not meet our standards, we believe that, to gain recognition in this country, an individual should have to apply in the standard way, with the gender recognition panels scrutinising a full set of evidence.

Questions were raised in Standing Committee in another place about whether a different approach was warranted for those who have recognition in another country from the European Economic Area. We reviewed the position in light of the comments and concluded that it would be useful to clarify that Clause 21 is subject to any enforceable right under EC law.

The amendment reflects the fact that in practice a national of another country in the European Economic Area who has been granted legal recognition of their gender change in their own country will not need to apply for a UK gender recognition certificate. Equally, no further application will be required for recognition of the post-recognition opposite-sex marriage of an EEA national.

We have recently completed our research on gender recognition across the EEA. This indicates that all the EEA states that have systems for recognition have criteria for recognition that are as rigorous as our own. We expect to add all these states to the list of approved countries, and individuals with recognition there would be able to apply for a UK gender recognition certificate under the simplified process in Clause 1(1)(b) if they wished to do so, but would not be obliged to do so.

This broad mutuality of standards within the EEA also means that the risk that we foresee in extending the principle of mutual recognition any further, and of accepting overseas recognition given on criteria less rigorous than our own, does not arise on the amendment that we have proposed.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Filkin.)

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, can he explain why the reference is to Community rights and not to European Community rights? Does that involve the issue of rights of people from European Economic Area states or not? It seems slightly odd. Secondly, what will happen if a European Community state grants recognition to someone on the basis of an application that has been made and accepted in a third country, whose standards are not acceptable to the United Kingdom? Would such a person become acceptable whether the recognition is endorsed by a European Community country or not?

My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, the changes we are making following the Standing Committee consideration of the issue, simply ensure that the Bill complies with the free movement rights enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome 1957. As the House will know, when the UK Government joined the European Community in 1972 we signed up to the various obligations in the Treaty of Rome, and the European Union Community law was given legal effect in the UK by the European Communities Act 1972. If memory serves me right, its effect goes slightly wider than the members of the European Union Community because it also includes Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

I think that addresses the first part of the noble Lord's question. As to the second part, were a member of the European economic area to grant legal recognition to someone from another country, I assume that it would apply its own domestic tests and rights of eligibility. As I said, our research indicates that those countries in the European economic area which grant legal status for recognition to people for a gender change have processes which appear to be at least as rigorous as ours.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a complementary question. Is he satisfied that someone who is granted a gender reassignment certificate in this country will be fully accepted throughout the European Community on the basis of our tests? Given that we will not have some of the requirements of other countries—for example, evidence of being a post-operative transsexual—is he satisfied that our citizens will have equal rights when they travel abroad in the European Community?

Yes, my Lords, I am. It follows that the rights that we recognise that we have and obligations to recognition processes in other member states apply exactly to the rights we grant our residents in that respect. We and they are caught by the obligations of the Treaty of Rome with regard to the free movement of peoples. So, yes, we can have no doubt that they should be secure.

My Lords, is there an enforceable Community right which, but for this provision, the Act might contravene?

My Lords, it is to avoid any doubt that the Commons have made this amendment and why we believe that it is right to do so. As I said when I introduced the amendment, we believe that the Treaty of Rome already gives these rights. Therefore, we are ensuring that there is no implicit contradiction to that by the Bill as it was drafted when it left this place.

My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say previously that the free movement of people was in question. Does that mean that the free movement of people requirement would carry with it an implication about recognition of a gender status? Or is he really depending on the fact that apparently in most if not all the European economic area countries the tests are in his view as rigorous as our own?

My Lords, that relates to the former point rather than to the latter. The latter point was a point of comfort to those who might have had any anxiety in that respect.

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point which I raised originally with the noble Lord. I do not think his reply was unduly clear. There are more communities than the European Community. It seems to me that to leave this bare reference to "the Community" or "Community rights" is not adequate. Can the Minister give us some precedents for that? If not, perhaps he will consider that this should be set out as rights under the European Communities Act, or something of that kind, or as rights of citizens of the European economic area, the European Union or whatever other organisation he likes to list. But the matter does not seem to be terribly precise.

Secondly, although I hope that all our partners in Europe will uphold the same high standards in the application of Community law as this country, I am not sure that that is necessarily true.

My Lords, as to the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, were that to be the case there would he a right of redress in the courts to an individual who felt so aggrieved.

On the other issue of enforceable Community rights, that is the term referred to in Section 2 of the European Communities Act.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. The amendment removes the privilege amendment passed in your Lordships' House at Third Reading.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2—(Lord Filkin.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.

During proceedings of the Standing Committee in another place there was discussion of an amendment, the effect of which would have been to require the president of a gender recognition panel to make an annual report to Parliament.

At that time my colleague, David Lammy, gave the assurance that the panels will report annually as part of the tribunals service. He went on to say that the Council on Tribunals will also undertake a supervisory role, reviewing the work of the panels from time to time and investigating any matters referred to it. I gave a similar assurance in correspondence back in February to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to members of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

As many noble Lords know, the Council on Tribunals plays a valuable role in supervising judicial panels. These powers are set out in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. The Council on Tribunals reports annually to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor. By conferring this supervisory role in respect of a gender recognition panel, the president of the panel will be able to take advantage of the council's specialist knowledge in the good governance of judicial panels.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Filkin.)

My Lords, as this is the conclusion of our interesting discussions on the Bill, I should like to pay tribute to the Bill team, to Peter Thompson and to all the officials who have worked well, and particularly for the way in which they have engaged positively with both those who disagreed and those who agreed with us outside the Chamber. That was exactly what I wanted. I compliment them on that.

moved Amendment No.1:

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She is right to point out that Ministers have now made several assurances that they are addressing the problem. At this stage I very much look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to do so.

Clearly, there is an issue. I have found it difficult to get my brain round the difficulty that arises from the replacement of the visitor system for student complaints on the grounds that it does not satisfy the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the ECHR, yet apparently the Government are prepared to allow the loose end whereby staff are expected under the Bill to continue to use the visitor system. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence on this matter. She certainly has our support in pressing the Government to resolve it now.

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that Universities UK, of which I am chief executive, and as such declare an interest, has opposed amendments in this House and another place that seek to bring all staff complaints within the remit of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. We have done so for a number of reasons, which I shall briefly outline.

I want to make it clear that opposition to these amendments does not mean that we do not recognise that there is a small number of staff complaints in pre-1992 universities which still fall within the jurisdiction of the visitor. Indeed, in Committee I made it clear that there is an issue that warrants further discussion, not least because of the ruling of this House in 1993 that, where the visitor acts within his jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is exclusive and complainants are prevented from seeking redress from the courts. As I think I made clear, there is a question over whether the right way to address that is to remove the visitor's jurisdiction or to remove the immunity from judicial review.

