asked the Chairman of Committees:

My Lords, original documents of constitutional significance will continue to be displayed in the Royal Gallery. But, on expert advice, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee agreed in 2002 that exhibits should be changed regularly to prevent their deterioration from overexposure to light. The Record Office now has a three-month cycle for displays, which are designed to use the rich and diverse content of the archives to engage visitors with the work of Parliament.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer because it confirms that we will continue to see original documents displayed in this House. But does he agree that many people take a lot of pride in the history and development of Parliament? They would like to see more original documents displayed, including such landmarks as Catholic emancipation, abolition of slavery, votes for women and perhaps even House of Lords reform some time in the future. Will he therefore encourage more Peers and staff to make contact and to visit our excellent Record Office and, perhaps, also make suggestions for documents to be displayed?

My Lords, I endorse the noble Earl's comments about the pride of this House in the history of Parliament and our constitutional landmarks. The plan to change the displays regularly will help to preserve key documents and enable a wider variety of original records to be shown than ever before. Perhaps House of Lords reform will, one of these days, be among them—who knows?

On the second point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the Clerk of the Records is keen to encourage Members and staff to visit the Record Office and welcomes suggestions for future document displays.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Works of Art Committee in this House. Does the noble Lord agree that there is not time or space for the many large parties of children and adults to examine documents in the display case? In the old display case, one of the items of main interest was the death warrant of King Charles I, which, sadly, is deteriorating. Temporarily, a replica will be on display. People also like very much to see the signatories of all the monarchs, which are most interesting. Items that are easy to look at in a display case are a practical solution, but that has nothing to do with the fact that documents of public interest should be available.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. The old display case was unsatisfactory. It was made of oak which, apparently, gives off a noxious substance that is damaging to original documents. We have had the benefit of advice from an expert adviser from the British Library in that respect.

The death warrant of Charles I had been on continuous public display for around 150 years. Expert advice is that documents of that nature should be displayed for only three months at a time. Therefore, we have really behaved rather badly in the past. Signs of fading were starting to appear. It is essential that that document should be preserved in suitable repository conditions or it would fade irretrievably. It will probably be displayed occasionally, but not for long periods. The new display case, which has temperature and humidity control, will be better. Nevertheless, it is not right that such documents should be continuously displayed in light.

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, historic documents displayed in the Royal Gallery were kept in a lovely Pugin-style display case which was completely appropriate for the gallery. That has now been replaced by a ghastly metal contraption which is gunmetal grey-green in colour. It is extremely difficult to see that as appropriate for the Royal Gallery. Why is that?

My Lords, I am afraid to disillusion the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but, as I mentioned in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the oak display cabinet was completely unsuitable. The relevant British standard for this specifically recommends against oak and other materials which emit vapours harmful to documents. If the noble Lord has a criticism of the new display case in the Royal Gallery, whose design, colour and site were approved in 2003 by the Administration and Works Committee and, I believe, by the Works of Art Committee, he should consult those bodies. As I mentioned in my last reply, the new display case has considerable advantages in terms of humidity and light.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on conveying what is, overall, a very sensible solution to a delicate problem. However, will he bear in mind that those of us who for a number of years have been taking parties and individuals around the Palace of Westminster, many of whom come from foreign countries and have a deep interest in our history, feel that there is nothing better than to show our guests articles and places of real historic interest within this impressive Victorian structure? As long as that is borne in mind, we shall achieve what most visitors to this excellent Palace expect.

Yes, my Lords; indeed, I hope that my answers have indicated that that is the case. However, I should say in regard to the death warrant of King Charles I that a facsimile is being made at the moment which will be put on display. I would bet that most visitors will be unable to tell the difference.

My Lords, do the documents include some of those concerning the union between Scotland and England in the reign of Queen Anne?

My Lords, the Articles of Union between England and Scotland of 1706 were indeed displayed. Those are documents like the death warrant of King Charles I which should not be kept on continuous display because of the likelihood of deterioration. Therefore they have been taken away and placed in proper, safe and secure conditions. However, I would strongly suspect that the 300th anniversary of the union with Scotland in two years' time would be a very suitable moment for the Articles of Union again to be displayed, although probably not for more than three months at a time.

My Lords, first, does the noble Lord agree that the aromas of oak are better when surrounding French wine? Secondly, can he assist the House by giving us some idea of what items are likely to be included in the display in the near future?

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has asked me that question. The displays in the Royal Gallery cabinet are due to be changed later this week. One display will feature Parliament during the Second World War, building on public and media interest in the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings and examining the effect of the war on Parliament. A second display will feature the longest original Act of Parliament on a continuous vellum roll, the Land Tax Act 1821, which has never before been displayed. If this Act were to be unrolled, it would stretch over 382 yards, or considerably longer than the entire Palace of Westminster, which is 291 yards long.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we have expressed our disgust and anger at the mistreatment and abuse of a number of Iraqi prisoners to our American colleagues. We have stressed the need to ensure that anyone found guilty of these disgraceful abuses is punished appropriately, that detention and interrogation procedures meet international standards, and that safeguards to avoid abuse are put in place. A discussion of individual cases is clearly inappropriate, but United States officials have assured us and the international community that official US policy is to accord prisoners of war and security internees in Iraq the protections of the Geneva Convention.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I hope very much that it is right. Has she seen the report of the Pentagon legal panel obtained by the United States Center for Constitutional Rights and published in the Wall Street Journal on 7 June, showing beyond reasonable doubt that at one time the best legal minds in the Pentagon were trying hard to find ways to sidestep both US and international laws banning torture? Has the Minister seen further reports in the Washington Post of 12 June indicating that the actions at Abu Ghraib prison were not just those of a few rotten apples, but that some practices such as the use of military dogs in interrogation were sanctioned at a senior level?

Would the Minister accept that, since we are partners with the United States, all these actions have implications for the security of British personnel, both military and civilian, and have not the British Government not only the right but the duty to find out what American policy has been?

My Lords, I have not read either of the reports to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has referred, but of course I know of the concerns expressed by him about the attitudes of the United States. I strongly agree with him that we have a duty to find out from the United States what their official attitudes have been. We know that Major General Fay, the deputy chief of staff of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command, began an investiga tion in April of this year into military intelligence practices in Iraq, including in Abu Ghraib prison. Also, I was in Jordan a few weeks ago attending a meeting of the World Economic Forum at which Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, made a full apology to what was largely an Arab audience for any abuse of Iraqi prisoners. So while I understand the fears articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the official United States position has been made clear at very senior levels.

My Lords, does not the noble Baroness accept that what has been happening in Iraq merely mirrors what happened behind closed doors in Guantanamo Bay and that some of its personnel were transferred to Iraq to carry out those practices? Does she not further accept that the institutions in Guantanamo Bay were part of the policy of the United States Government about which this Government have so often complained?

My Lords, the Question is specifically about Iraq. While I understand that fears will be mirrored in Guantanamo, I am not in a position to answer in any detail. However, as the Minister concerned with the British people who have been detained in Guantanamo, obviously I have looked into welfare issues in that regard. We have made welfare visits to Guantanamo, as has the International Red Cross. In saying that, I declare an interest as a patron of the British Red Cross.

My Lords, would the Minister care to refer to the other part of the noble Lord's Question? It has been authoritatively reported that supervisory personnel from the Guantanamo Bay prison have had a supervisory role in the Abu Ghraib prison. If it is the case that the United States Government declined to apply the Geneva conventions in the Guantanamo Bay prison, is not that a cause for concern?

My Lords, the noble Lord reiterates what is already a matter of public knowledge: that personnel were moved from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib. I have expressed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government not only our disgust at the reports of what has gone on in Abu Ghraib but also, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I have acknowledged that there is a duty upon Her Majesty's Government to make inquiries and to press these points very hard with the United States Government.

My Lords, does not the interview by John Humphreys in the "On the Ropes" programme last week of General Janis Karpinski—in which she stated that she was told by General Miller, when he was transferred from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, that he intended to "Gitmoise" Abu Ghraib on the Guantanamo model—suggest that further questions should be asked about whether the standards that applied at Abu Ghraib applied also at Guantanamo Bay?

My Lords, I did not hear the interview to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours refers. I remind him that in my original Answer I said that a discussion of individual cases is clearly inappropriate. I hope your Lordships will accept that position because three trials of United States military personnel are beginning in Iraq right now. Nothing I say in any way detracts from the seriousness and importance with which these matters ought to be considered. However, I do not believe that it is right or appropriate for me, as a Government Minister, to comment from the Dispatch Box upon guilt or lack of it.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the amendments to the mutual defence agreement were signed on 14 June by US and UK representatives. Yesterday these amendments, along with an explanatory memorandum, were laid before Parliament in accordance with normal procedures for amendments to such treaties. The amendments have also been put before Congress, where they will lie for 60 days.

At present, I cannot undertake to find government time for a debate. In accordance with their undertaking in 2000 to the Procedure Committee of another place, the Government will give due consideration to any request from the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Liaison Committee for a debate. A debate in your Lordships' House will, of course, be a matter for the usual channels.

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that somewhat startling Answer, can he confirm that under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty the nuclear powers have undertaken to negotiate in good faith for the total elimination of nuclear weapons? Given that the mutual defence agreement is specifically intended to facilitate the transfer of information and materials between the United States and the United Kingdom in order to augment their nuclear capabilities, would it be surprising if the rest of the world perceived our position as, at best, schizophrenic—or is proliferation what other countries choose?

My Lords, it would be surprising. The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in its entirety. Movements under the MDA do not involve nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; hence they do not contravene the treaty. So far as concerns the United Kingdom's record, we are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons. Indeed, we can claim to lead the world in our commitment to neutral, balanced and verifiable reductions. Since 1992, the UK has given up the Lance nuclear missile in artillery roles, our maritime tactical nuclear capability and all our air-launched nuclear weapons. Trident is now Britain's only nuclear system and we maintain fewer than 200 operationally available nuclear warheads. We are the only nuclear power that has so far been prepared to take such an important step on the route to nuclear disarmament.

My Lords, will the Government undertake in future to produce in advance a full list of agreements with the United States in the defence field? That will enable this House, if the Government are not prepared to give the time, to bring forward debates to discuss these issues. Can the Minister say whether the treaty has been changed to deal with the issues raised by national missile defence?

