Intellectual Property (Hargreaves Report)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman could have made the same point in an intervention on the Minister. I am sure that the Minister will now be eager to deal with that point, as well as all the others, in his summing up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Binley]

That is the quickest response for action I have every had from any Minister. I am most appreciative. I congratulate the Minister on taking on a very difficult brief that is not primarily his own. I understand that he does not want to say too much before the Government consultation has finished but, on the basis of our long friendship, will he talk to the Minister concerned about the use of search engines? The need to ensure that the creative arts get well recompensed for their product is vital and increasingly urgent.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. That is a long intervention.

[Mr Binley]

I shall sit down, Mr Chope. Your guidance is welcome, as it is based on experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

That is another interesting point. Again, that will form part of what we say when we respond to the report. The review did not deal with the subject in the detail that the hon. Gentleman refers to. The review recommendations do not come to a definitive conclusion on that subject, as he will know from having read them, but the proposal seems to be a useful addition to those recommendations and is certainly something that we will cover in our response. I am more than happy to give him that assurance.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Minister that it is customary in these general debates to leave five minutes at the end for the hon. Member who initiated the debate to respond and that we have to finish by 5.30 pm.

St George’s Day and St David’s Day Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, although I remind him that Scotland celebrates St Andrew’s day and Ireland celebrates St Patrick’s day. I do not believe that it is divisive in any way for England or Wales to uphold their saints. In fact, the more we can deal with such things positively, recognising their importance, the closer and stronger the Union becomes. When things are forced down people’s throats, they begin to become rejectionists. I am afraid that I therefore disagree with my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Something concerns me about the Bill. I am all in favour of celebrating St George’s day or St David’s day, but why does the Bill suggest that it is necessary to have a bank holiday to celebrate them on another day? Surely, if those days fall on a weekend, the celebrations can take place then, without the need the for anyone to give up work on the previous Friday or the subsequent Monday.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If I understand him correctly, he suggests avoiding bank holidays and celebrating at the weekends, but that is precisely my point: if we had a bank holiday, we could celebrate on whichever date the saint’s day falls, not necessarily on a Saturday or Sunday.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend misunderstand my point. If St George’s day was to fall on a weekday, I could understand the case that he makes for having a bank holiday. If St George’s day falls on a weekend, I cannot understand the case for having a bank holiday on the previous Friday or the subsequent Monday.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is important to have a bank holiday, because what a bank holiday would do to the nation’s psyche is to deliver a permanent reminder of St George’s day, rather than people casually saying, “Well, if it falls on the weekend, it’s fine.” Otherwise we cannot do the thing that we most want to do, which is to recognise it permanently and specifically.

Regulatory Authorities (Level of Charges) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

This is a short Bill but an important one because it raises an issue that affects everyone in the country: the level of regulatory charges imposed on them. I think it was the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General who coined the phrase “stealth taxes”. He did so more than 10 years ago, but it is still a highly relevant term, because when public sector organisations increase their fees and charges, they are essentially imposing additional taxes on the populace.

While I was looking into possible subjects on which to introduce Bills during this Session, I had some very unsatisfactory correspondence with the Care Quality Commission about the price it was charging for the registration of a children’s hospice in Dorset called Julia’s House. At that stage, Julia’s House had three residents rooms but it wanted to add a further room, and the CQC said it would have to pay a substantial additional fee of thousands of pounds. The hospice chairman wrote to me saying he thought that was unsatisfactory as the hospice is, after all, a charity and all its costs are covered by charitable donations, which in this instance were, effectively, going into the proxy coffers of the Government by way of a regulatory burden.

Following that, the CQC conducted a consultation on its level of charges in general. I will refer later to some of the conclusions to be drawn from that, but it is clear that the CQC is intent on increasing the burden of charges well above the rate of inflation from year to year, partly to meet the Treasury requirement that it should cover its costs by raising charges. We know, however, that it is possible for organisations to reduce their costs, although that option is very often not taken by regulatory authorities. Fortunately, the BBC is now being forced to reduce its costs because the Government have said the licence fee cannot be increased.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend might dwell a little further on this point and give us a little more detail because, contrary to what he has said, there are cases in which the introduction of a moderate and measured regulation may allow for other regulations to be lifted. That balance lies at the heart of the Bill and our consideration of it.