Following the report of the Nolan committee, Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals established a group to devise guidelines on procedures for higher education institutions in dealing with public interest complaints. Those guidelines included a final stage for independent appeal against the findings or penalties concluding the internal procedures. The group recommended that all institutions should adopt such procedures.

UUK is committed to reviewing the guidance, so this is an area that we can find an early opportunity to revisit. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has been disappointed with the time that it has taken to respond to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill relating to such complaints. Those are now being taken forward. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will be reassured to know that I have written to the general-secretary of the Association of University Teachers to invite her to meet me and other interested parties to discuss the issues raised by the debates in this House and in another place. Although I remain opposed to the idea that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is the appropriate forum for all staff complaints, I hope that through discussion we can find a satisfactory way forward.

There are clearly a number of other issues that should be explored. It would not be right to pre-judge the appropriate way forward without being clear about the nature and extent of the problem.

The amendment includes all staff complaints. Noble Lords will be aware that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator already operates as a voluntary scheme. It was established to deal with student complaints alone. Its establishment was the result of consultation with the sector as to the best way forward. It would not be right at this stage, and in this way, to extend its remit so dramatically.

Notwithstanding the areas in which the visitor retains exclusive jurisdiction in pre-1992 universities, we should not lose sight of the fact that staff and students are in essence and in law very different categories. The relationship between higher education institutions and their students is distinct from the relationship between those institutions and their staff. That said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will agree that the passage of the Higher Education Bill has thrown light on that subject. I join other noble Lords in congratulating her on her dogged pursuit of the issue.

My Lords, I join both noble Lords who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for raising these issues. As I said in Committee, there is a real issue to be resolved.

I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate that we accepted during the debate in another place and in Committee that the current position was far from ideal, particularly the visitor's jurisdiction over staff complaints. As noble Lords have pointed out, there is an inconsistency in removing the visitor's jurisdiction over student complaints but not that over staff complaints. There is also an inconsistency between staff rights in chartered universities and those in new universities.

We accept that we should address those problems now; therefore we have tabled an amendment today to remove the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor over academic staff. If it has taken us a little while to get to this point, it was in the effort to ensure that we got the right solution rather than just a solution. However, it is clear that the student complaints scheme as currently proposed would not be appropriate for staff, as it relies on institutions accepting the recommendations of the reviewer—without the consensus at present on the coverage of staff, they are unlikely to do so.

It is for Universities UK, the Universities and Colleges Employers Association and the staff unions to consider whether separate independent review arrangements need to be put in place. I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, indicate that Universities UK will be willing to discuss the problems and the current arrangements with the Association of University Teachers, and others. I am sure that that will be welcomed and encouraged by your Lordships' House. Should the parties want the Department for Education and Skills to be involved in these discussions, which would consider the merit of alternative arrangements and the benefits of applying those across the sector, we would obviously be willing to offer our support.

I stress that once the visitor's exclusive jurisdiction is removed he or she will still be able to act in a non-visitorial capacity as an independent reviewer on staff complaints on, for example, matters of academic freedom. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will accept that in the timescale available in this Bill it is not possible to achieve a complete resolution of the issue. However, we have made some progress, and we can use the Bill to address the anomaly—

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister; I am a bit of a new boy here. He said that he had tabled an amendment today. Could he point out where it is? I am not aware of the text of the amendment, or where it has been tabled.

My Lords, the amendment, which removes visitorial jurisdiction, comes relatively late in the order, and I will ensure that its precise identification is available to the noble Lord as quickly as possible.

For the moment, while we have made progress, we can use the Bill to address the anomaly that we all accept exists in the visitors' jurisdiction. We also welcome the point that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, to offer discussions to the staff unions, and we hope that those discussions will progress well. Apparently the amendment is before Clause 43. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I was unaware that the new amendment had been tabled. Am I right in thinking that it is Amendment No. 52A? No, that is on the right of appeal. The amendment is not on the Marshalled List, so I take it that we shall be considering this amendment at Third Reading. The Minister indicated to me in discussions that we had outside the Chamber that he was likely to be fairly forthcoming on this issue, so I was expecting a fairly benign answer from him, as indeed we have had. I take it that we will see an amendment at Third Reading.

I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported me, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for the good news that Universities UK and the Association of University Teachers will be getting down to talks on this matter. As I indicated in Committee, my main purpose in tabling this amendment was to try to get some movement on this issue—

My Lords, I owe the House an immediate apology. My belief was that the amendment was tabled today, but I understand that in fact it is being tabled, and it will be available for the debate in your Lordships' House next Monday. If I have caused any misapprehensions, I entirely apologise, but the material will be there, and it will precisely meet the specifications that I have identified.

My Lords, as I say, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the real effort that I know that he has put in to securing some movement on this issue. It is excellent that that is so. This issue has been around for the past four or five years. We have a good student appeals and complaints mechanism up and running now, and let us hope that within the next year we can see some positive movement. Staff complaints is a fairly minor area, but it is a nagging area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment, which answers precisely the points that I raised in our discussions in Committee. It was not a major issue, but for those affected this amendment means a great deal. I raised the original amendment on behalf of the Royal National Institute for the Blind and for Skill, the organisation that campaigns on behalf of disabled students. I pass on their thanks to the Minister. In the ordinary course of events, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, speaks on behalf of Skill. As some noble Lords may know, she has been indisposed for some time, but she was back yesterday, and I was able to tell her that we had secured this amendment and she was extremely pleased. She asked me to give her thanks to the Minister.

While discussing disability issues, I also thank the Minister for the letter of clarification in relation to Clause 12(2) and complaints by disabled students about the failure of institutions to make reasonable adjustments to academic processes. It would be useful to get some part of that letter on the record, and I will read one paragraph. The Minister wrote to me:

"It is, as you say, not possible to list all the circumstances in which complaints may qualify, as teaching and assessment methods differ between institutions and within subject areas, and, of course, the OIA will make its decisions on the individual circumstances of each complaint. However, I can confirm that if students are excluded from components of a course, such as field trips, work placements or study abroad and the institution fails to make reasonable adjustments to the assessment arrangements, including to the maximum marks that can be achieved, then such complaints would come within the remit of the reviewer. Similarly, if disabled students are treated less favourably than other students in terms of resources available to them, then these too are complaints which are within the reviewer's remit. Of course, we would normally expect the student to exhaust the internal complaints procedures of the institution before referring the case to the reviewer to allow the institution to resolve any problems".

I am grateful to the Minister for this clarification, which has helped to identify and calm the fears around that issue. This is a very satisfactory outcome to the probings that we made on these two issues in Committee. I thank the Minister.