My Lords, to the last question the answer is no. So far as concerns the first question, if the suggestion is that the Government are trying to avoid proper scrutiny, I refute it emphatically. This is a longstanding agreement and its renewal does not involve any consequential change to UK legislation. The Government have laid amendments before Parliament in accordance with the Ponsonby rule—that is, they are laid before both Houses of Parliament for 21 days. A copy of the command paper and the accompanying explanatory memorandum will be sent to the relevant Select Committee, in this case the House of Commons Defence Committee. As I said in my original Answer, in accordance with our undertaking made in 2000 to the House of Commons Procedure Committee, due consideration will be given to any requests for a debate from the Defence Committee or from the Liaison Committee.

My Lords, following on from the Minister's reply, the confidential intelligence contents of the MDA have never been disclosed to Parliament. Does the Minister agree that this long-established practice should continue?

My Lords, yes, I agree that that practice should continue because of the necessity for great confidentiality and because of the use that such information would be to other would-be nuclear states. In other words, it might well assist proliferation.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Bosnia-Herzegovina has made significant progress in meeting the military conditions for Partnership for Peace, but lack of co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia means that Bosnia-Herzegovina has not yet met the political criteria for membership. Progress in the 16 priority areas identified by the European Commission's Stabilisation and Association Agreement feasibility study in November 2003 has also been mixed, with good progress in some areas but not in others. The European Commission will review progress in the 16 areas in the autumn.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Does she agree that it is crucial for Republika Srpska to co-operate with the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague on the arrest of Radovan Karadzic and other indictees? Does she also agree that the High Representative, the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, has achieved excellent results in rebuilding the institutions and encouraging appropriate legislation? Will she confirm that he has the full support of her Majesty's Government? Will my noble friend further agree that for a self-sustainable state, more power and fiscal authority has to be transferred to the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the two entities?

My Lords, I largely agree with my noble friend Lord Ahmed. The Republika Srpska authorities have indeed failed to take decisive action to locate and detain fugitive indictees, most notably Mr Karadzic, or to tackle their extensive support networks. Of course, we support all the action that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, is taking in this respect. I understand that he and others in the international community have delivered firm messages about the inaction over Mr Karadzic and others, which is jeopardising Bosnia's Partnership for Peace prospects. I also agree with my noble friend's comments about moving towards an economic entity.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is considerable disappointment among the Bosnian leadership that they have been told so definitely that their candidacy for Partnership for Peace in NATO has been turned down for the time being? As the Minister says, that is largely due to the failure of a single suspect being handed over, especially by Republika Srpska. Is it entirely fair that the Bosnians, who were doing their best to move forward and become candidates both for the European Union and for the NATO partnership, should be punished because of backsliding by Republika Srpska? Will she suggest ways in which additional pressure can be put on the government of Republika Srpska and their officials to move forward a little and make real efforts to find the suspects?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making those points so well. It is important to say that Her Majesty's Government fully support Bosnia-Herzegovina's NATO aspirations. We welcome the progress that Bosnia-Herzegovina has made in implementing wide-ranging defence reforms, especially by appointing the first ever state-level defence minister, whom I met only 10 days ago. He and I had the opportunity to discuss problems relating to Republika Srpska, which is part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. One of the main reasons for having a state-level defence minister is to make an effort to pull these issues together.

However, it is important that the noble Lord does not concentrate only on Mr Karadzic. Although he is the highest-level person that we want to see detained, as I mentioned a moment ago, there are others and we are not happy about the way in which the networks that support them are allowed to continue to exist.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, under the terms of the stability pact for south-eastern Europe, Bosnia and also Albania, Macedonia and Serbia Montenegro are on the path to join the European Union when they fulfil the full range of conditions that apply, and that it is important that the full range of conditions is applied to all of those candidates as they progress?

My Lords, it is important to recognise that all these countries are at slightly different points in developing their relationships, certainly with the European Union. Albania has begun negotiations for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Those negotiations began in 2003. Macedonia has submitted its official application to join the EU on 22 March 2004. We have not had an application from Bosnia-Herzegovina because it has not yet reached the point at which that would be appropriate.

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the European Union remains committed to the cause of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Will she further agree with Commissioner Patten, who, when speaking to the German Bundestag European Union committee in April, blamed political failure in Bosnia-Herzegovina for not making progress on the 16 items specified as part of the stabilisation and association process? Is my noble friend therefore in a position to spell out to the House quite clearly where the elements of failure in those 16 conditions are and how imperative it is that they are all met?

Yes, my Lords. Not only has the EU made it clear that Bosnia and all other countries in the region are potential candidates for EU membership, but, on behalf of the UK Government, I also say that we support Bosnia's EU aspirations. However, Bosnia-Herzegovina is not at that point yet. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson is right to remind us that there are some very specific areas where it is falling down. The problem for the EU is not only in respect of the non-co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, but with a wide area of fiscal and economic areas such as customs and taxation reform, budget legislation, budget practices including the recording of all income accruing to public authorities and the whole question of having reliable statistics. There is a range of issues on the economic front that urgently need to be addressed.

My Lords, will the Government do everything that they can to encourage inward investment into Bosnia and the rest of south-eastern Europe because a rising economy will provide favourable conditions both for peace and general progress?

My Lords, the best encouragement to inward investment in any country—bearing in mind that inward investment is a highly competitive area, and I speak as a former Trade Minister—is for that country to have transparency in its economy. A country must also have effective public administration. Bosnia-Herzegovina still has to make further efforts towards creating not only an economic climate that is right but an effective public administration which would encourage that inward investment.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the very high esteem in which the British forces are held in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially because of their role in the peacekeeping process?

My Lords, I am indeed aware of that high esteem, particularly because at the end of my time as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I visited Bosnia-Herzegovina with General Jackson. As a British soldier who had served there, he was held in the highest possible esteem, as were all the serving officers I met. I witnessed that for myself.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a short while ago in another place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I am aware that the Home Secretary gave my right honourable friend David Davis unusually early sight of both the report and the Statement. This is not just the normal courtesy. It reflects the fact that this is a question of public safety and that will be recognised in my response today.

I wholeheartedly endorse the Minister's remarks about the dignity shown by the families of Holly and Jessica in the past few months. Our thoughts are with them and I have no doubt that all Members of this House share a determination that these failures should not be repeated. We welcome the report of Sir Michael Bichard. It is exhaustive and we agree with most, but not quite all, of it. We consider his decision to reconvene in six months' time to review progress not merely a good idea, but one that should perhaps become standard good practice in reports such as this.

The report makes it clear that Cambridgeshire Criminal Records Bureau was so focused on the introduction of new systems that it failed to carry out crucial checks into Ian Huntley's background. We must ensure failures such as this never happen again. However, Sir Michael says that even if Cambridgeshire had got it right Ian Huntley's record would still have been missed because of other failures, most notably in Humberside Police.

There were two failures in Humberside Police: one relates to IT, and the other relates to the handling of the Huntley case. Even before the weeding of records took place, Ian Huntley's record of behaviour should have led police to act. We should consider the following facts. In August 1995, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 15 year-old; in May 1996, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with another 15 year-old; and, also in May 1996, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 13 year-old. That is not an IT failure. It is a failure of policing. These offences were known at exactly the same time, before they had been weeded by Humberside police. Is it any wonder that PC Harding concluded in his report, reproduced on page 52, section 1.229 of the report:

"It is quite clear that Huntley is a serial sex attacker and is at liberty to continue his activities"?

Sir Michael says that no one thing could have prevented what happened. In fact, if the police had acted on this sequence of events, Ian Huntley would presumably have been locked up. Incidentally, this failure preceded the current chief constable's arrival in post. His failures relate to the failures of the IT system and the consequences that flowed from that. In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has today initiated a quasi-judicial process under the Police Act 1996, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, over David Westwood, which I do not wish to prejudice, I will say no more about his role today.

The report states that social services should report incidents of sex with minors to police. I agree. However, the report also says there are "exceptional circumstances" when the police should not be notified. What exactly are those exceptional circumstances? When an adult is engaged in a sexual relationship with a child, surely there are no circumstances where the police should not be informed.

We now know that in 1995 social services knew of an allegation that Huntley was having sex with a 15 year-old girl but apparently chose not to inform the police. This was at exactly the same time as the cases I cited a moment ago, about which social services would not have known. They were not, and could not be, in possession of all the facts relating to public safety. Therefore, they should not make the decision. Will the Government review this aspect and consider the option of making it an absolute requirement to notify the police of such offences?

Much of the report very properly focuses on the failure of information handling, primarily by Humberside, but also by Cambridgeshire Criminal Records Bureau, and generic failures by the Police Information Technology Organisation, ACPO, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Home Office. I agree with most of what Sir Michael says but issues arise on which I seek the Minister's opinion.

The report properly criticises the Humberside police IT practices and the lack of a national police IT system. It calls for the introduction of such a system as soon as possible. It does not say whether the problems of Humberside are replicated in other forces, although naturally I suspect that they might be. Neither does it deal with a problem we all know about—namely, that Whitehall, in general, and the Home Office, in particular, have a very poor track record of implementation of computer systems. So I welcome the Minister's comments on the police local exchange system. I also welcome the announcement on the police national intelligence computer system, the so-called "impact" system.

However, I shall make two suggestions to the Government. First, will they commission Sir Michael Bichard in the next six months to review all the IT systems in the 43 forces in order to establish the extent of the problem? Secondly, to minimise the risk of another computer disaster, will they use either the best practice that he identifies, or the already operational Scottish system, as the basis for the new national system?

The failure to implement such a system should have been identified much sooner. Sir Michael Bichard states in his report, at paragraph 2.131, that:

"HMIC could and should have been more proactive. Information systems are of obvious importance to policing and they could have been inspected effectively with relative ease".

Do the Government have any proposals to reform or improve the capability of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in IT review?

Sir Michael also recommends a registration system for all those working with children. Will this system apply to people who work in charities and voluntary groups, such as the Scouts, which often add great value and enjoyment to the lives of children?