[Mr Chope]

I note what my hon. Friend says, and he will, no doubt, be able to give us some examples of where he thinks the overall burden of regulation has been reduced as a result of introducing new regulations. I look forward to hearing some of those examples.

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will give an example now.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes I will, as I want to inform my hon. Friend’s contribution as well as I possibly can. There is a strong argument that the introduction of professional standards, and therefore some measure of quality, into certain parts of the economy may allow for the reduction of other regulations that are currently in place precisely because those professional standards are absent.

[Mr Chope]

That is a rather general example, if I may say so. Perhaps when my hon. Friend comes to respond to the debate he will address a specific profession, such as dentistry. Dentists are already regulated by their professional body. They are also regulated under health and safety legislation and so forth, but the CQC is now insisting that it too should regulate them. It is going to cost dentists a minimum of £800 a year, I think, to register with the CQC. I hope that the Minister will in due course explain what added value will come from that, as there is an enormous amount of scepticism about whether it will lead to any improvement in the quality of dentistry in this country. When one looks at the CQC report, one finds that the income from the regulatory fees for dentists will far exceed the amount that will be spent on regulating dentists. That is a good example of what I am describing as a “stealth tax” or an “additional regulatory burden”.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May I gently chide my hon. Friend? It is open to someone who has a Bill before this House to provide explanatory notes to assist the House in considering the Bill. I understand from the Vote Office that he has not done so and perhaps he could tell the House why. It would have been helpful had he gone to the extra effort of providing those notes. Because he has not done so and because he has gone on about the Care Quality Commission, may I ask whether he intends the definition of “regulatory authority” in his Bill to encompass local authorities?

[Mr Chope]

The short answer is that I do not intend that definition to cover local authorities. On the lack of explanatory notes, my right hon. Friend is a lawyer of considerable repute and he is capable of reading a two-clause Bill just as well as anybody else. This is not a complicated 100-page, six or 10 schedule Bill. We know that you, Mr Speaker, are saying that we must ensure we get good value for money, and we want to reduce our costs, so I thought it would be an unnecessary burden and an additional cost to have explanatory notes for something that is self-explanatory. I hope, in due course, to take my right hon. Friend through the terms of this short Bill, so that if he has any doubts, he can ask questions in interventions and so on. Perhaps I shall do so now, as I am being prompted.

Clause 1 refers to:

“No regulatory authority carrying out functions in England”,

so the Bill extends only to England. Although we have to say that it applies to England and Wales, it will apply only to England.

[Mr Knight]

Clause 1(1) begins:

“No regulatory authority carrying out functions in England on behalf of a Minister of the Crown”.

My hon. Friend says that that is what the Bill is to cover and that he does not intend it to cover local authorities, yet I understand that the analysis of whether a property which is not connected to the water mains is receiving water of an adequate quality is carried out by the local authority, which is undertaking that duty on behalf of a Minister of the Crown, so surely his definition might include local authorities in some circumstances.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend may well be right. It may well be that there are certain circumstances in which local authorities are undertaking a responsibility given to them by the Crown and so this Bill would apply to them, but it is not intended to cut across the discretion of local authorities to set their own fees and charges for the services they provide. That would be contrary to the principles of localism, which are supported so widely across the House now.

Clause 1 states:

“No regulatory authority carrying out functions in England on behalf of a Minister of the Crown may increase, over any given period of time, the fees charged in respect of any of its services by more than the rate of inflation, measured by the Consumer Prices Index, over that given period of time.”

Recently, these charges have been increasing very much above the rate of inflation, and I shall give the House some examples.

Anyone who wishes to travel abroad must have a passport, so one can hardly describe this as an optional extra for most citizens. In 1997, a 10-year renewal for an adult passport cost £17.50 but in 2009 the cost had increased to £77.50, which is almost a fourfold increase in real terms in 12 years. Why? Is such an increase not rather unfair, given that everybody needs a passport and especially given that children now have to have their own passports and cannot travel on their parents’ passports? How can such an increase be justified? Clause 1 would make it impossible for the Passport and Records Agency to increase its fees above the rate of inflation over a given period of time without getting specific authority so to do.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I had the great pleasure of working for the passport office to fund my way through university. While I was there, just pre-1997, it was outsourced to Siemens Business Services, and this was one of the reasons why the costs became so large so quickly. A failed IT project from a previous Government was involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Why should the users of passports be paying for this manifest failure of Siemens Business Services? That really does make the cost a stealth tax. Who knows, when applying for a passport renewal, that a significant part of the cost is actually to pay Siemens Business Services for an inadequate IT system? Having said all that, in 1997 the cost was £17.50, by 2002 it had increased to £33—by then the Siemens issue should probably have been sorted out—and it then increased to £77.50 in 2009, so I am not sure that my hon. Friend has the complete answer. However, what he says is interesting because it shows how these bodies are tempted to pass costs on to the users of their services, no matter how unreasonably those costs may have been incurred.