My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on this amendment, which the Government proposed in Committee in answer to an amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and another in the names of my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe. Both covered the single point that this Bill and the Disability Discrimination Act differ in one important respect, that of the time given to disabled students to complain of unfair treatment in higher education establishments. Thanks to this government amendment, which was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and by the RNIB and Skill, the Bill and the Act are now on a par. As the Minister has pointed out, it is not only disabled students who need the extra two months, but those who are sexually or racially discriminated against; something that I confess did not occur to me in Committee. My stance then, that it would be easier to amend previous legislation than this Bill, has been vindicated. I am extremely grateful.

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, I am happy to add my name to this amendment and therefore to support it very much in the terms that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. When I began practice in the National Health Service at its inception in 1948—I subsequently served in it for 40 years—there were repeated problems and many conflicts between the members of the medical profession on the one hand and government on the other relating to pay and other financial support for doctors.

The first row came within two years when GPs complained, as independent contractors, that their salaries were inadequate. It turned out that the Government had taken GP income tax returns before the National Health Service as a guide to what their subsequent remuneration should be. When the GPs found that to be inadequate, it perhaps suggested that general practitioners were no more honest than the rest of the population in relation to their income tax returns.

Over the years, there was conflict after conflict. There were repeated negotiations between doctors, government and the Department of Health in relation to remuneration issues, which were sometimes so bitter and prolonged that the late Baroness Castle of Blackburn, when she was Secretary of State for Health, referred to the British Medical Association as the shock troops of the middle classes.

This preamble is relevant because when ultimately the Government agreed to establish a review body relating to the remuneration of doctors and dentists those conflicts ceased. Ever since that review body was established, there has been a satisfactory situation where government and the profession have agreed with the advice of that review body on all issues relating to remuneration. Similar issues arose over the pay of nurses and teachers and other review bodies have been similarly effective.

When the Bett report on academic salaries was published a few years ago, I remember asking a question in this House. The then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who I am glad to see in her place, said that the Bett report was an important report but that the remuneration of academic staff was a matter for the universities and not for government. No doubt, we shall get the same response from the Minister today.

A major issue of remuneration of university academic and research staff exists in the terms that were so clearly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. To establish a review body to give advice to government on the remuneration of teachers and researchers in higher and further education would help to resolve that problem. I am therefore happy to support the amendment.

My Lords, I spoke on this issue before. Again, perhaps I may warmly congratulate the two noble Lords who have spoken on the principle of what has been raised. There is no question but that the low level of academic stipend has been an extraordinary national scandal for a very long time; in fact, since 1979–80. These are very talented people who, commonly and necessarily, because they do graduate work, enter the profession later than many other people. Although top salaries have risen, the starting point is still very low, the spine is very long and the general economic and financial expectations of university teachers are appalling. I speak as a former vice-chancellor. The situation was bad nine years ago and it is worse now.

We have funding for the universities, which is enormously welcome, but, inevitably, the new funding will go into proper development and the building up of the superstructure facilities for students, and so forth. There will not be anything like sufficient funds for those very talented, very poorly paid people in our society. It may be that the Government will say that this is perhaps the wrong Bill in which to have this particular proposal, which I can understand. But if that is the reply, I should be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister would tell us what would be the right Bill and what would be the procedure.

It seems that a yardstick of some unassailable kind is needed for university stipends: when I began as a university teacher in the 1950s, they were part of the public service scales of the Civil Service. That has long been set aside. Now university teachers are left to the mercy of cash-strapped universities and the most valuable people—the people who create our university system—are the victims. If the amendment is not acceptable in its present form, I hope that we shall hear from the Government what would be acceptable and whether very urgent action will or will not be taken to deal with this national scandal.

My Lords, I agree so strongly with the three speeches that have just been made that there is very little to add. I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Bath. I think that a great many problems in the economy and social matters can often be helped towards a solution if there is a degree of publicity and transparency surrounding them.

It may be very well known in this House, in academia or in Whitehall that academic salaries have fallen very far behind comparable activities, but I do not believe that it is so tremendously well known in the public at large. My impression is that among the public at large there is a certain misunderstanding about the levels of remuneration for academics and a certain assumption that everyone lives like Oxbridge dons used to live before the war. It may be surprising that that misapprehension remains, but I think that to a large degree it does in many circles.

Therefore, the important point in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is his reference to providing "independent advice". I think that the provision of independent advice, which would, I hope, receive a suitable amount of publicity in the newspapers, and so forth, would contribute to public understanding and therefore to the resolution of the problem.

I am struck by the success achieved over time—it did take a long time—by the Senior Salaries Review Body in bringing about an improvement in the salaries of senior civil servants and even, to some extent, of Ministers. The extent to which senior civil servants now earn salaries below those of their comparators in some other professions is much less than it was before these matters received publicity.

I want to make only one small comment on the wording of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It refers to comparability between academic salaries and those of other professions. For this body to do its work most effectively, it should compare full professors in universities with personal assistants in the financial services sector. Personal assistants in financial services provide an indispensable service, as I know well and to my own benefit, but it is strange that full professors in universities often earn less than such personal assistants. Comparisons of that sort and, indeed, of others made by an advisory body of this kind would be helpful.

Of course I accept, along with other noble Lords, that it is for the universities themselves as employers to take decisions about how much their employees are to be paid, but that in itself is not an argument against a body of the sort recommended by my noble friend. Quite apart from whatever the Minister may say about who is responsible for salaries, I would be very interested to hear why it would be a bad thing for more publicity and transparency to be brought to bear in this area.

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Josiah Mason sixth-form college in my former parliamentary constituency of Birmingham Erdington. There is a certain attraction in this amendment and I think that there is agreement on all sides of the House that academic salaries in both higher and further education have become out of kilter. However, I have to say how much I agree with a note I have received from the Association of Colleges, which may also have been sent to other noble Lords. It makes the point that this amendment is an attempt to treat both the higher education sector and the further education sector as if they were parts of the public sector. They are not. Indeed, it was the noble Lord's government of a few years ago that took them out of the public sector and incorporated them as independent bodies. Since then they have been responsible for their own affairs.

I turn now to talk about the further education sector. After many difficulties during the changeover period, the colleges are now responsible for negotiating levels of salary with all their staff, not only their academic staff. An immediate effect of this amendment, were it to be carried, would be to do away with that system, thus sending us back to conducting a plethora of negotiations in colleges up and down the land.

The more important objection to the amendment is that it attacks the independence of colleges. Certainly it was my experience, when the colleges were taken out of the public sector and made to stand on their feet, that part of that process meant that, while standing on their own feet they also went for each other's throats. I can say from personal knowledge that in the city of Birmingham there was a period of some years when every college wanted to attract the maximum number of students. They did not care two hoots about what happened to the college down the road and, let it be said, little consideration was given to the courses on offer—whether they repeated courses already available a couple of miles away or whether the needs of certain groups of students were ignored altogether. What had happened was that the accountants were put in control.