We must remember that while child protection is clearly the paramount matter, a balance of justice must be established. A series of false allegations can effectively destroy an innocent person's career. Sir Michael envisages an appeal process for applicants who were refused registration. Sir Michael is absolutely right to do so. But how do the Government believe the appeal system will work? Will people know who is making the allegation against them—and, if not, how can it be challenged? Who will decide what information is held on record and how can this be challenged? Will the process be judicial? We recognise that these are difficult issues, but naturally they do need to be addressed.

The Minister will of course appreciate the burden that all this will place on the police. Humberside police will process 50,000 information requests this year. Across the area of England and Wales, that implies 2 million requests. How do the Government intend to progress work on that?

It is not just Humberside and Cambridgeshire who should read this report today; every police force and every social services department should read and learn the lessons of the report. If we fail, it will be a catastrophe measured in human tragedies.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary both for making the report available at an early stage and for the prompt response to it today. Reading it this morning my mind went back to just over 20 years ago when I was in another place and we were debating the lessons to be learnt from the Yorkshire Ripper case. I remember people saying then, "If only we had computers"—because the Yorkshire police had been using card indexes to try to track the assorted information. Sadly, we need not only computers but the training and expertise to use them properly.

The report must make heartbreaking reading for the parents of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, for it contains in meticulous detail the "ifs" and "might have beens" which might have saved their daughters' lives. Our thoughts must be with them today. I think that they and we should be grateful to Sir Michael Bichard for a report that pulls no punches and makes very specific recommendations which must now be pursued with all vigour and urgency.

We can never say "never again" because, as the report says,

"the harsh reality is that if a sufficiently devious person is determined to seek out opportunities to work their evil, no one can guarantee that they will be stopped".

Human error happens in all walks of life. There will be many individuals and organisations who feel a terrible weight of responsibility in the light of these findings.

We welcome the fact that Sir Michael does not blame any individual for the murders other than Huntley himself. But that does not mean that there are not hard lessons to learn and personal responsibilities to be taken. Does the Home Secretary, in accepting Sir Michael's critique, accept that the Home Office bears its share of responsibility for some of the slipshod working and culture that the report reveals? Does he accept that there are frequent references to lack of training, lack of expertise and lack of guidance, pointing to failures right up the line of management to the Home Office itself?

How could the failures of the Humberside force go undetected or unremedied for so long? As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, the specific case of Chief Constable Westwood is under review. However, what part in the failure to detect those failures should be shared by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and by the local police authority? We take great pride in this country in local control of police, but if over a period of 10 years failures of this magnitude have occurred, then that responsibility also is with that police authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, how can we be sure that the spotlight that has shone so harshly on two police authorities and showed such glaring weaknesses would not reveal similar weaknesses in other authorities?

I wonder how much nearer this moves us to a national police force and how we are going to balance the kind of efficiencies to which the Minister referred in the Statement with the very strong local ethos in Britain of local accountability and local control.

The report refers to the fact that Cambridgeshire called in the Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard at an early stage to review its procedures. When I was a lad it was almost customary to call Scotland Yard in for major cases. One wonders whether the necessary expertise, and not only that of Scotland Yard, is being brought in quickly enough, or whether local jealousies, turf wars or, dare we say it, budgetary controls from one police authority to another are preventing it.

I have just one comment on the social services, as this report awaits another one. I hope that we are not in for another outbreak, particularly in the tabloids, of social worker whipping. Social workers do society's dirty work. They have to deal with everyone from the dysfunctional to the criminally dangerous. Sometimes we have to appreciate that the support they receive from society as a whole is lacking. Of course they must learn the hard lessons as well, but it well behoves us to understand the difficult circumstances in which they often have to operate.

I was interested in the points on data protection and it was reassuring to hear what was said. It is important also to ensure that the reforms which we have supported, such as data protection and the Human Rights Act, are not being used to justify inaction or the failure to share information.

A question-and-answer session following the Statement is an inadequate response in view of the report's importance. I hope that the Government will give a full day at least in this House for a debate on the report, not least to draw on the considerable experience that exists in this House on the matters that it reviews. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the welcome of Sir Michael's commitment to a review of progress and believe that it should be standard.

I know that nothing can assuage the parents' grief and that no new laws, guidance or systems can make sense of their daughters' deaths. However, whatever level of responsibility belongs not only to police forces and social services departments but to every one of us as individuals when we accept a reference, check a fact, ask a question or follow a set procedure, let us all remember Soham. In so doing we may save others. Our thoughts are with the parents. I think that the whole country has a debt of gratitude to Sir Michael Bichard for a job well done.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the sentiment and tone of their remarks. It is absolutely true that this is an incredibly sad and sobering day for everyone. No one comes away from the report without feeling a sense of responsibility and obligation to do better. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it is absolutely accepted that there are lessons here to be learnt by the Home Office and by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. None of us should forget those lessons.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked for a full-day debate on the report. As he will know, that matter could be settled through the usual channels. I am sure that if his sentiment is felt by all Benches, the usual channels will undoubtedly pursue the matter with great commitment.

Public safety is of course a matter of huge concern to us all. I endorse what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay; namely, that it is a very good thing indeed that Sir Michael Bichard will have the opportunity to review his report in six months' time. We are immensely grateful to him for that. I do not know whether he would be entirely grateful if we were also to burden him with reviewing all of the IT proceedings. I think that even his generosity has a certain limitation.

The noble Baroness was right to mention the IT procedures. Of course, I hear what she says but I hope that she will accept that we have made an enormous contribution to improving those IT systems. Indeed, there are some things about which we should feel a modicum of satisfaction; for example, the way in which we have implemented the DNA database and the other systems. We have invested more than £1.3 billion since 2002 on those systems simply because we understood the enormous importance of having a really good and effective method of communication.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, highlighted the question of where the balance should rest between national and local responsibilities. There is a natural tension in that balance. We shall seek to preserve a sense of balance and fairness. The steps that we are taking to bring in a code and to make a method available to all 43 police forces so that they will have a similar template and operate in the same way may well help us to address the difficult issue of where that tension should properly lie.

The noble Baroness properly mentioned the Scottish system. It is a good one and we shall wish to look at it very carefully. The noble Baroness will know that the system was adopted on a consensual basis. The chief constables in Scotland decided that they would undertake both the intelligence sharing and the IT work together. The noble Baroness will know that we as a government have not resiled from that commitment. We have advocated and supported the tripartite approach to problem resolution between ACPO, ourselves and the police authorities. Part of the solution involves working in partnership, spreading good practice and therefore working together. We shall continue to look at those issues.

The noble Baroness asked a number of specific questions about the appeal system and how matters would be reviewed. In repeating the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I made it absolutely clear that we shall look urgently and energetically at these issues. It is absolutely right that Holly and Jessica's tragedy should at least enable us to do better than we have done hitherto. There is hope that the highlighting of faults will enable us to do better in future. The police authorities and HMIC could have picked up problems. I have made it absolutely clear that they acknowledge that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a specific question about the direct reporting of each and every unlawful sexual contact with an underage person. She is absolutely right as regards what she said about adults. The issue that was raised—there is by no means a definitive position—is whether 14 and 15 year-olds participating in certain sexual exploration with each other should be included in the prohibition; that is, when two children of comparable ages are involved. We shall need to consider those issues. These are difficult issues and we shall have to be very careful that in wanting to respond with vigour and energy to improve the situation we are not over zealous in the way in which we seek to implement provisions as we need to take into account very important issues.

My Lords, I hope that I may ask a very short question on the sharing of information. Is it not implicit that a statutory code of practice to establish clear national standards in this context should have legal efficacy?

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that a statutory code will have great force because each and every police force will be obliged to adhere to it. One of the difficulties that this case has highlighted is the ability of the 43 forces to have slightly different approaches to the way in which they deal with these issues. We have learnt the very painful lesson that in this area that degree of local autonomy is not one that we can continue in the future.

My Lords, I think it was a debate on 1 May 1996 in which I took part that I drew attention to the fact that police forces were not sharing information and that an individual who had committed a criminal offence could pass from one constabulary area to another undetected. Had those observations been taken into account following that debate, would these murders have taken place? Would the inquiry have been necessary? Would we be debating it now?

My Lords, I say to my noble friend that those issues were taken into account. It was appreciated that we needed to have a joint sharing of intelligence. A number of issues arose concerning how we should do that and whether the intelligence issue should be dealt with before the IT issue or vice versa. As I say, we have learnt some very painful lessons. I absolutely accept what my noble friend says in that perhaps the sharpness of that work was not properly understood. I reassure the House that it is absolutely understood by all of us. We shall seek to do all we can to ensure that this lesson does not have to be learnt again.

My Lords, can we be confident that the proposed new national computer system will work in view of the fact that a number of previous systems have not worked? Is it merely a matter of training?

My Lords, we are more confident now than we have been hitherto because of the changes that we have made in the development of practice as a result, frankly, of other systems not working. Noble Lords will be familiar with the way in which we have piloted certain developments to test them out to ensure that they can work appropriately. We have tried to improve them. As I said, we have tried to learn from the lessons of the past to ensure that any future development has the maximum possibility of working successfully and smoothly.

My Lords, will the Minister clarify a point about POVA, the Protection of Vulnerable Adults scheme? I was pleased to hear about the recommendation concerning a register. However, I wonder whether we are focusing enough on vulnerable people, whether or not someone working with them has a criminal record. Does the Minister agree with me that Huntley should have been on a POVA style list even though he did not have a relevant criminal record? Can we be certain that the Bichard recommendations will cover such vulnerable people in the future and protect them?

My Lords, we absolutely understand the point that the noble Baroness makes about vulnerable people. When we review the systems, we shall ensure that they are very much borne in mind, together with all the other vulnerable individuals. The noble Baroness says that Huntley should have been on a list. However, that is reliant on the fact that someone retains the relevant information and puts it on such a list. Tragically, we have learnt that human failure in that regard is as important as IT failure.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that a rather simplistic solution would be simply to have heads on platters? I agree somewhat with—I nearly said my noble enemy—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that obviously police authorities and, indeed, the inspectorate of constabulary have some responsibility in this matter. We have the National Criminal Intelligence Service. If that body does not keep national criminal intelligence, what does it keep? It runs the football hooligans register which seems to work extremely well. I wonder why we need the new Impact computer when we have a National Criminal Intelligence Service.