Another example involves the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Driving Standards Agency. In 2006, the application fee for the UK driving test was £21, but by 2011 it had risen to £31. The fee for a UK driving test practical on a week day increased from £48.50 in 2008 to £62 in 2011. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) has a great interest in this subject, but I wonder whether he knows the answer to the following quiz question: who was the first person to pass his driving test? If he does not know, I can tell him and the House. The first person to do so was Mr J Beene in 1935, and he had to pay 7/6d in old money, which is the equivalent of 37.5p now. These examples just show how these regulatory costs have risen over the years and how they continue to rise.

Other examples include the significant costs imposed for immigration settlement fees. A lot of cross-subsidy takes place within those and so in the current year the cost faced by a parent or grandparent of someone who has already settled in this country is £1,814, which is a significant fee for that application. You may recall, Mr Speaker, that there was a lively exchange of views a couple of years ago when the issue of fishing licences from the Environment Agency came before the House. Those licences produce a yield of £23 million for the Environment Agency, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) raised his concern, and that of others, that the EA had arbitrarily increased by 37% the cost of concessionary rod licences for pensioners and disabled anglers. Why was that done? It was done to help the Environment Agency make a larger profit at the expense of the users of those licences. That is another example of a case that would be covered by the Bill, because if the Environment Agency wanted to increase its charges above the rate of inflation, it would have to get specific authority so to do.

At the moment, there is a proposal from the Police Federation that the cost of a shotgun licence should be increased by some 400%. Again, what could be the justification for that? Surely it is an abuse of the system.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such extortionate increases are in fact likely to lead many people to give up licensing their shotguns altogether, which will mean that the police will have to deal with many people holding unlicensed shotguns?

[Mr Chope]

I think that that would be a danger were the increase in fees to go ahead. A similar danger arises in the case of 17-year-olds seeking their first provisional driving licence. Is it reasonable that they should have to pay a very large fee for that? That fee might be a deterrent to their getting a licence and they might choose—unlawfully, obviously—to drive without a licence. That was a challenge I faced when I was the Minister for Roads and Traffic because in order to keep down the cost of entry into driving for someone obtaining a provisional licence and in order to make ends meet, it was necessary to introduce a modest charge for people who wanted to renew their licence at the age of 70.

There was a big debate in the Government at the time, egged on by a false leader in The Sunday Telegraph, and the proposal to charge a modest fee for 70-year-olds when they renewed their licences was regarded as a tax on pensioners. Nobody really understood the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is making, which is that to increase the costs for the person seeking to get his first provisional licence would be a potential deterrent for that person. I have raised a similar issue in the context of the very high rates of insurance costs and the Government’s policy of having increases in insurance premium tax that bear directly and disproportionately on the costs for young drivers who want insurance. My hon. Friend therefore makes some very good points.

A constant problem is: if we have regulators, who will regulate them? That is essentially what the Bill is about. It challenges the Government in a time when money is tight and when we are told that family incomes will fall over the next two or three years. The Government are imposing quite tight targets on many Government Departments, but would it be fair if those Departments responded by increasing the fees and charges they impose on the tax-paying public by more than the rate of inflation? I do not think it would.

[Mr Hayes]

I am interested in that assertion. Of course my hon. Friend will know that the Government are sympathetic to the thrust of what he is saying. We understand that regulation is a significant issue for businesses of all types, but I wonder whether the debate about regulation is too often seen in quantitative rather than qualitative terms. My hon. Friend has made a case about the volume of legislation in respect of regulation and I wonder whether he could expand on the quality issue. When regulation is justified, how should it be devised and implemented?