Happily, those days are over. I can speak only of the City of Birmingham, but today there is extremely good co-operation between the colleges in the city. I hope that that is also the case elsewhere. Colleges sit down together to plan provision across the city for the various age groups, not least for the enormous number of adult part-time students who, rather than going back into education, are increasingly entering education properly for the first time in their lives. Instead of colleges competing with each other, sensible co-operation now applies.

I have some sympathy for the wish to put the clock back, but I do not think for a moment that the noble Lord is arguing for a return of colleges of further education to the public sector. However, given that they stand on their own feet, I do not see how what is suggested in the amendment can be imposed upon these independent bodies.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, cited the experience of the National Health Service, which makes my point exactly. The National Health Service is in the public sector with one employer, the Government. That example helps to make my point in objecting to what is being proposed in the amendment. Not for a minute do I seek to quarrel with anyone who points out that there is a real crisis in the payment levels of those in higher and further education which ought to be addressed, but I do not feel that this is the way in which to do so.

My Lords, I am reminded of the days when I was a parliamentary candidate. When knocking on doors and canvassing, people would say, "I would vote for you if I thought you could win". I have much sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, as well as for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Detchant, who emphasised the satisfactory work of pay review bodies on some occasions. Nevertheless, I also pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that the amendment seems to look back to a different era. As he rightly pointed out, colleges and universities are now independent. When we raised the issue of the Betts report, the answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at the time was that this is a "matter for the colleges". Today that is a fact.

A new pay scale has just been negotiated and agreed. It is a very long one and embraces its own areas. In a sense, therefore, a degree of locally negotiated pay is now coming in; the system is moving in that direction and it would be difficult to roll it back. Members on these Benches have sympathy for the case for a little more in terms of nationally negotiated arrangements but, equally, times have moved on. Therefore I do not feel that this amendment is appropriate.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has just pointed out that there is a new pay scale. However, the point here is that—as we were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, when this matter was raised in Committee—within universities staff pay accounts for 58 per cent of their total expenditure. That means that if academic salaries in the universities are to be brought up to a reasonable level, they need much more money, but the extra funding that they will receive under this Bill is to be limited by a cap. So the Government are doing nothing to help the universities achieve this.

I hope that the Minister is not going to say in response that this is a matter for the universities and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. However, she is smiling so perhaps that is exactly what she is going to say. However, that is simply not going to help the situation at all because the extra money under the Bill is so limited.

The point made by my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Renfrew that a little publicity would help things along is important. Whether that comes about from a review body or by some other means, regular publicity highlighting academic salaries would help the public to understand that the Government themselves are being extremely frustrating about this matter. Somehow, academic salaries have to improve, but if 58 per cent of universities' budgets is already accounted for in this way, it is no good us looking to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to achieve that unless it is given a lot more money to do so.

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in favour of the amendment for much the same reasons just outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour: it would give publicity to this issue. For some years, as Chancellor of a Scottish university, I have been all too aware of the very low level of academic salaries, but it is only recently that I have come more directly back into contact with Oxbridge, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. How distant it is from any dreams one might have had of what those places were like before the Second World War.

The college of which I am Master has recently lost a Fellow who concluded that he could no longer go on in the expectation of a salary that would always be lower than that of the driver of a train on the London Underground. Consequently we have lost a man of great brilliance and great potential.

I believe that there is a need to bring these facts to the attention of the informed public and Members of Parliament on a regular basis without, I hope, ever getting into a situation where that becomes restrictive. It is terribly important that universities should be able to raise salaries for academic staff who deserve it. We should not get into a situation where everything is rigidly set down in rules and flexibility is reduced.

My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has returned to the subject that he raised in Committee. I was very struck by what my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said. Not long ago, I was speaking to a leading law firm, not too far from here, and was told that its starting salaries were £80,000 a year. An academic finishing a career would not be earning anything approaching that kind of salary.

I have made the point in your Lordships' House before that academics are underpaid, under-resourced, undervalued but overburdened by bureaucracy. If we are to continue to deliver a high quality of education able to compete with that offered in other countries, each of these problems has to be addressed. My noble friend's amendment is therefore necessary but not sufficient.

I declare an interest not only as an academic but, perhaps more importantly in this context, as a head of department. I am conscious of the extent to which universities are surviving on the good will of academics. I am profoundly aware of how much members of my department are putting in to ensure a level of excellence in teaching and research that is not met by the salaries they receive. As the head of department I know the problems of recruitment and retention as a result of inadequate salaries and working conditions. We cannot carry on without addressing the question of poor salaries; we cannot carry on without addressing the issue of resources. That is why the later amendment on additionality is so important.

It can be argued—and has been—that the amendment may not be appropriate in the Bill, but I want to draw out the relationship between the Bill and the problem embodied in subsection (2)(b) of my noble friend's proposed new clause. Students will incur substantial debts in taking a first degree; if they want an academic career, they will need to devote their time and finances to acquiring a doctorate; by the time they are ready to enter the academic world in their mid to late twenties, they will be carrying a massive burden of debt. Why then should they go in to a poorly paid university job when they can earn far more abroad or in another profession? We must recognise the linkage.

We simply cannot go on as we are. There are already major problems with recruitment and retention. They will become worse if the cost of education increases and the salaries paid to academics continue to decline relative to other professions. For the reasons I have touched upon, I therefore welcome my noble friend's amendment. It addresses a major problem that confronts higher education and which is likely to become even more of a problem once the Bill has been enacted.

In replying, the Minister will not only be responding to a specific amendment but sending out a wider message to higher education. It is vital that that is not a negative message.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend not only on moving the amendment at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill but also on the splendid debate that we had at an earlier stage on the issue of academic salaries. I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments now.

On the face of it, the amendment looks like a well-designed fly for the Government; it should attract their attention. The Minister is looking puzzled. "Fly" as in fishing. It seeks to establish a review body which would achieve nothing, so it should have enormous appeal to the Government. It is very clever of my noble friend to have redrafted it in that way.

I am torn because the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, described academic salaries as a national scandal. I do not think it is a national scandal at all; I do not think the nation knows anything about it. I freely admit that it was a great shock to me to discover what academic salaries were. I found out only by virtue of the role I am carrying out in your Lordships' House in respect of the Bill. I fully acknowledge that some of the shame should be borne by me as well as by the Government because this happened on our watch when we were in government as much as it has happened under this Government.

But the notion that this serious problem—which goes to the central structure of the edifice of higher education in Britain—can be resolved by publicity and the setting up of a review body that will draw attention to the plight of academic salaries is, I fear, a mistake.