Does the Minister also agree that false intelligence can lead in some cases to extreme injustice, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said? One allegation against an individual who applies for a job can be totally different from five allegations from different sources. Therefore, the quality of intelligence is absolutely critical, and we should not take the risk of extreme injustice in some cases.

Perhaps we should think outside the box and consider not only a national intelligence service, but a Europe-wide one, bearing in mind the reduction of barriers and the rights of people to travel. Criminal activity takes place across borders and, given the circumstances in France recently with the young Dickinson girl and the case with Marc Dutroux in Belgium, we clearly need to think wider than our own borders and perhaps develop a Europol criminal intelligence system.

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very interesting point in relation to a Europe-wide intelligence service. Noble Lords know that we are working as hard as we can with our European colleagues. It is right that not all European countries have the same system in terms of identifying perpetrators and targeting them in a way that we would recognise. We continue that work.

This is certainly not a case of heads on platters. I hope that noble Lords will find that we have been judicious and have tried to be proportionate in the way in which we have approached the issues. The decisions to which we have come have been come to painfully and very carefully, after proper consideration of the discoveries made by Sir Michael Bichard in his report.

My Lords, I associate myself with the heartfelt expressions of sympathy with the families of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells from the respective Front Benches.

Obviously, I have not had the opportunity to read the report in full, but I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 23 of the introduction, which states:

"I suggest … that better guidance is needed on the collection, retention, deletion, use and sharing of information, so that police officers, social workers and other professionals can feel more confident in using information properly".

I also draw her attention to the Home Secretary's insistence that a national system across all relevant services, allowing more effective sharing of information and intelligence, is urgently needed. Will the Minister accept that that gets to the core of the problem facing us, and that the legislative opportunity to address it exists in the form of an appropriate amendment to the Children Bill? That being so, and bearing in mind the tenor of Sir Michael's comments, will the Government seize that opportunity?

My Lords, I am always attracted by such seductive lures cast to me at the Dispatch Box. However, it is important that we get things right. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie indicated that we should not be precipitate. We have to be balanced and make sure that the systems that we put in place are fair and proportionate, and that we might not regret them later. I know the attraction of the Bill; it is like a passing bus on to which the noble Earl asks me to jump, but that may be a precipitate move. We will of course give all issues very careful consideration.

My Lords, there is greater need for impatience than the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggests. It was in the 1970s that the necessity of transferring information across county borders in relation to children at risk was first raised, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Northesk that the matter is relevant to the Bill, on which the noble Baroness takes no part. However, I hope that her colleagues will note the matter.

Because of the anxiety about the transfer of information, and because the case has so clearly shown that one individual moving from place to place can strike again and again with impunity without it, I was rather distressed to hear in the Statement that only England and Wales were under review. I am not sure that I go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate—we want to think carefully before we start a monster machine to cover the whole of Europe—but the United Kingdom as a whole should be in the frame, not simply England and Wales. That is a comment and a question; I invite the noble Baroness to say that the Government will consider embracing Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.

My second question is on whether the statutory code of practice, when introduced, will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Will a means of discussing it be found, in the same way as codes of practice were discussed in parallel with the passing of the then PACE Bill in this House? In that context, what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about the dangers of false information is very relevant, because there has to be a means whereby someone wrongly identified or accused can clear their name. At the moment, there is no reason for them to know that it needs to be cleared.

My Lords, no decision has been made on whether the code of practice should have the negative or affirmative resolution procedure attached to it. We will obviously have to consider the merits of that in due course. Noble Lords will know that England and Wales has one legal judicial system and that a different system prevails for Scotland, with a slightly different system for Northern Ireland. Therefore, when we expressed our views in the Statement, that was obviously in relation to England and Wales. However, there is a huge job of work to do in co-ordination and co-operation right across the United Kingdom. We will certainly look at that very carefully and talk to colleagues to ensure that that synergy takes place.

My Lords, although I welcome very much the positive response of the Government to the report on establishing a national system, I am somewhat concerned about the size of the problem. I was impressed with the statistic cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that 50,000 queries a year are addressed to Humberside alone. That seems to put substantial additional burdens on the police force. Therefore, the question arises of whether there should not be a separate agency to deal with such matters, so that the police would not be diverted from their other activities in following up those inquiries.

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but he will know that there is an issue in terms of the proliferation of agencies involved in such activity and making sure that the practitioners that collate the information actually participate in the system. When we look at creating something more fit for the purpose than what we have now, all those issues will of course be very much to the forefront of our minds.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that she, having been informed of the purport of the Higher Education Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to support the amendment, even at Third Reading. It is immensely imaginative and in years to come, if passed, might be seen as a landmark. As my noble friend Lord Shutt said, it could develop, by degrees, into a quiet revolution in opportunities for young people to serve society. We all know that the modern world of education is such that the fees students must pay for university, and then for post-university qualification, are a huge disincentive for many young people to engage in voluntary activity. We also know that the level of giving of time and money by young people under 30 has declined and is declining. We know, too, that the top 10 per cent of earners in the population gives less than a third of what the bottom third gives as a proportion of their income. Those are manifestations of the pressures and the particularities of modern life.

I urge the Government to give the amendment a fair wind because they know better than anyone that the voluntary sector often does the job of government in a more effective and cost-efficient way. If this scheme is established, the benefit to the community from all angles, particularly regarding the cost to the Exchequer, will not be the concession by the Exchequer to those students that it might appear to be, but will be of huge net benefit in real terms, admittedly in ways that are not easily quantifiable. I would hope that in future it might be possible to extend the scheme to provide opportunities for people before university, so that they could gain a credit for doing their voluntary service before going up. I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government.

My Lords, I spoke to a similar amendment on Report. I do not believe in repetition on Third Reading and I hope that the amendment is carried.

My Lords, I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If I have a reservation about the amendment, it is that it should not be necessary to amend the Bill to make the Government use their powers for this purpose. Both the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, have tabled the amendment in the hope of teasing the Government to go down this course.

Of course there will be much detail to be decided relating to how the scheme would work, how it would be evaluated and so on. But it is a good idea that would encourage many of our youngsters, who, more than in any other country in the world, have a distinguished record of involvement in volunteering. So, I hope that, even if the Minister is still reluctant to accept the amendment, the Government might hint that they are open-minded about considering a scheme of this kind.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for moving the amendment and I was glad that on Report we could agree the inclusion of part-timers. Voluntary work is a fact of modern life and an indication of its complexity. If the Government cannot look kindly on the amendment, I hope that they might smile on the creatively Jesuitical intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—and I use that adjective in ecumenical brotherliness.

My Lords, I have not spoken on this matter before, but I shall be brief, nevertheless. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that voluntary service is a valuable part of national life. It is vital to society and, perhaps, no less to the individual who gives it. However, I am less than enthusiastic about putting this amendment in the Bill. A minor reason is that it would be the third time that we have, as it were, diverted some money that was intended for higher education to another cause. My particular reason is that the essence of voluntary service is of giving without payment. We diminish that when we begin to say that it attracts remuneration. A second point is that it is a bad principle to identify this form of financial stipend with graduates, rather than to all members of our society who give. There are other people in straitened circumstances who give to society. Let us celebrate that, along with the gift that young graduates make to society. On those grounds, I do not think that this is an appropriate matter for the Bill.

My Lords, I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken about the importance of volunteering. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about celebrating our young people who do so much to ensure that people give to society in the most appropriate ways. I declare my interest as having spent a great deal of my life working around the voluntary sector. Indeed, I spent part of it with the Charities Aid Foundation looking at the whole question of incentivising people to volunteer.

I start by echoing the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, because there is an issue of principle about which I am uneasy. I believe that volunteering gives huge benefits to society—I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, about that—but I also believe that it gives huge benefits to the individuals who participate in it.

It is important to understand that the principle behind volunteering is that one gives of oneself. We would need to think very carefully about incentivising people. In the work that I have done, that has always been a matter of training and providing opportunities for accreditation of the work that people do as volunteers. It is also a matter of recognition by employers and universities of the fact that people have worked in a voluntary capacity in some way. Much of the work that I have undertaken personally has related to ensuring that recognition is given to the contributions that people make to society in this way.

The amendment concerns a different principle—that is, it states that we shall also, in a form, remunerate people for doing that work. I have some difficulty with that. I understand that underlying the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is the desire to look at the issue of volunteering and to ensure that a real pool of talent is available. It is a desire to ensure that young people, including young graduates, participate in this way with the talents that they have.

Noble Lords will know that we have established the Russell Commission, which is specifically working towards a national youth volunteering strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, indicated, we believe that it is very important to examine any deterrents that may exist to participation in voluntary work.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in particular, that I recognise that there are issues surrounding the number of people who take up voluntary work. But, as the noble Lord knows very well, all the research in which I have been involved and the work that I have done with organisations has indicated that one of the critical factors is not financial incentive but time. The inability of people to take part in regular volunteering led to, for example, the setting up of the New York Cares project, which I consider to be spectacular. I recommend that noble Lords take the opportunity to have a look at that project. Rather than trying to persuade people to make a regular commitment, which they find impossible to meet, the project allows young professionals to volunteer in imaginative and creative ways.

Therefore, I hope that one way in which the Russell Commission will support such work is in examining how we can ensure that opportunities exist to volunteer in appropriate ways. As I said, that includes considering the issue of availability of time.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she accept that the amendment does not remotely require remuneration at what one might call a "market" level and that it would provide the possibility of modest financial assistance to the young people involved, which might make all the difference between their being able to give a major chunk of their time and not being able to do so at all?

My Lords, I return to the issue with which we began our deliberations on the nature of the proposals before your Lordships. We are saying that people who earn less than £15,000 a year will not pay back any of their student loan. Indeed, after 25 years, the loan would be written off. A salary of £15,000 is not huge; in many cases, it is a modest sum. None the less, the Bill contains what we believe to be appropriate measures in relation to the contributions that students make. I do not consider it to be debt in the traditional sense, as the noble Lord knows very well.

I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that if one remunerates people for carrying out voluntary work, a different principle is involved. In his amendment, the noble Lord is clearly saying that there could be an incentive for people to participate in such work. We cannot ignore that and say that it should be viewed in the same way as volunteering, as I understand the concept.