[Mr Chope]

My Bill deals with the cost of regulation rather than the wider issues of regulation that have been raised in, for example, Lord Young’s report. I have a number of other Bills before the House that cover various aspects of Lord Young’s recommendations.

My concern is that it is too easy for the regulatory authorities to say that they have to increase their charges because they have to carry out more activities. That is what they do. My hon. Friend will know this better than anybody, because he probably has the coalition’s programme for government on his bedside table, but that document talks about reducing the burden of regulation:

“We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount”

and:

“We will end the culture of ‘tick-box’ regulation, and instead target inspections on high-risk organisations through co-regulation and improving professional standards.”

I am unsure how what the Care Quality Commission has done to dentists fits in with the second paragraph on business in “The Coalition: our programme for government”. Perhaps all will be revealed when my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate.

[Mr Hayes]

For the record, because it is important to be accurate about these things, I do not have that document on my bedside table. I have the collected works of Ezra Pound and a selected number of my own speeches.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful. No debate would be complete without the legendary literary references of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), but I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will not be tempted away from the path of virtue, whatever the enticements of the Minister.

[Mr Chope]

We now know where my hon. Friend the Minister gets all these references from, but that is another story.

Let me give an example of a good regulator. Some of us had the privilege of listening to Colette Bowe from Ofcom earlier in the week. She said that Ofcom had been asked by the Government to reduce its costs by some 25%. It has already reduced its costs by more than 20% and it has not increased the costs of regulation but reduced the size of the organisation so that it acts more proportionately. There is a message there for many other regulators whose minds are not concentrated sufficiently because they have the option of always being able to increase their charges. That is why I have these provisions in the Bill.

The Bill does not say that regulators can never increase their charges, but clause 1(2) states:

“No regulatory authority shall introduce a charge in respect of a service currently provided free of charge in England unless a report has been laid before Parliament setting out the reasons for the introduction of the charge and that report has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Other colleagues will have different examples, but at the moment the Department for Transport is actively considering charging owners of vehicles a registration fee just for having a vehicle in their ownership. The statutory off road notification, which is a means whereby an owner can keep a car off the main road without incurring a fee, will be changed and the owner will have to pay the fee that is being introduced, even if they are keeping the car off the main road and not using it on the highway. That would be an additional new charge. Would it be reasonable? I do not think it would, but if it were introduced under the Bill, it would be necessary for a report to be laid before Parliament setting out the reasons and justification for it. If that were to happen, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire would no doubt ask questions about the impact on those who have older cars that they do not use very often.

[Mr Knight]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of such a charge would be outrageous? In effect, it would be a tax on ownership, which would be unique in this country. Does he share my shock about the reading matter on the Minister’s bedside table? Would the Minister not be better advised to have a copy of the Jensen Interceptor Mark III workshop manual by his bed?

[Mr Chope]

I am sure the Minister will respond to that in his wind-up.

[Mr Nuttall]

And if not, why not?

[Mr Chope]

Indeed.

One of the problems we face is moths—I can even see them flying around the Chamber—so I have a very heavy volume by my bedside to deal with them, particularly when I go home after a long sitting in the Chamber. They are eating every woollen thing in my house, so it is a real problem. The way to deal with them is to have a big tome on the bedside table.

[Mr Nuttall]

“Erskine May”?

[Mr Chope]

Definitely not.

I could give many examples of charges, but the significance of the Bill is that it imposes no additional charge on the taxpayer. There is no money resolution because there is no need for one. Clause 1(3) states:

“No Minister of the Crown may increase the level of any grant payable to a regulatory authority as a consequence of the provisions in this Act.”

Without that provision, it would be possible to argue that if we did not allow regulatory authorities to increase their charges, the Government, through the taxpayer, would have to give additional grant aid. That is specifically excluded under clause 1.

Subsection (4) gives a definition of “regulatory authority” that is inclusive rather than exclusive. It includes

“any authority or body which regulates the carrying on of any business or activity, or the practice of any profession.”

There is flexibility for the Government, as subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State power to make

“consequential, saving, transitional or transitory provision”

as he or she deems fit. Clause 2 sets out the title and commencement date and states that the Bill applies only to England and Wales.

I hope the Minister will commend the Bill for being short and to the point, and that he will use the opportunity presented by this debate to give some assurances to members of the public that we shall not see increases in the burden of regulatory fees and charges similar to those that took place under the previous Government. Will he assure us that the Government really are committed to ensuring that those stealth taxes are kept under control?