If one looks at the salaries of the vice-chancellors one notices that they have not been subject to the same constraint as some of those who work under them—there has been a movement in direction among the vice chancellors if not among the humble lecturers—but I do not believe for one moment that anyone responsible for running any of these institutions would not like to resolve the problem of academic pay tomorrow if they could. The way they would do that would be through resources and funding. While I do not wish to widen the scope of the consideration of the amendment, I do not believe that the Bill addresses the problem of under funding or will provide the resources to do so.

I have a high regard for my noble friend Lord Renfrew and I would like to support him, but I fear that to set up a body of this kind for the sake of creating publicity—a body which will, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, pointed out, interfere in what are essentially private institutions subject to public support—would be a mistake. I cannot support my noble friend's amendment but I very much support his urgent plea. I endorse his view that unless we address the question of academic pay we will see crumble our centres of excellence and our institutions of higher education.

My Lords, I never expected to find myself agreeing with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. He is absolutely right—it is not a good idea to set up institutions that are not very likely to produce results. I entirely agree with him—and therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat—that an academic salaries review body is hardly likely to lead to a huge amount of publicity in favour of the cause of increasing academic salaries. This is not an issue on which it is easy to engage the great British public. For all the wonderful work that academics do, they are not like nurses; they do not feature in the public imagination. So I do not believe that we should set up a body of this kind for that reason.

I also disagree with my noble friend Lord Morgan and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that there is not enough money under the Bill to make some difference to academic pay. It is not inevitable that all the money will go on facilities and other items related to better quality in terms of scientific laboratories, libraries and so on, although I hope there will be an improvement in them as well.

The Government, vice chancellors and those who manage universities must take a responsible view in looking at the extent to which academic salaries have fallen—and, in that sense, I am very sympathetic towards what lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—but I ultimately agree with my noble friend Lord Corbett. Universities and further education colleges—and we must never forget the colleges because a great deal of HE goes on in them—are independent institutions. I believe that it would be better—this is probably also the position of Universities UK, the body that represents universities—to leave decisions about academic salaries with the universities so that they have the discretion they need, rather than set up a salaries review body which is far more appropriate for those public services that are entirely run by the Government or their agencies, such as the NHS.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, mentioned that when the Betts review was being debated in this House, my response was that I thought it more appropriate for that task to be left to the universities. I said that as a Minister and I now say it again as someone who is about to become a vice-chancellor. I think that that will lead to better outcomes and I agree, therefore, with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that I was pleased that he was able to disentangle this issue from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I understand and appreciate all noble Lords' concern. The theme that has run through this debate has been everyone's concern about academic salaries. In our previous discussions, we have talked about the way in which they have lagged behind other salaries and pay awards. I do not think I need add anything more—we have acknowledged it. My noble friend Lady Blackstone acknowledged it as a Minister; my right honourable friend Alan Johnson has acknowledged it as a Minister; and it has been acknowledged in public many times by the department.

At the risk of saying exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, predicted I would say, we do not believe that it is the Government's job to regulate salaries in the further and higher education sector or, indeed, to dictate to institutions at what level they should set salaries.

The amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an implementation plan for the review body's recommendations. But the Secretary of State does not have any powers to control academic salaries, and the amendment does not confer any on him.

Higher and further education institutions are independent, autonomous bodies. We want to make sure that they are managing their own resources as they see fit. Institutions, as employers, are responsible for determining the level of pay for their staff through negotiation with staff and the relevant unions. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that was said by my noble friends Lord Corbett and Lady Blackstone.

My noble friend Lord Morgan asked which Bill such a proposal would belong in, if not this one. I do not think it is a question of a Bill. Noble Lords have raised very interesting issues. We have discussed the importance of the Betts report in this House and have talked about Universities UK and the joint negotiations taking place.

In terms of monitoring, measures are in place to extend the data that are now available on staffing matters in higher education through the Higher Education Statistics Agency. That will give institutions a better picture of the situation. From 2003–04 it will look at all academic staff and, for the first time, non-academic staff, and then at all categories of staff from 2004–05. That may generate a little more publicity, although I agree with my noble friend that academic pay does not capture the imagination in the way that the pay of nurses and others does—more's the pity, as I am sure your Lordships will believe, but that is the reality. It is important that we are very mindful of this and recognise the importance of academic pay in providing for world-class institutions and ensuring, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, that they do not crumble.

I believe that the Bill represents a way of supporting, with further funding, institutions in order to make the right kind of choices between investment of different kinds, including investment in their workforce, who are so critical. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is supportive of this. I look forward to his plans for further investment. Clearly I will have to get my fishing analogies right, which may be difficult. None the less, this is a very important subject.

We do not believe that this amendment is the right way to go. I accept that the issues are very dear to your Lordships and that it is right and proper for this House to continue to debate them. But we do not believe that the amendment would be effective in terms of doing anything appropriate for institutions. We think it is right for institutions to make the decisions; we think the new joint arrangements on negotiations should be given the opportunity to work effectively. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate and, indeed, a rather sad one. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for her very courteous treatment. "More's the pity" were her words—I quote her with accuracy, I think. That is the position that we have reached in university funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, did not suggest very many solutions but said that it was not easy to engage the great British public in the matter of university pay. To my regret, I think that that was the position of my noble friend on the Front Bench. If I felt that he had a clear plan up his sleeve to remedy university funding when the present Opposition are in power, then I would have been much more encouraged by that position.

I also listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. In her speech in Committee on the amendment which had the same intention, she said that she was with it in spirit but did not feel that it was in the right place in the Bill. That was when it was associated with the Arts and Humanities Research Council. So I was disappointed to sense today that she was less with the amendment in spirit than she had been, and I did not altogether understand the difference.

I used and withdrew the word "complacency" in a previous discussion on this amendment, but I want to reintroduce it into this discussion in the light of the debate we have just had. I have not heard one individual offer any hope of improvement except, perhaps, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who said that more money is coming into universities, so why do they not spend it in this way? I will study with great interest the salary trajectory within the university which is so fortunate as to have the noble Baroness as a future vice-chancellor. I predict that she will find it difficult to increase academic salaries substantially when most commentators on the Bill agree that the top-up fees will bring in sufficient funding to go about halfway towards covering current university deficits. I shall be very interested to learn how they are supposed to offer a significant enhancement in academic salaries.

The comments which impressed me the least—to say that I was irritated would be a discourtesy to noble Lords—were those of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. He said that since universities were not public bodies, we should not give attention in this form to their problems. It is perfectly true that universities are independent bodies and many of us wish that they were much more independent than they are. But one of the defects of the present Bill, it has been argued, is that the top-up fees are capped. I do not wish to enter into that argument; I simply remind noble Lords that if universities wish to spend more money on academic salaries, they would not have the means. My noble friend Lady Carnegy made the point very well: as more than half of the funding coming into universities goes on academic salaries, if the shortfall is of the order of 45 per cent over 20 years, how would they do this without increased funding from public sources?