Real issues arise concerning the number of voluntary organisations that we have and how we would ensure that such a scheme recognised the kind of volunteering that would be eligible. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, touched on that when he described the scheme that would need to be set up. I am very keen that people volunteer in all kinds of ways in all kinds of communities. I would be nervous about saying that if one volunteered for VSO, that would be acceptable, but that if, for example, one volunteered for Home-Start (Stevenage), that would not. We want to encourage volunteering in all its forms in all our communities and, again, I have some concerns in that respect. I am not sure that we would be able to find ways around that which would be satisfactory to all concerned. It is very nice of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, to leave it to the Government to sort out the detail. I thank him very much.

There are also issues of principle behind the detail concerning how the scheme would be run. If we had such a scheme, we would need to ensure that people turned up to volunteer when they said they would. They would need to be monitored because we would, indeed, be writing off student loans. Therefore, a system of fraud prevention would need to be in place. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is public money and we would have to ensure that the scheme was carried out properly. It sets a challenge in terms of bureaucracy and so on, and, as I said, there is an issue of principle about which I have some concerns.

I have set out my reservations on the matter and I hope that the House will appreciate that they are genuine. We have already raised this proposal with the Russell Commission. I can say to the House that if, having deliberated on it, the commission decides that it has merit, then, under Section 186 of the Education Act 2002, we already have the power to pay off loans and we do not need to amend this Bill. I am happy to accept the general concerns raised by noble Lords, but I hope that I have balanced them to some degree by describing not only the logistical issues concerned but the issues of principle.

We cannot agree to a duty on the Government to provide such a scheme without looking at the implications of that duty, and I have outlined some of those. I have not even raised the issue of the cost that would be involved. Costs have already been mentioned but, again, this would involve another sum of money to come out of the higher education budget. I simply refer to the theme of top-slicing in passing; none the less, it is important.

I give the commitment to your Lordships that we shall raise the matter with the Russell Commission and we shall do so in the spirit of those who tabled the amendment. We need to think through how to obtain high-quality volunteering from our young people. If the Russell Commission felt that this issue was important, we would already have the power to carry it out. I believe that, at this stage, that is a commitment worth having from the Government. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Forsyth, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth who have spoken in favour of the amendment. It was helpful to have the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, although they were not quite as helpful as others.

I hope that your Lordships will accept the challenge. Reference has been made to remuneration and incentive. I have never thought that there was anything wrong with an incentive—people have to live whatever the position is in the scheme. The beauty of the different stages of a Bill is that it gives one an opportunity to speak to experts in the field. I understand, for example, that VSO pays people at the rate paid in that country and they do not bring any money home.

So there will need to be remuneration, but it will be fairly low. I suppose that if I had worked up the scheme in absolute detail it would have been attacked in absolute detail. The Government have an army of people who are very good at writing documents which eventually become schemes and so on. If they have difficulties I will offer to help. It may well be that other noble Lords would offer to help and we could create a really good scheme.

I feel that noble Lords would like to give such a scheme a fair wind. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 2, I should point out that it has been misprinted. The last line should read:

"the first three years of a first degree course".

I call Amendment No. 2.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issues that, as he rightly says, he raised on Report. I hope that he will forgive me; I started off on this Bill by trying to make him a happy Peer but have consistently made him unhappy ever since. I must say that he has also made me an unhappy Peer from time to time. I shall simply repeat what I said about the situation in England. I know that the noble Lord has degrouped his amendment, but he made a slight reference to Amendment No. 15 and, with the forbearance of the House, I shall make a similarly slight reference. There is one pot of money. Wherever the noble Lord puts the onus, it is one pot of money and the effect on universities is the same. We will debate that at greater length.

The passing of this amendment for Wales would create exactly the same problem that it would in England. That is twofold. First, the costs that we anticipate for England are roughly £180 million for universities to continue to offer the courses that they currently offer for more than three years. Secondly, it is a huge disincentive to offer courses, including sandwich courses, modern foreign language courses, engineering, veterinary and architectural courses. Noble Lords know those courses very well; indeed, institutions with which some noble Lords are connected offer them.

I genuinely say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that that is not the way to go. It is important to stick with the two principles for which I have tried to argue throughout the proceedings on the Bill. First, we are trying to ensure that we do not top-slice the money for universities, which I am afraid that both amendments would do. Secondly, we want to give universities the flexibility to offer the courses that they feel right and proper. Noble Lords have fought very hard and I hope that I have been supportive in ensuring that those two principles rest within the Bill.

I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment for Wales. It is for another place to consider what happens in England but I hope that noble Lords will understand the Government's position. It is important that we do not endanger four-year courses, nor make assumptions that there is additional money. There is one pot of money. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the unfailingly courteous way in which she puts her points. The doctrine of the one pot of money of inflexible size is at the heart of the Bill. It is a doctrine to which I hope to return at greater length on Amendment No. 15, which is really about who pays the money. I shall not speak to it now. I take the points made by the noble Baroness and, as I feel myself rather out of my depth in the affairs of Wales, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 16, line 10, after "education" insert "(whether full-time or part-time)".

My Lords, as one of the main proponents of a similar amendment on Report, I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendments that she has now tabled. It is absolutely right that the director's remit should include part-timers and that it should be on the face of the Bill. When we discussed the matter on Report the Minister mentioned that that was not necessary, but, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is a signal and it is very important that it is in the Bill. I welcome the two amendments and thank the Minister for them.

The amendments are important. We also recognise that the survey of part-time students is being accelerated—which is also good—and that the director's remit starts here in 2005–06. However, institutions providing part-time education, particularly the two specialist institutions, the Open University and Birkbeck, face problems in attracting graduates to apply for courses.

We did not proceed further with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about pro-rata grants and loans to part-time students; we left it for the Government and HEFCE to sort out with the institutions. Nevertheless, for the moment, it leaves the institutions in a very difficult situation. I urge the Government to do their best to ensure that, in the negotiations between HEFCE and the institutions, HEFCE realises the importance of part-time education and its development.

As we discussed on Report, part-time education is the way of the future for many of the extra students who will come into higher education over the next few years. It is very important that the opportunity exists for those students, and that institutions such as Birkbeck and the Open University can flourish. It would be very sad if, as a result of the Bill, in the short term both institutions suffered.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure, and sometimes a pleasant surprise, to be able to thank the Minister and the Government for changing their minds and accepting an amendment, even if they had to rewrite two amendments on this occasion. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, there are still many issues to be settled in regard to part-time education. But if the Government are as receptive to the remaining changes that are needed as they have been to these two amendments. I am sure that all will be possible in the very near future. I extend my grateful thanks, certainly on behalf of the university that I represent. I am sure that goes, too, for all the other universities which have many part-time students.

My Lords, as I have tabled amendments in support of the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has mentioned, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the two amendments tabled by my noble friend. Not only are they a signal, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said in an earlier debate, they underwrite the principle of part-time education in the Bill so that we now know that it is an important part of government policy.

The amendments will strengthen the hand of the Minister's department when it deals with HEFCE in relation to financial assistance for part-time education, particularly for Birkbeck and the Open University, but also for better facilities throughout the system. It is important that the Government grasp the opportunity that they have given themselves in the Bill, and make clear to HEFCE that this is a prime part of government policy and strategy that it should take on board when considering the position of the Open University and Birkbeck and completing its wider review of part-time education. I hope that the Government will press the advantage that they now have.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has put it very nicely. We all welcome the inclusion of a signal in the Bill. It would have been extraordinary to exclude from the Bill any mention of part-time students. However, the Government have not done much except to give a signal and to create a possibility. They have done nothing in response to those of us who pointed out the threat to the Open University and Birkbeck because of the Bill.

The Open University has written to me—and, I expect to other noble Lords—to point out that largely nothing has changed for it. There is a threat that if it increases its fees it will lose nine-tenths of its undergraduate students. The Minister always looks as though she does not believe that, but I have seen the figures and can assure her that it is a serious point that she must take on board. I suspect that Birkbeck is in a similar position, although it has not written directly to me.

The Minister has done nothing about those two urgent points. Money is needed now to go direct to those two universities because of what the Government are doing in the Bill. Unless they do that, the Government will find that the university that they created will have virtually disappeared. I hope that they are not sanguine about that.

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for the changes. At least now we have an acknowledgment that part-time higher education exists. However, I re-echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I have also received the letter to which she referred and seen the figures. I fear that the situation remains and that urgent action is still needed.

I spent the morning chairing a seminar on equal pay in higher education. One of the points raised was the duty of equal opportunities between the sexes that will be imposed on public services. Women may form a much greater percentage of part-time students at the Open University, in which case there might be yet another reason for the Minister to think carefully about those 40 per cent of students, many of whom are at Birkbeck and the Open University.

My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. I am not sure whether I am declaring an interest or boasting, but I attended the Open University, during which time my wife was also a student. Over the five years of part-time study and full-time employment, we produced between us two degrees and two bonny baby boys. So, I am very conscious of the good work performed by the Open University, and others.

My Lords—

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I, too, welcome these amendments, which we see as a welcome first step to tackling these proposed worrying circumstances that part-timers find themselves in. I thank the Minister for bringing the amendments before us today, and we look to her to confirm that the ongoing discussions will continue with all the institutions to address the serious matters that they face.

My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister most sincerely for giving effect to the requests made at the previous stage. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Together with other noble Lords who have Open University links, I have had a letter that is somewhat bleak in looking at what will be done.

I have sufficient confidence and faith in the Minister and in her ministerial colleagues, and sufficient political savvy, to recognise that in this House it will not be a political matter; it will be an all-party matter for those who have accepted the good faith of the Minister. If there is any lesson to be learned, I am delighted, as an ex-Open University student and graduate, to find that there is support in depth all around the House, not just for the Open University or for Birkbeck but for the ethos of part-time education.

The Minister will take careful note of the reservations and caveats that have been mentioned. She will recognise that as we continue to be briefed by others, including the Open University, we will not hesitate to come back to this House and find a device of one kind or another to express that point of view. After the previous debate on this matter, I am satisfied that the Minister and her colleagues appreciate that there is a case to be answered. They have answered it by the words in this amendment. If it turns out that that does not do the trick, we will—without malice but with a great deal of forethought—come back again.