It is in the nature of Ministers not to like the idea that a Bill could not be improved by the Government. There may be problems with my Bill, but even if the Minister cannot accept it in its current form, I hope that the Government will suggest ways it could be improved or modified and that they will not block its Second Reading.

I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We can all agree that the work of the police needs to be supported by effective regulation and by ensuring that our police have the rights needed to pursue their necessary duties in the best way possible.

Regulation can certainly represent an unacceptable burden on businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which may not have the legal advice to interpret regulation accurately or the resources to implement it fully. Like many hon. Members, I am a passionate advocate of effective measures to free businesses from red tape, but I do not believe that the answer is to impose arbitrary restrictions on authorities that could hinder their enforcement capabilities. I am afraid that I am not entirely convinced by the Bill. It would introduce restrictions on a wide range of different regulators, and it would therefore need considerable examination in detail in Committee.

When in power, Labour sought to reduce regulation, by introducing the Better Regulation Commission and the ongoing better regulation programme, and made a number of legislative changes to reduce the costs of regulation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not be promoting the Bill if the Government had managed to keep their headline-grabbing promises on reducing regulation. As the director general of the Institute of Directors is quoted as saying in yesterday’s Financial Times, the Government’s rhetoric on red tape and planning has yet to be matched by action.

[Mr Chope]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady is not supporting my Bill. She compares this Government with the previous Government, but what does she say about the fact that, under the previous Government, some fees and charges, particularly those of the then Passport Agency, shot up by four times the rate of inflation?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am expressing considerable doubts about the Bill, but I have not said whether or not we will support it—it is too early to say.

It is regrettable that charges have risen in regulatory authorities, not only for passports but in a number of other areas that hon. Members have mentioned. It is the duty of those to whom the regulators are accountable to ensure that those charges provide value for money for our citizens. I am not convinced that an arbitrary imposition of centralised regulation can effect the right kind of change in regulators’ behaviour.

Answers to parliamentary questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) revealed that, by February this year, this Government had introduced 424 new regulations while removing just 172. That is hardly one-in, one-out. It was reported at the time that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills read the riot act to Cabinet colleagues about their lack of progress, while neglecting to mention that his own Department, which is responsible for regulation, had in 10 months of government removed precisely no significant regulations, while introducing 53 new ones. So I understand why the hon. Member for Christchurch expresses frustration.

The Opposition believe that it is essential to take a fresh look at existing regulation, how it is implemented and particularly how it is translated from European directives. However, I am concerned that this arbitrary blanket ban is, like too much of the Government’s current legislative programme, lacking in detail in many key areas. For example, some regulators’ charges are a percentage of their stakeholders’ turnover. Will the Bill limit the absolute amount or the percentage?

Regulators may at times be able to reduce charges. Would not the Bill create a perverse disincentive to reducing charges, given that regulators would know they have to come to Parliament to increase them? For example, in 2006 Ofcom raised the application fees for radio licences while reducing the ongoing fees in order to meet the important criterion of reflecting cost. Under the Bill it would not have been able to do that.

At the heart of the Bill there appears to be a principle of centralisation. Regulators operate in a wide range of industries and areas. Is it appropriate that one regulation should apply to all? In response to the question, “Who regulates the regulators?” the hon. Member for Christchurch answered, “This Bill,” but in most cases, regulators are answerable to Select Committees and Departments of Government, which are answerable to the people. Does not the Bill imply that these Select Committees and Departments are failing in their duty? Do not the many criticisms expressed by hon. Members who have spoken imply that the issue should be addressed directly, rather than obscured by a blanket ban?

We understand the hon. Gentleman’s deep frustration with the Government’s false promises on regulatory reform and we strongly support reductions in and improvements to regulation, but we fear that the Bill could have significant negative consequences for regulators and for industry. We need smart regulation, not blanket bans.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to speak about the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who spoke with his usual clarity and consistency about the burden on business. He takes the view, which the Government broadly share, that it is crucial that business is free from all regulation but that which is necessary for it to go about its purpose. In a free economy, businesses must be allowed to do what is in their commercial interest and the wider public interest without unnecessary interference from Government. That is a fundamental aspect of what my hon. Friend advocated. It is at the heart of the Bill, and he will be pleased and perhaps even relieved to know that it is also at the heart of the Government’s thinking.