The Minister's speech was entirely moderate and constructive, but I think that she used the word "regulate" at some point. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, seemed to imply that the proposed review body would be interfering with the independence of universities. I simply cannot believe that to be the case.

I think that this is a sufficiently significant amendment because this is a matter of deep concern in the universities. I noted with interest that Universities UK made no comment on this amendment, although it has on many earlier ones, and that, I hope, will be noticed in the country at large.

If noble Lords support me, I intend to test the opinion of the House. It is an occasion to stand up and be counted. I shall be interested to see how many noble Lords in my party are content to follow the Government's line. I shall be interested to see how many Liberal Democrats follow the line advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Although I am not hopeful of carrying the amendment, it is of sufficient importance that the country and universities at large should be able to see how Members of this House have voted and, therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 5:

My Lords, the noble Baroness suggested that she did not have support, but I have some sympathy for many of the points that she makes, and for her amendment. Indeed, the previous debate illustrated clearly the scale and extent of the problem and the lack of a remedy in the Bill. The provisions on fees in the Bill, with all the difficulties and hardships which they will cause to students who have to repay the fees over the course of their working lives, do not actually represent good value for money for the taxpayer. The cost of that whole machinery exceeds the revenues by at least £200 million.

I am at one with the noble Baroness in opposing the Bill's remedy on fees, but I cannot quite bring myself to support her amendment, because it leaves the other aspect of the Bill in place—the provisions which leave the universities subject to the OFFA regime and the provisions for access agreements. However, I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had earlier. Perhaps the noble Baroness can be persuaded to consider withdrawing her amendment and coming back at a later stage, focusing on the issue of fees alone. That issue is separate from the issue of access agreements and the role of OFFA, which we on these Benches find deeply repugnant.

My Lords, first, I should tell the noble Baroness that I consider her to be a lady of great principle. I do not endorse any of the comments that might have been made about her in your Lordships' House. I believe that she comes to your Lordships' House with a position. Although I do not believe that position is workable, for reasons that I gave at great length in Committee and which I shall reflect on briefly now, I accept that it is a position.

The noble Baroness has made it clear that the position that she would wish to see is to raise more resources for universities through the general taxation of a particular group of people. Noble Lords will have heard me say already that the difficulty with that arises when one considers the number of things that any government wish to achieve in the course of their lifetime, in terms of the range of needs in our society.

I spoke before about the differences in funding levels available to those who pursue higher education and the benefits that accrue to those individuals, compared to the amount of money that we spend on primary or nursery schools to support our younger children. As noble Lords have said on many occasions, that is where the work needs to happen—to support young people into higher academic achievement, if that is appropriate to them. That is a position that noble Lords have understood; they have understood, too, the importance in the Bill of the money being available to institutions for them to spend as they see fit. In the light of the previous debate, given the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, spoke about academic salaries, I believe that that is an important part of it. too.

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is unaware of our position. It is that if the Bill will give universities revenues of £900 million and the cost to the taxpayer is £1.1 billion, would it not be more sensible to give the £1.1 billion to the universities?

My Lords, I take that as a commitment from the noble Lord that he intends to give the universities an additional £1.1 billion. I am not sure that I can.

I believe that the way in which we have put together—

My Lords, this is getting like the House of Commons. If the noble Baroness thinks that £1.1 billion is enough to deal with the size of the problem, then I rest my case that the Government's response to that problem in the Bill is inadequate.

My Lords, I was alluding to the issues that have been raised by the noble Lord's right honourable friend, Mr Letwin, and where he is saying that his priorities would lie in education. That is a perfectly reasonable stance but not one from which universities would benefit. It is important that when we look at the way forward we are clear about the options available in your Lordships' House, to the Government and to the relevant institutions about what is on the table. Those are important issues to have before us. The noble Baroness should not press her amendment. The Bill recognises the need to ensure that funding comes in to the institutions, to the universities. We recognise that those who benefit should contribute to it. On that basis, she should withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her sympathetic response on this issue. We have explored these issues on previous occasions and the answer that I have received is the one that I expected. It is important not to base too much hope that financing universities may come from the third leg, as it is called—from industry. I have worked on the economics of research and development for a long time. How little the industrial sector has chipped in to research and development has been continuingly and extraordinarily disappointing. The same applies in the funding of university endowments and so forth. We had a debate the other day sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in which he pointed out that charitable giving in this country has gone down by 25 per cent over the past 10 years. We should not put too much hope in that source. The main stream of funding has to come from the Government.

As I pointed out earlier, in effect the Government are taxing young graduates in order to put more money into universities. This may be the right way to do it but we do not think that it is. I shall withdraw the amendment as I think it might be sensible for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and me to get together to see what we might be able to come up with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No.7:

My Lords, I should like to intervene for only a few moments because I was unable to be here for parts of the Committee stage on the Higher Education Bill due to an illness of a member of my family and my need to attend hospital every day.

I should like to have a point in the amendment clarified. It raises with me the issue of what happens in the case of four-year university foundation course degrees in the sciences. I am not entirely sure about what the amendment means by "qualifying course". Can I take it from the noble Lord's comments in moving the amendment that "qualifying course" would include those four-year foundation courses? As I understand it, they are usually characterised by the need for some students who have taken particular courses at A-level, who have often received poor guidance from those in a position of responsibility in schools and taken the wrong subjects, to receive an additional year's training in the form of a foundation year before the three-year training.

Let us say that someone who has done Latin and Greek at A-level suddenly decides that he wants to be a chemical engineer. He would go to a university and do a foundation year perhaps in maths, chemistry, physics and a generality of studies that would equip him to proceed with an engineering degree. In so far as the need for that additional year of study very often derives either from bad advice or simply from a student's inability to decide at A-level—or, post O-level, precisely what A-levels they should be doing—surely they should not have to pay for effectively an additional year at university.

My request is quite clear. I seek to understand what is meant by "qualifying course". If what is meant is a foundation year, then I shall certainly support the amendment.

My Lords, my name is associated with the amendment and I should like briefly to speak to it. Perhaps in doing so I can answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

The situation is precisely as the noble Lord suggested. Some courses are four-year courses, and I have in mind another one. Many engineers these days do an MEng, which is a four-year course, rather than the three-year course. They would be hit precisely by this proposal. As it stands, they would have to pay the higher fees through the four years.

My Lords, one of my sons did five years at Leeds University. He did a one-year foundation course, the three-year degree and then an additional year for an MA. That is five years, not four.