I was heartened by the Minister's words on the previous occasion. The agitation from the Open University then was about the timetable for the review, the survey and so on. There was a gap year, but, as I heard the Minister, that disappeared when we last dealt with this matter. If the point at which the Open University could be in trouble were removed, that would solve the problem. However, we will have to wait and see. I have confidence that when the survey is carried out by HEFCE it will find that the part-time student institutions—led by Birkbeck and the Open University; but not them exclusively, there are others—deserve a better crack of the whip.

I thank the Minister for what she has done, and I thank her for her attention to the matter. As I said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope that we will hear from the Open University in particular that it is satisfied that what is needed to safeguard it as an institution will be taken care of. As a noble Lord said in this debate, it is precious to the Labour party that the Open University was started, but it is not a party matter. There were some queries at the beginning, but it is now accepted by all parties as one of the finest institutions in the world.

Tonight I will have the pleasure, along with other Labour colleagues, of warmly welcoming Mary Wilson, the wife of Harold Wilson, when the Labour Peers have a party on the Terrace. If there is a vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., rest assured that we will be well represented. Mary Wilson is an embodiment of the Open University and all that it did, and there will be others. The Minister should be glad of the warm welcome for the efforts that she has made. She has done what she said she would do at the last meeting. Whether that is enough remains to be seen.

My Lords, I, too, welcome these amendments, which are about the Director of Fair Access and ensuring that part-time higher education is looked at when that office is operating. I want to pick up what has been said about the Open University. I also received the letter from the Open University, and I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and Lady Howe of Idlicote, that I was a bit surprised by it. It did not seem to me that the letter reflected what my noble friend the Minister said when we had a debate about part-time higher education last week.

Like my noble friend Lord Graham, I believe that over the coming months and years your Lordships' House will be looking at what the Government said on that occasion, and we will be ensuring that the commitment that was made is followed through. Like my noble friend Lord Graham, I am confident that it will be. If it is not, plenty of us in this House will take it up again. We should recognise the major concession that the Government made last week, not just through these two amendments, but on the issue of funding part-time student places.

We are grateful for that, as is Birkbeck College. I happened to be there last night, as was my noble friend Lady Lockwood. Birkbeck is pleased about what happened last week. I believe that the Open University is probably pleased as well, even if that was not reflected in its letter.

My Lords, as the Minister referred to me in her opening sentence it would be curmudgeonly not to thank her, and I do, most warmly. For what we hope to receive, may we be reasonably thankful.

My Lords, as someone who has had a lot of difficulty with this Bill—and has indicated that in the Division Lobbies—I congratulate my noble friend, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and my noble friend Lady Blackstone, all of whom have been lobbying the Government very powerfully over the past week or two, on this extremely important issue. It is pleasing to know that flexibility was possible in this Bill.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed yet again to this very important debate. I have one disappointment of course in that there will be one Peer not at the Labour Peers' party this evening, for I have two Bills back to back. I hope noble Lords will think of me, if nothing else.

I am also sorry that I did not receive the letter from the Open University. I appear to be the only Peer who has not done so. It is very difficult to deal with some of the issues raised in it, as I am not fortunate enough to have a copy.

I can say a number of key things, however, to noble Lords. The first is to say to my noble friend Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others who have spoken yet again with great passion about the Open University, that the commitment of this Government remains firm. The Open University receives £150 million, almost 4 per cent of the total for the sector. The next highest payment is to Leeds, just under £80 million. The Open University receives that money because we believe in that institution. It is in all our interests to ensure that it continues properly. I stand by all the commitments I made on Report, but I am not going to reiterate them. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was not there, because a lot of what he is looking for from me was addressed then. Perhaps I might ask him to look back at that debate and come back to me if he has further queries. The Higher Education Funding Council is looking at the case for the Open University and Birkbeck. We have commended it for that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that I always look concerned about this "nine tenths", because I am waiting for the figures. We sometimes have real difficulty with lots of figures being around, but it is actually very difficult to get underneath them. I hope and am sure that the Open University will provide the information to the Higher Education Funding Council in order for it to look at it carefully and properly. I urge it to do so as soon as possible.

The main thing I take away from this is broad welcome and support for what we have already achieved, support for the role of the Director of Fair Access within this, and recognition that this job is not yet finished, as I made plain on Report. I made a commitment that we would look at the needs of part-time students, the student income and expenditure survey—to include part-time students for the first time and, having looked at our students and who they are, we will then consider what more can be done. We have funded the Open University to get this information for us. Although noble Lords have been concerned about it, there is nothing in this legislation to stop us moving forward if that seemed the appropriate thing to do.

I stand by all those commitments. I recognise that if I were to fail in those commitments, there are plenty of noble Lords who have made it perfectly clear that I should be back here answering important and detailed questions. There is no intention to do other than what we said on Report, and I hope these amendments will be received in that spirit.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 16, line 20, after "education" insert "(including part-time higher education in so far as his functions are exercisable in relation to it)".

moved Amendment No. 5:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. I agree that the wording is better than that of the amendment considered at an earlier stage. It will go a long way to meeting the concerns that were expressed. I know that it was an issue of concern not just on these Benches but on the Liberal Democrat Benches and on the Cross Benches. My noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark was particularly concerned about it. I have two short words for the Minister: "Thank you".

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. We were anxious about the issue, but we are much reassured by the amendment that the Minister has tabled.

My Lords, I support the amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, on his persistence and am grateful to the Government for tabling the amendments.

Amendment No. 5 builds helpfully on the amendment that I tabled in Committee. It gives an even more powerful assurance that institutions are to retain their autonomy over admissions, course content and delivery.

Amendment No. 13 goes further and makes it clear that OFFA cannot require institutions to refer to individual courses in their plans, except as provided for in Clause 32(1). That is very welcome. Universities UK, in which I declare an interest as chief executive, has pressed for it since the Bill was first published, and I must say that I had all but given up on it. Universities UK felt, as I do, that it was rather important that OFFA should look at widening participation strategies as a whole. OFFA should not have the power to require institutions to focus on individual courses. One can imagine how, if OFFA had that power, it might be abused or used innocently in such a way as to distort the priorities of institutions in widening participation. It would also, inevitably, lead to a degree of micro-management, which would, in my view, be unacceptable. The amendment is very welcome, and I thank the Minister for it.

I wonder, though, whether the Minister might clarify the meaning of the phrase "general provisions" in the amendment. I hope that she means "except as provided for in Clause 32(1)". If that is what she means, I am entirely happy with the amendment.

My Lords, it is indeed my understanding that that is what I mean. I hope that that clarifies things for the noble Baroness.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 16, line 36, leave out "In relation to England,"

My Lords, I perhaps should have asked for Amendment No. 8 to be degrouped. If Amendment No. 7 is agreed, Amendment No. 8 will fall. Therefore, it depends on whether the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, wishes to test the opinion of the House on his amendment. Amendment No. 8 is tabled on behalf of RNIB and SKILL, which were very concerned about the changing of the wording of the Bill in relation to England. I remind your Lordships that the original wording of the Bill was that the responsibility of the director should be the promotion of equality of opportunity or the promotion of higher education. We picked that up at a fairly early point and changed the wording. Indeed, this came forward at Report to cope with that. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, explained, we left that wording in in relation to Wales.

The two organisations are very concerned because it would suggest that one is counterpoising the promotion of higher education against the promotion of equal opportunities. The suggestion therefore is that in order that those two sub-paragraphs should not seem to be alternatives, the word "or" should be substituted with the word "and". This is a minor amendment that would just clarify the wording.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to the position of the Liberal Democrats on the devolution issue. Our spokesman on Welsh affairs, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will speak on that for us. I do not want to speak on that issue. I just wanted to explain my amendment and also make clear that basically it stands only should the other amendments fall.

My Lords, I rise to support fully the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to which I have added my name. Noble Lords may know that this was the subject of amendments which I tabled on Report and I am delighted to be able to return to the matter. I know that for many noble Lords, the amendments before us pose a problem. Those who support devolution, as I do, instinctively feel that the Welsh Assembly must be free to determine its own path and that it should not be for Westminster to dictate what can and cannot be done.

However, we retain responsibility for making primary legislation for Wales. I do not believe that, that primary legislation should be subject to a lower standard of scrutiny than that for England. It is not good enough to say, "That's what Wales wants, so we should not interfere". Given the extensive and anguished communications I and others in this House have received from the Welsh universities which are the most closely involved, this is not what Wales wants. It may be what the Minister in Wales wants, but I do not think that we would be so trusting as to give Ministers in England everything they desire without stern challenge, and I do not see why we should adopt a different attitude to Wales.

With this Bill we are creating a regulator. We have tested the limits of that regulator through rigorous debate, and it is right that we should have clone so because the regulator will have power to tine institutions up to half a million pounds and withhold their grants. It is clear that, with respect to England, the regulator is to regulate access to higher education.

The Government brought forward an amendment on Report to make it clear that that is all this regulator can do.

But that will not be the case in Wales. The RNIB and SKILL, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also referred, are concerned that in Wales the powers created by this Bill will not be used to promote access. I think they are right to be worried. Wales has a very good record on access to higher education, as have many institutions in England. That should not mean that it is neglected as a priority in the future. As the RNIB and SKILL note, there is always more that we can do.

Even if it were true that there was not a problem in relation to access in Wales, surely the response should be to remove the regulator with respect to Wales rather than to keep the regulator to do other, unspecified, things. I do not know what the regulator will regulate in Wales; nor do the vice-chancellors of Welsh institutions and nor, I suspect, does the Minister. It is not right that a regulator should be created without clarity as to what he or she will regulate—and with the power to fine, but no clarity about what the criteria will be.

I will certainly support this amendment should the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, decide to test the opinion of the House. I shall do so knowing that I have the strong support of higher education institutions in Wales.

My Lords, it is with some regret that Members on these Benches are unable to support the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, on this amendment, in particular having regard to his many years of outstanding leadership in the education field as a Minister of State in the Welsh Office. But he has urged us to stand by our principles, and there are principles other than academic freedom at stake. He reminded us that the Minister assured the House that the Welsh Assembly had asked specifically for the differentiation contained in this Bill to exist between the English provisions and those for Wales. I have said from this Bench on many occasions that we believe that, if devolution is to work, the National Assembly for Wales should have its way and that primary legislation, subject to a reserve only in the most exceptional circumstances, should mirror the requirements of the National Assembly.