The Bill highlights some important ways in which regulation is enforced in this country. I made the point when I intervened on my hon. Friend that our attitude and approach to regulation need to be qualified by considerations of both quantity and quality. It is true that the Bill deals with cost, but cost has a direct relationship with both of those. It is certainly true that we should measure the volume of regulation quantitatively, and I shall speak at length—but not at undue length—about some of the ways in which that is already done by Government and others. However, it is also true that we should assess regulation qualitatively, because the quality of regulation has a direct bearing on its cost to Government and to the organisations that it affects. The Bill is both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment of regulation measured by cost.

For reasons that will become clearer later in my speech, I cannot support the specific approach that the Bill takes to regulatory change, notwithstanding the warm welcome that I have given to my hon. Friend’s commitment and the opportunity that the Bill gives to consider these matters in greater detail. I shall speak about the matters that it raises in considerable detail as we engage in this interesting debate.

The Bill provides an important reminder of the many ways in which regulation can impact on business and the best means of ensuring that adverse consequences are minimised. It would be helpful to consider some of the principal aims of the Bill. In a rather abbreviated contribution by his usual standards, my hon. Friend took us through the Bill, but I shall do so in more detail. First, the Bill seeks to limit the ability of regulators to recover the costs of the regulatory services they provide. Specifically, the Bill seeks to limit increases in charges to no more than the rate of inflation as measured against the consumer prices index.

My hon. Friend may feel that this is a rather technical point, but these are, after all, technical matters: many examples given in his speech would probably not be covered by the Bill as drafted. He said with typical humility when he was coming to the end of his peroration that he understood that, if the Government supported the broad thrust of the measure, it might be necessary to perfect its drafting, so I acknowledge that he anticipated that some of these technical problems might arise, as they often do when Bills are introduced through the method of a private Member elevating a matter for the consideration of the House and asking for the Government to respond.

I make that technical point because in existing regulatory law the definition is largely restricted to business regulation. Therefore, some of the matters with which my hon. Friend dealt—passports, for example, drivers licences and vehicle licensing—would not necessarily be covered, because those are matters affecting the private citizen. They are subject to the usual rules on public expenditure, managing public money and the normal oversight of spending. That is probably the most appropriate set of frameworks by which they should be assessed. On a purely technical note, therefore, it would be inappropriate to relate the detail of the Bill to the advocacy of my hon. Friend in the areas that I highlighted.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend suggests that the Bill applies only to regulatory authorities that regulate the carrying on of any business. As he knows, it also covers regulatory authorities regulating the carrying on of any activity. Why does he think the Identity and Passport Service, which is responsible for the carrying on of activities, is not covered by the Bill?

[Mr Hayes]

Activities of the kind that I mentioned and about which my hon. Friend spoke in his contribution are covered by other legislation and a different set of regulatory protocols, which the Bill would contradict. It would require considerable work to achieve a happy marriage between the two. It is impossible to pass the Bill in its current form without its having an impact on other legislation which itself sets up a series of regulatory mechanisms to deal with some of the matters that he described. I do not want him to assume that this is a criticism of the essence of his argument or of the principles upon which it is based; it is purely an observation that technically it would not necessarily be possible for the Government to adopt the Bill in its current form.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend seems to be saying that regulatory legislation is so complex that it is impossible to simplify it in the way that the Bill would simplify it. If the regulatory legislative framework is so complex, why do not the Government get to grips with making it simpler?

[Mr Hayes]

Later in my contribution I shall describe some of the ways in which the Government have done just that. They have taken a firm grip on these matters. Even in these early days of the long regime to which we can look forward and in which I hope to play a small part, we are making significant progress in the way that my hon. Friend wishes us to do.

It is not a question of the Government not intending to grasp the nettle—to take a grip on the subject, to use his terms—but of doing so in a way that is consistent, coherent and deliverable.