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. If they were doing an MEng course, they would do five years, just as architects, for example, do seven years. A range of degrees require longer periods. It is precisely those professions that are extremely worried about the impact that the higher fees might have on entry into the professions.

The point is very unclear at the moment. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that we are looking for three years' worth of fees from the student and how to handle degrees that extend beyond that period and are not paid for, as with doctors after, as I understand it, the fourth year when payment is made by the National Health Service, where it is not paid for separately. As I said, the aim of the amendment is to make it clear that the student shall pay three years' worth of fees and that any further years of fees should be paid for.

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 20. If I were more confident of my powers of persuasion, I would seek to separate my amendments from Amendment No. 7 which has just been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I fully agree with the arguments that he made for the necessity of the amendment; and in that he has been very ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I also concur that if someone is registered for a degree when they are undertaking a foundation course, which I believe them to be, then under this amendment, and under my amendments, they will stop paying after three years. I think that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is clear.

However, it became clear at the Committee stage, when a very similar amendment was proposed, that there is a significant problem because the amendment as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, means, very properly, that the student pays only three years and after that the university pays. That is what is wrong in general with this Bill. The universities keep on having to carry the can.

If I felt it appropriate, I would seek first to persuade your Lordships, if invited, not to vote for Amendment No. 7, but, when we came to it, to vote in favour of Amendment No. 14. However, I am not sure that I have the courage to divide your Lordships' House again so early in the evening. That is why I have not sought to dissolve the grouping. However, I want to underline the difference. My amendment would be worded identically were it not that I required a separate clause to delete—if noble Lords look carefully, as I did—"university to pay" and insert "Secretary of State to pay".

As I already indicated, and as the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite indicated, it is unfortunate that I have perhaps become severely sharp in my criticisms. I detected that hint in her own words. She may be right. I am disappointed that the opposition spokespersons have introduced amendments that very rightly point to a defect in the Bill and very rightly suggested that students have paid enough fees after three years. I agree that three years for an undergraduate course is enough. However, the solution is to say that, after that, the Secretary of State should pay.

Why should the universities have to carry the can in this way? The problem with the Bill is that it is not giving universities sufficient funding. That is why, with the greatest disappointment—I think I made this clear in our debate in Committee—I do not feel able to support my noble friend's amendment and why I am still critical of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat side who say, "Yes, that is all right. We want to change it so that the universities pay and carry the can". I do not think that that is acceptable.

So that is why I oppose the amendment. My reason for not pressing my own Amendment No. 14 separately is that I do not wish to try the patience of your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether the Government have consulted the Scottish Executive about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, may be able to confirm whether I am right in thinking that in Scotland a student pays fees for the first four years, because courses are four years in Scotland, and after that the fees are funded by the Scottish Executive, and presumably that money is allowed for in the Barnett formula. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have consulted the Scottish Executive.

It seems to me that one of these sets of amendments probably contains the answer to a problem that the Government have with the Bill: what is going to happen about these longer courses. It also presents a problem for Scotland—I have not consulted about this—as it seems to me that as one has to pay only the first four years if one is studying to be an architect or a doctor in Scotland, there may be a flight from England to Scotland for those courses just at the time when the Barnett formula does not increase, as money is coming into the English universities from students. Therefore, the increase in expenditure that would qualify Scotland for a higher amount under the Barnett formula will not be forthcoming. That seems to me an added complication.

However, my main interest is to know whether the Government have consulted the Scottish Executive and what they were told. I mentioned this in Committee, so if it had not been drawn to their attention before, it was then.

My Lords, Amendment No. 7 would ensure that fees may not be charged after three years at all, while Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 require the Secretary of State to meet the fees after the third year on the student's behalf. The effect for the student is the same. If higher education institutions are not allowed to charge fees to students beyond their third year of study, they will lose fee income. If the Secretary of State is required to meet the cost of fees for all students after their first three years, resources would need to be found from elsewhere in the HE budget. So both methods of exempting students from fees after three years would have an impact on the funding received by HEIs, and I should leave noble Lords under no illusion that the Government could find extra funding to make up that loss in funding. I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to test the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that proposal. I suspect that he would be unlikely to be moved by that additional appeal.

There is no reason why our proposals should deter students from studying subjects such as medicine, the courses for which are longer than three years. I want to comment on a number of the professions that have been mentioned.

For each year in which fees are charged, eligible students will continue to benefit from the generous student support package and, regardless of the level of loan which they have taken out, their monthly repayments will be the same. There is no evidence indicating that students are deterred from taking longer courses, and we believe that there are two principal reasons for this: first, the support is there to enable them to complete these courses; and secondly, students recognise the real benefits to them, personally as well as professionally. They study on these courses because they realise that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Indeed the OECD recently confirmed that the rate of return in terms of earnings for graduates in the United Kingdom is the best in the world.

All of this will remain the case under the variable fees system. The importance that the Government attach to courses which last more than three years such as education, medicine, dentistry, architecture, veterinary medicine and so on—many of the courses that were mentioned earlier—is demonstrated now by the significant measures which are being taken to protect training for, and recruitment to, various public sector professions.

A good deal was said on this matter in Committee which I shall not repeat—I am sure that will be welcome—and I shall not repeat much that was said about how our current recruitment initiatives work for the five main groups to which I referred earlier, but I should like to say something about their effectiveness.

My Lords, will the noble Lord reassure us that, certainly so far as medicine and dentistry students are concerned, the money for their extended years will still be provided by the NHS?

My Lords, when I discuss the relevant group I shall be able to give a clear answer to that question.

I shall begin with teachers and discuss various professions. There are more teachers with qualified teacher status in our schools now than at any time since 1984. There are 50 per cent more teachers training than there were five years ago. As for medical and dentistry students, applications to medical schools in the United Kingdom have gone up since 1998, as has the total number of students studying medical courses.

The amendment will make no difference to the arrangements that are made with the National Health Service in respect of the finances. The NHS makes its contracts directly with institutions to deliver the courses that the NHS needs at an agreed price. That operates on the basis of no tuition fees being payable by the students, so the level of fees is zero and there will be no difference from the students' point of view or in terms of the overall costs to the National Health Service. There should be no change in that regard as regards the future arrangements.

In 2003, according to UCAS, the number of accepted applicants for pre-clinical veterinary medicine was up 9.3 per cent in comparison to 2002, and places on these courses are heavily over-subscribed. I make the point because, were there to have been a significant deterrent effect, it would not be likely that such a figure would have occurred.

In architecture—another profession mentioned by noble Lords—UCAS 2003 entry figures show one of the biggest increases in applications accepted that has ever been recorded—a rise of 10.3 per cent in the past year. Even when we gross up the figures on levels of debt, which I suspect in some cases are highly speculative, we can see positive movements in all of these professions.