I said that over the four years when we were in a partnership government in Wales with the Labour Party. Am I to move away from that principle because at the moment the Labour Party is exercising power in the National Assembly on its own? We believe not. We believe that the purpose of primary legislation in Westminster is to enable the National Assembly to do its job and not to limit or curb it.

If this is all about money and the way that money should be used in Wales to fund higher education, I should make it quite clear that the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the National Assembly have called for the release of £50 million from the reserves of £726 million in order to support and enhance higher education in the Principality.

We do not necessarily believe that the policies being followed by the present National Assembly government are right or even sensible. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to what was said by Jane Davidson on 9 June in plenary session. She has stated that she intends to change the landscape of higher education in Wales and sharply strengthen the financial incentives for reconfiguration. That may not be sensible where the institutions of higher education in Wales do not agree and where they have not been consulted. But that is what devolution is about. It is a power given to the National Assembly government to make mistakes and it will be punished for those, we hope, at the ballot box.

If the Assembly wants, for example, to introduce variable fees for higher education in Wales, I am sure that the Labour Party will not have missed the fact that in the recent elections, the Liberal Democrats scored enormous successes in the university towns, taking every ward in Cardiff Central where there is a higher proportion of students to the population than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Students and young people across the whole of the United Kingdom are responding to the policies of the Liberal Democrats on education. If the Labour Party wants to pursue other policies, whether elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in Wales, let it be punished for them. That is what the democratic process is all about and that is what devolution is all about.

So it is in support of that principle—that it is for the National Assembly for Wales to make up its own mind, right or wrong—that we are not in a position to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. This House is a not a Court of Appeal. This is not the place for Universities UK to make representations about the future of education. It should concentrate its efforts in Wales by bringing students out into the streets in peaceful demonstration if that it what it wants, but it should not come here for us to second-guess what the National Assembly has done.

My Lords, the noble Lord has enunciated the theory that devolution means that Westminster should simply rubber stamp that which the Welsh Assembly wants, that we should be agents for the Assembly in making primary legislation because it does not have the power to do so. I find that very difficult to accept. This is an interesting devolution issue and I think it is one that worries us; it certainly worries me that it has arisen at all. It is something that we shall have to look at when we consider the Richard report.

As the noble Lord knows, although I am no expert on Welsh matters, I know how Scotland has dealt with the problem of getting universities to consider co-operating more and perhaps merging in the future. That has been achieved by asking the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to make it a condition of funding that they do consider this. That has worked well and there is no question about the fact that it is open to Wales to do so as well.

The point here is that we have a Bill which is the job of the Westminster Government; we have to legislate. This Bill creates the possibility of a regulator in Wales which could be extremely threatening to universities if it is not limited. But we have created the Bill and we are approving it. If we leave the Bill as it is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, has said, universities in Wales will have no protection from the threat that the regulator, which would he the creature of the government of Wales, will do what it will with them. We have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill does not create a situation where the universities in Wales could suffer in a way in which the universities in England will not suffer. We owe it to the people of Wales to do so.

Had the Assembly consulted properly with the universities in Wales and obtained their agreement that they did not want limitations on the regulator, the situation would he quite different. But it apparently has not done so. I believe that the noble Lord is getting slightly carried away with his enthusiasm for devolution and the Assembly in thinking that the Government are right to accept this simply because the Welsh Assembly says so.

I think that the Government are deeply wrong. If, with the help of the Liberal Democrats—who are also enthusiastic in this way—they do not accept the amendment, they will show that they have not done their thinking about the lop-sided kind of devolution that we now have in this country. We owe it to the people of Wales that the Bill should give the same kind of protection to universities in Wales as it gives to universities in England.

I hope that the Government will listen to the universities in this respect. Noble Lords sitting behind the Government Front Bench may or may not have gone into this issue in great detail, but I hope they realise that, having created devolution, we have to be extremely careful how we operate it. Some matters may have to be changed as a result of the Richard report but I hope that the House will accept my noble friend's amendment and that the Government will see the danger of the course they indicated they were on at the previous stage.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former vice-chancellor of the University of Wales and of Aberystwyth.

"Give me liberty or give me death",

is a famous phrase from the American Revolution. This seems to be a case of "Give me liberty or give me devolution". As Tom Paine observed, I am for liberty. Although I sit on these Benches, I am not a politician; I am a life-long academic and I have always supported devolution.

There are two aspects of devolution to which I should like to refer. Noble Lords may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with whom I invariably agree on these matters. First, this is a case of devolution within Wales as well as a case of devolution in relation to Wales and Westminster. Devolution has always been said to rest on a consensual attitude, but this policy is part of a programme which is being imposed upon the universities and institutions of Wales.

I have spoken to many vice-chancellors over the past few days and we have had communications from the higher education body in Wales representing vice-chancellors and principals. They are totally opposed to the implications of this policy, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said. They are also deeply apprehensive that it makes Wales, in various ways, less free than England. The supreme quality of a university is its freedom. That matters more to me than anything else. I have spent my life as a university teacher and it seems to me that a lack of freedom from overt—and, even more, from covert—interference is very dangerous.

There are implications in the broader provisions for higher education which arouse suspicion, particularly in regard to the amalgamation of institutions where pressure has been imposed. When I was in Aberystwyth there were two amalgamations, but they were carried out by free, autonomous institutions. We cannot have it both ways. Universities are either free, autonomous institutions, or they are not.

There has been a good deal of double talk in these matters. In this case, the universities in Wales feel that they are not given the same degree of freedom. They have already raised grave concerns about funding and whether or not the possible gap in 2006–07 will be made up. They have grounds for believing that they will be more regulated. After reading the letter from the National Assembly Minister, Jane Davidson, which many of us have received, I am quite glad that I am not now a vice chancellor and subjected to such a degree of interference and regulation.

I suspect that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies will take a different view—which is rather like arguing against God, as far as I am concerned—but, with great respect and great regret, I feel that academic freedom and academic autonomy are threatened, that Wales will suffer and that the Welsh higher education system, which has been one of the glories of our nation since the late 19th century, is likely to diminish. I hope that the Government will think very seriously about the amendment.

My Lords, I do not argue against God very often. If a DNA test were carried out on me, I do not think it would reveal any Welsh or English blood in my veins.

Having supported the Liberal Democrat amendment on voluntary work, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It relates to the complex issue of the balance between what is right to be devolved and the national educational policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated.

In my view, the Bill appears to have become the victim of what might be called the negative side of well-intentioned positive discrimination and needs to be rectified. In other words, as it stands, the Bill would involve undue interference in Welsh institutions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I very much hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will be accepted. If the will of the House is to be tested, I hope that the amendment will be agreed to.

My Lords, I am in favour of liberty and devolution and I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, very much indeed. However, I believe that it is not right necessarily to assume that the Education Secretary in the Welsh Assembly Government is the most popular person in Wales. I know that to be not a fact.

The principles outlined in Amendment No. 6 give rise to an interesting situation, as my noble friend Lord Thomas said. As currently drafted, Clause 32(2) relates specifically to England. This is an England and Wales Bill and matters relating to higher education are specific to the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh Assembly Government in Wales. We agree with Clause 32(2) because it is consistent with the devolution settlement, and Clause 32(3) spells out what should apply in Wales. Indeed, it places duties on the Welsh Assembly Government either to promote equality of opportunity or to promote higher education. My noble friend Lady Sharp has tabled Amendment No. 8, which seeks to put that right. We are confronted with an interesting situation. We would obviously prefer that the Bill did both.

The principle of devolution is very important. Amendment No. 7 seeks to strike out specific reference to Wales and therefore goes against the principle of devolution. We oppose the deletion of Clause 32(3) and we will vote against Amendment No. 7 for this reason.

However, a great many issues arise. My noble friend Lord Thomas made the point that although we are consistent in our attitude to devolution, that does not necessarily mean that we agree with what might happen to higher education under the present Minister for Education in the Welsh Assembly Government.

I should like the Minister to consider several matters. In Wales, equality of opportunity is very important and should be essential, not just an option. Why is this? Will she explain why the Welsh Assembly Government want this distinction?

Secondly, is there a price tag connected specifically with the word "promotion"? Thirdly, will promotion as specified in the Bill be used as a means of amalgamating a number of university colleges and higher education establishments in Wales, which has been hinted at by several contributors to this debate? Fourthly, will moneys be withheld from establishments that do not comply with the diktat of the Welsh Assembly Government's Education Minister if she so desires them to amalgamate?

There are also wider questions. What impact would this measure have on the federal university colleges of the University of Wales? Indeed, the Government will know that the right honourable Dafydd Wigley has been appointed by the University of Wales to produce a report into its constitution. I have not seen that report and I do not know whether it has been published yet, but it might have an impact on what we are discussing.

What measures will the Government take to redress the substantial under-funding gap, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, referred, between the higher education sector in England and that in Wales? Historically, Wales has fallen short by approximately £300 per student in comparison with England, and I believe that the gap may be greater at the present time. Clearly, it has an impact on equality. The Government should surely provide equality of funding for both England and Wales, as well as equality of opportunity for students to access higher education in Wales. If the Welsh Assembly wants to go ahead, I would like to know whether it has said that it wishes to use promotion as a means of getting additional funding to force higher education establishments in Wales to amalgamate. That would be extremely foolish of the Welsh Assembly because of the geography of Wales and the paucity of physical communications—it is practically impossible to get Bangor to amalgamate with the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education or Trinity College Carmarthen to amalgamate with the University of Wales, Swansea.

There are many issues that need to be raised. If the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff is foolish enough to pursue this path, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, it should have the freedom to do so. However, the electorate in Wales will deliver a verdict that will not be favourable to the Welsh Assembly government.

My Lords, I would like to clarify one point. The speech by the Minister, Jane Davidson, to which I referred, was made on 9 June and actually states that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales,

"will take a much more proactive approach to delivering on the reconfiguration agenda. For a sector with a large number of relatively small institutions, funding will continue to be available for mergers. However, I shall also be looking to promote innovative ways of working to enable the sector to take forward other forms of collaboration".

There is not much doubt about the Government's intentions.

My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. It is obviously correct. However, if the Minister is unwise enough to pursue this course, frankly, judgment will be made by the people of Wales.