Lest I dwell too much on the first part of the Bill, let me deal with the second part. The Bill would stop a regulator, subject to specific conditions, introducing a charge for a previously free service. A regulator would be able to introduce new charges where previously there had been none on the condition that a report setting out the benefits of the new arrangements was laid before and agreed by the House. Were I a rather more sarcastic person than I am, and if I wished to tease my hon. Friend, which I would not do, as you know, Mr Speaker, I might say to him that he is himself in the Bill establishing a rather elaborate system, to put it mildly, for dealing with the test that he describes: a report to the House, which presumably will be debated, with no real clarity about the length or nature of that debate, and perhaps even referred to a Committee of the House. Who knows how long that process might take? It is absolutely right that these matters should be scrutinised, but the implication of my hon. Friend’s proposals is that we might lengthen, both in terms of time and substance, the mechanisms by which we assess, implement, gauge, and judge necessary regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am guided, as ever, by your advice in these matters.

The Bill suggests that the fees charged for services that are determined by law and part of the regulatory agenda should be gauged in a way that allows this House to make a judgment about their impact. The Bill, in those terms, needs to be assessed against its likely impact and effectiveness, but we are right to argue that it also should be gauged against the existing provisions, both in law and beyond, that affect costs and fees in respect of regulation, and the Government’s absolute determination to reduce that burden.

So, my hon. Friend will want to know that the moratorium on new domestic regulations for smaller companies, which the Government have put in place, certainly affect the provisions of this Bill. The determination of the Government to publish all regulations sector by sector will to some extent do what the Bill intends, because it will give us a clearer indication of the character and nature of costs, and how they rise.

[Mr Chope]

Surely the effect of the Bill will be to ensure that regulators are not able to increase their fees and charges beyond the rate of inflation, and they will therefore have to reduce their costs and probably their regulatory activity, which in itself will be beneficial to business, will it not?

[Mr Hayes]

We are back—are we not?—to the point that was made earlier in this brief debate, about quantity and quality, because it is true that the Bill will necessitate the reconsideration of quality and effectiveness because of the link to charge. In other words, regulation will have to be legitimised around price, but it would be dangerous to assume that the effect of introducing that new provision—unless seen in the context of what is already there; the point made is existing charges and costs—might be as profound as my hon. Friend describes.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend will realise that HM Treasury’s guidance on fees and charges requires all regulators to cover their costs where they have fee-setting functions. Therefore, the Bill, by forcing regulators to reduce their costs, which they can pass on in the form of fees, will reduce their activities and, thereby, the burden of regulation.

[Mr Hayes]

That—ipso facto—is certainly the case, but the qualitative judgment about regulation that I have advocated would need to be applied, too. My hon. Friend says that the Bill needs to be set in the context of what the Government have already agreed. The Government have agreed, as he knows, that they will regulate only

“having demonstrated that satisfactory outcomes by alternative self-regulatory or non-regulatory approaches; and where analysis of the costs and benefits demonstrates that the regulatory approach is superior by a clear margin to alternative self-regulatory or non-regulatory approaches; and where the regulation and the enforcement framework can be implemented in a fashion which is demonstrably proportionate; accountable; consistent; transparent and targeted.”

If one applied those principles to my hon. Friend’s argument, one would find, I assert, that his Bill is not necessary. Furthermore, I assert that his Bill, rather than applying those broad principles—I say “broad”, but they are clear in intent—would put in place a series of mechanisms that, as I argued earlier, might lengthen and make more complex the process.

The Bill sets up a mechanism by which Parliament must scrutinise those matters, and my strong assertion and, indeed, recommendation to my hon. Friend is that the adoption of the regime I have just described, already articulated by the Government, is a more effective means of achieving his ambition than the Bill, which might have perverse consequences, albeit unintended, in making the system rather more costly and difficult than it need be.

[Mr Chope]

May I invite my hon. Friend to move away from the rhetoric to the reality, in the context in particular of the Care Quality Commission’s decision to start regulating dentists, who are already adequately regulated, and then to impose on them charges of £800 a year each to fund the regulation? The provisions of the Bill will catch that activity.

[Mr Hayes]

I am going to come on to dentists and the rationale for dentistry regulation, because there has been some debate about it already this morning in consideration of this Bill, but before I do so perhaps I may be very specific, as you have invited me to be, Madam Deputy Speaker, about fees, charges and levies, which lie at the heart of the Bill.

The fundamental policy of government is to charge for public-provided goods and services, where that approach helps to allocate the use of goods and services in a rational way, because it prevents waste through excessive or badly targeted consumption. The Government argue that that makes for easier comparisons with the private sector, promotes competition and helps to develop markets. When a fee is charged for access to public goods or services, there are specific rules on how the charge should be determined, and it is important to protect Parliament’s rights to decide which services should be charged for and how public resources are allocated.