Nurses, who were mentioned, will not be affected by the Bill. As I said, the NHS buys these places direct and will continue to do so. Department of Health Ministers have indicated that, whatever the future levels of tuition fees, they will take measures to ensure that any increase in the cost of university courses will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity and quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine.

So it is clear that in general the picture is a positive one and that students are being given the support they need to take courses in these areas. I can assure noble Lords that relevant departments already monitor demand for, and take-up of, places on courses in these key areas and will continue to do so after the introduction of variable fees in 2006–07.

As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned in Committee, the evidence from the United States also is that students are not deterred from taking longer courses, even where they pay fees for each year. As we all know, fee levels in the United States are hugely higher than in the United Kingdom. Although I do not have the relevant data in front of me, I believe that very much the same picture applies in Australia, for example, where these issues have been considered for some time.

We also described in Committee how we would commission a report next year by Sir Alan Langlands to examine gateways into the professions. We have done so precisely because we recognise the huge importance to our society of a system that provides an adequate supply of entrants to these essential areas.

I was asked to comment on the timing of the review. Sir Alan Langlands will start work on the review directly following Royal Assent, if it is achieved, with the aim of reporting to the Secretary of State by the middle of 2005. I was corrected when I made the presumptuous assertion that Royal Assent might be achieved.

The report will, of course, examine how the public sector and the professions can sustain and improve recruitment opportunities in a general sense for graduates and will look at the professions, including medicine and architecture as well as teaching and veterinary medicine.

I should like, finally, to underline a much more fundamental point about the freedom of universities in all of this.

My Lords, before my noble friend comes to his final point, may I take him back to the question of the foundation year prior to a three-year degree? Will he answer specifically the question that I asked, which was about why a young person who is ill advised or simply does not have the knowledge to make the right decision should be penalised in the event that they go to university?

My Lords, I certainly intend to address that, but I wanted to deal with the points about the longer courses in relation to professions first. I shall return to the noble Lord's point in a moment.

The freedom of universities is important. Throughout our debates on the Bill, we have stressed the importance of the autonomy of the higher education institutions. Our desire to avoid regulation where none is necessary is also a part of our thinking. As noble Lords know, the variable fees provisions give more freedom to institutions themselves to decide what to charge for each course, within the caps agreed by Parliament. I hope that noble Lords feel that that is a good thing. With that comes responsibility; universities must justify the fee levels. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, break that fundamental principle. Whatever universities charge for years one to three of a course, they could charge £3,000 for year four, wholly safe in the knowledge that the Government would be expected to meet the bill automatically. That could not be right.

On the other hand, Amendment No. 7 looks to universities themselves to subsidise students on longer courses. An individual university or college might conclude in exceptional circumstances that the final-year fee should be waived or reduced, but that is a matter for each institution, taking account of the demand for their courses. I would see a requirement for all universities to waive fees for the fourth year and beyond as a clear example of over-regulation; such a decision would surely be for local consideration, not central prescription.

I have always been a strong supporter of making sure that access courses and foundation years were successful. If a foundation year is a general access course—because someone has not taken A-levels, taken the wrong A-levels or whatever before wishing to apply to take a degree—those courses are in further education and are not covered. No student support is relevant, but no standard fee is relevant either. The course will probably not have been taken in the same institution as the degree. If it is an integral part of a degree—an engineering foundation year—it is in HE and will be taken in the same way as all other elements of degrees in HEIs, and will get student support.

It is hard to be precise about the number of students who embark on a course and then conclude that they were given the wrong advice, but I know of examples where that has happened. Potential students can be given the wrong advice in a wide variety of circumstances. I would like to think that there were far greater precision in universities and further education colleges now in making sure that guidance was appropriate, and that it is no longer the case that students—those who present themselves with a set of qualifications that might make taking a heavily oversubscribed degree a good option—find themselves persuaded to take a degree on which they should not embark because it hardly suits their capabilities. I believe that that may have happened in some instances, but such examples happen no longer.

My Lords, I want to press my noble friend on that matter. The advice about which we are talking is given to young people at the age of 16 when they have completed their GCSEs, as they go into the first year of sixth form. That is the critical time. If during the following two years of A-level they find that they have taken the wrong subjects and want to move out of whatever and into engineering, they will pay for an additional year. That seems totally wrong.

My Lords, it would be extremely hard to create a system that detected whether someone had taken the wrong advice, or had embarked on something relatively willingly only to find in a relatively short time that it was not what they wanted to do. In a slightly different circumstance, I was asked whether my own children might have made rational choices at 14, 15 and 16 about their higher education. All that can be hoped is that the best possible advice is given by schools, or perhaps by further education colleges when people get to the age of 16, and that people try to establish by the widest possible discussion whether that is the right advice. One could not legislate for the possibility of someone saying that they feel in retrospect that the advice that they received was not as good as it might have been.

The Scottish Executive are reviewing the position, and I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that we are in dialogue with them. The Scottish third-phase review of higher education has made a number of recommendations, including that the Quigley agreement be continued. We understand that the Scottish Executive are considering the outcome of that.

In the light of those arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.

My Lords, my noble friend mentioned my name, so I would like to clarify what I think is on record. My noble friend Lady Ashton very kindly wrote to me on the matter. I did not say that I had evidence from the United States; I said that it was my anecdotal impression that having longer courses was not a deterrent. I also asked whether it would be wise to conduct further research on the matter, and the noble Baroness agreed with that in her letter.

My Lords, I can only confirm that continuing research on and review of that would be extremely important.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on foundation years, where the situation is totally clear. Where a foundation year is part of the university course and taken at the same university, it is covered by the Bill. Where it is part of further education—for example, a third year at a sixth-form college—it is free anyway. The question simply does not arise in my mind.

I thought that we all agreed that universities should be funded through HEFCE. Once HEFCE has funded the university, that is the university's money to dispose of in any way that it sees fit. Therefore, my noble friend's argument about the Secretary of State funding the position through his amendments independently does not really wash. Anyway, the fourth year for English students at a Scottish university is paid for by the department. That is another reason why the objections to the amendments do not wash.

I am also grateful to the Minister for setting on record the future position under the Bill of the medical profession in its broadest terms, by which I include dentists, nurses and professions supplementary to medicine. However, he cleverly almost ignored the position of such core students as architects or vets. They are not in the public sector, but very much in the private sector. Although in mitigation the Minister told us that we had the highest application rates ever for students to enter professional careers, the point that he does not make is that all those figures come before the Bill becomes an Act. No one knows what will happen after the Bill becomes an Act, although many of my noble friends and I have made good guesses. I wish to test the opinion of the House.