My Lords, this is a Third Reading debate and we should try to stick to the conventions of Third Reading.

My Lords, I do not think that this amendment bears on devolution at all. It is open to the Welsh Assembly to promote higher education. The clause that we are discussing is about the requirement to include the promotion of higher education in an access plan. This is something very specific. I support the amendment.

My Lords, when my noble friend replies to this debate, it would be helpful if she would confirm two matters: first, that Clause 32(3) has been brought forward at the request of the Welsh Assembly Government and, secondly, that the UK Government themselves are satisfied that the new power is justified given the circumstances prevailing in Wales. If my noble friend can give us that assurance, there is a presumption that the clause as it stands should be acceptable to the House. I remind the House that between 31 July 1999 and 31 December last, Parliament passed 42 Acts of Parliament containing distinctive Wales-only clauses or Wales-only Bills. To the best of my recollection and belief, on no occasion did your Lordships' House reject a Wales-only clause or a Wales-only Bill. If that is correct, there is no need for me to emphasise the obvious. If the series of amendments is agreed, an important precedent would be established.

If the Welsh Assembly, which has a democratic mandate, is to be denied the primary legislation to enable it to pursue policies that it considers to be in the interests of the Welsh people and if that legislation is agreed by the UK Government—the two conditions that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—we are bound to ask how the devolution settlement will work. That was the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It greatly saddens me that so much criticism has been levelled at this clause by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The Welsh higher education sector is small, but it has made a substantial contribution to Welsh life during the past 120 years, and continues to make a contribution. I should declare an interest: I am hugely indebted to the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and the University of Wales, Swansea.

When I read the evidence of the Welsh Assembly Education Minister to the Richard Commission on the powers of the Welsh Assembly, it seemed to me that she was seeking the legislative powers to promote higher education in Wales. That is what emerged from her evidence to the commission. When did Higher Education Wales first make representations to the Welsh Assembly about this power? That is a very difficult question to put to my noble friend the Minister; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has asked a series of questions.

6 p.m.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is in his place. I am wondering whether we are faced with a basic weakness in the devolution model. The clause emanates from the Welsh Assembly but is being scrutinised by this forum. The Welsh Assembly Minister is not present to explain or defend the clause or to answer the questions that have been put to our Minister. That "split responsibility", as the Richard Commission called it, is partly the cause of the difficulties that we are in tonight. Of course, if a Welsh Minister were present in the House or in a Special Standing Committee to consider the Welsh clauses of an England and Wales Bill, she might be able to give assurances to noble Lords who are concerned about the Bill.

I hope that the House is not asked to vote on the amendment. However, if the amendment were passed, I believe that the Ministers of the Welsh Assembly Government and many people in Wales would think that the time had come for the conferment of primary legislative powers on the Assembly. That has never been more necessary nor more timely than tonight.

My Lords, I declared my Welsh pedigree in support of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy at an earlier stage. I shall not dwell on the niceties of the devolution issue. However, in comparison with the knowledge that some of us could once have had about the entire UK higher education sector—even though the department's writ did not run throughout the land—we are in these matters severely constrained by devolution. We are also constrained by the purity under which, as Westminster parliamentarians, we cannot be given information by Ministers relating to devolved institutions on the one hand and, on the other, we have no right as Westminster parliamentarians to receive information from those in devolved institutions who could tell us. All I can say is, "more's the pity".

I rise to support my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. In relation to his anxieties about what may happen in Wales, I can cite analogously an ILEA episode from long ago. I was resident in Highgate and was, or had been, a governor of the Camden School for Girls, to which the episode relates. The Hampstead and Highgate Express reported that a senior elected member of ILEA had addressed the parents of Camden School for Girls and had said that in her view it was absolutely wrong for girls—or, indeed, women—to go into higher education. The paper reported that officials from ILEA sitting on the platform with her put their heads in their hands and presumably hoped that the roof would fall in. Like the thunderbolt that fell on York Minster shortly after the Bishop of Durham expressed his famous views, as the paper also reported, the roof obligingly did fall in that very night, though after the meeting when everyone had left. In that time-honoured phrase of the Metropolitan Press, "Provincial papers, please copy"—and, if I may say so, Liberal Democrat Benches, please note.

My Lords, I briefly offer my support to this amendment. To me the issue is very simple. Whatever the rights or wrongs of devolution, we in this Parliament currently have the responsibility for primary legislation in respect of universities in Wales. We have already achieved a great deal in the passage of the Bill though this House, and with the concessions made by the Government on the issue of academic freedom for English universities. It seems to me totally wrong that we should not just as stoutly defend the academic freedom of Welsh universities. That is why I give my support.

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of the amendments. It seems rather extraordinary that we have been invited to endorse Clause 32(3) when, seemingly, no decision has been taken in Wales as to whether they want to promote higher education or about access. I cannot see how there are alternatives. That seems to make no sense whatever, and I find it difficult to endorse a proposal that does not seem to make sense.

There is another reason, however, why I very reluctantly speak on a matter that one would regard as properly the business of Wales. It is not a concern for me that the universities in Wales feel threatened and do not like what the Government have in mind. However, I do care that they have not been consulted on a matter, on which, if they are found wanting, they face a serious financial penalty. That cannot be good for the process of government in Wales. Therefore, I support the amendments.

My Lords, I apologise for not having been involved before in this debate. I must declare an interest as an employee of one of the universities that has benefited from the merger process and which is now in the process of merging.

I have listened very carefully to the debate, and fear that we are muddling up two different things. There is devolution and whether Wales should have more powers; that, in a way, is a separate debate. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, relates to the situation as it stands today. It is with great regret that I feel inclined to support the amendment.

My gut feeling is that I want to support Wales and the Assembly Government in Wales, but things work in Wales when everyone works together, when consultation is wide and there is a consensus view. If the universities in Wales are giving a message that they are anxious, forcing things on them will only create unhappiness. Sadly, there is an exit across Offa's Dyke for the brightest and best among our academics. I fear that if we allow those universities to become unhappy, the fantastic tradition of academic excellence of which we in Wales are so proud will be under threat.

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords. The debate has been long and interesting, as befits what is an important part of the Third Reading of the Bill. I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, as I am mindful that many comments have been made that cover the points well.

I should tell my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that the provision is the desire of the Welsh Assembly, as he knows. Jane Davidson, to whom noble Lords have referred, has made clear to me her commitment to the autonomy of higher education institutions. The provisions in Clause 32 will in no way undermine that principle. The Assembly has requested the inclusion of the phrase,

"the promotion of higher education",

to enable institutions to propose plans drawn more widely than simply in terms of access. The intention is to free the hands of institutions, not bind them further.

Noble Lords referred to the differences within the sectors. The sector in Wales is much smaller than that in England, and its concerns are also different. Access is an area of success in Wales, where higher education institutions have a very good track record. Jane Davidson has made it clear, too, that if variable fees were introduced in Wales, there would be no question of the Assembly imposing requirements on individual institutions. The Assembly would not envisage defining the content of fee plans in such tight terms as to infringe the autonomy of Welsh institutions. Rather, fee plans would be an integral part of the sector's strategic engagement with the Funding Council and the Assembly Government.

During Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised concerns that the inclusion of promotion of higher education or equality of opportunity could lead to disregard for equality of opportunity in Wales. I assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the National Assembly for Wales is committed to equality of opportunity in all its functions. Indeed, Section 120 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 makes this a statutory duty on the Assembly, which applies to all its functions. This Bill sets out the framework under which a system of variable fees would operate in Wales, but we contend that it is essential that the Assembly has sufficient flexibility to determine and deliver a policy suited to Wales.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was concerned about granting power to the Assembly without rigorous scrutiny of how it will be used. The Assembly regulation-making procedures involve at least as much scrutiny as the affirmative procedure in Parliament. The relevant subject committee and the legislation committee will consider the Assembly regulations. There will be a full public consultation, which is also a requirement. I hope that covers, at least in part, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It will be important. Of course, higher education institutions will be part of the full public consultation. In view of the number of comments that have been made about the need to consider scrutiny, that is an important point. There is no negative procedure in the Assembly, other than in cases of urgency, so draft regulations are open to scrutiny and debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked whether the Assembly has already debated these provisions. The National Assembly has debated the Higher Education Bill in plenary on more than one occasion since it was introduced. On each occasion, the Assembly voted to welcome the devolution of the powers in the Bill. That addresses the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.

We are satisfied that the Assembly is best placed to make the judgment about how it wishes to take this forward. It has a statutory obligation to consult, it has debated these issues at length and it will make any regulations within the affirmative procedure, as I have made clear. We believe that we should offer the flexibility for the National Assembly to make its own decisions. I believe that the assurances about scrutiny and consultation, which would precede any Assembly regulations under this clause, and the assurances from the Assembly Minister on the policy context should be enough to satisfy noble Lords. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. There has been a fairly clear clash between those who stand by the principle of academic autonomy and freedom and those who give priority to devolution. It was very interesting that, right from the beginning, the voice of higher education in Wales was very clearly heard, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, a former principal. Then we heard the voices of my noble friend Lady Perry and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, an employee of the University of Wales College of Medicine. She is very much in touch with academic feeling in Wales.

There is no doubt about it: academic institutions feel threatened and rightly so, from what I have read of the intentions of the Assembly's education executive. It is no wonder since, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, implied, there has been no consultation. This is what has really caused anxiety in institutions of higher education in Wales.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was very firm in his belief in devolution and also in his belief that devolution means the freedom to make mistakes. I am not sure that that freedom extends to this Parliament while it has responsibility for providing Wales with primary legislation. We cannot contemplate the road to ruin as far as institutions of higher education in Wales are concerned with any degree of equanimity. I agree with the noble Lord that devolution may well mean freedom to make mistakes. However, while we have responsibility for primary legislation there is no doubt that we should do our best to ensure that no major errors occur.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but the fact is that the clause as it stands is rightly seen by academics and students in Wales as a Trojan horse. There is no doubt that the Assembly government would like to use their financial muscle to shape higher education in Wales as they think fit. We have ample words from the Minister herself. The question is, is that the right way to go about achieving these ends? I doubt it very much. The impression that has been given is that the Minister is riding roughshod over the institutions of higher education. They do not like it and I do not like it either. I have a feeling that the House will not like it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.