That is much like what my hon. Friend wants to achieve, but my argument is that there are mechanisms already in place to do what we wants. I accept that it is necessary for those mechanisms—how can I put it?—to be enlivened and accelerated by a commitment by Government to be absolutely scrupulous about where regulation applies, what is charged for and how those charges, those fees, should be gauged. I am giving my hon. Friend an assurance—not gold-plated but copper-bottomed, one might say—that the Government will indeed be determined, as he asks us to be, that the extent and character of that regulation, and the fees and charges associated with it, should be legitimised, should be moderate and should not increase in an unjustifiable way.

A word about the specifics. My hon. Friend asks me to be less rhetorical. Most people enjoy—I will not put it more extravagantly than that—the rhetoric with which I embellish what I do, but I am prepared to take the slings and arrows as well as the praise, so I will for a moment or so move from rhetoric to detail.

The rationale for dentistry regulations, which my hon. Friend draws attention to as an illustration of the purpose of this Bill, is clear. The Care Quality Commission is the responsible regulator, and the registration of dentists is a new requirement, as he says, reflecting the commission’s new regulatory responsibilities. The purpose of registration is to bring a single, consistent approach to monitoring dental practice, including private dental care practice, for the first time. This is regarded as an essential basis for encouraging swift action to protect the public, and it will give the public an accessible single source of information on quality. Fees are variable, according to practice, size and type.

That is a perfect example, if I may say so, of two points that I have made: first, the regulation that is put in place should be coherent, clear and as simple as possible; and secondly, the fees and charging regime associated with that regulation should be established against a set of criteria that can be justified and supported by the profession concerned.

I do not want to delay the House unduly, so I shall move swiftly on to the matter of the principles that underpin charging regimes. As we know, Madam Deputy Speaker—your advice has guided me accordingly—this Bill is principally about charges and pricing. The principles that apply to pricing and charging by regulators are those that apply to publicly provided goods and services in general, and they have at their core the central doctrine of setting charges to allow full cost recovery. We need to remember that in many cases regulators give consumers and others confidence that regulated sectors are meeting their legal responsibility. Regulators can also create the conditions that provide businesses with a level competitive playing field by taking effective action against criminals operating in their respective markets. We need to remember that in many cases it is appropriate for those whose activities need to be regulated to bear the cost of regulation, not the taxpayer.

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps my hon. Friend would apply the principle that he has enunciated to the regulator on access to higher education. Most people would think that that is a totally unnecessary additional burden. Is he saying that the cost will have to be borne by the universities?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is displaying the mischievous quality for which he is known and which the House enjoys, but I will not be tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, for fear of your benevolent but strict rule, to get into a debate about higher education access or anything related to it, except where it is absolutely pertinent to the Bill before us. I rather suspect that you might come to the same conclusion that I have, which is that it is not completely pertinent to the Bill, so I will continue on the very strict and controlled theme that I was developing.

We will consult shortly on the extent to which some of the functions currently carried out by the statutory regulators might be performed either by businesses themselves, through better recognition of internal quality controls, or by other agencies through services such as the use of accreditation and certification, which can provide some of the safeguards traditionally put in place by state regulators. This would have a direct impact on costs, fees and charges, because in those circumstances the decisions about those matters would be dealt with within the sectors or businesses themselves.

There will be cases where we can lighten the burden of regulation and the character of some of the costs that my hon. Friend has highlighted by taking a more radical approach to where regulation should apply, who should regulate, how decisions should be made about its extent, and, most saliently, what should be charged for what service. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that decision is better taken at the sharp end, if I might put it in those terms, rather than distantly in Westminster and Whitehall. However, there will inevitably be cases where the intervention of a state regulator is required, particularly to protect consumers or to provide a level playing field for businesses. I take the view that professional standards in these terms should be looked at more closely by Government. In some cases, as I suggested earlier, the adoption of professional standards may allow us to reduce the overall burden of regulation, and the costs associated with it, in the way that my hon. Friend recommends.

The Treasury’s publication, “Managing Public Money”, sets out the main principles for dealing with resources used by public sector organisations. It makes it clear that:

“Where a fee is charged for access to public goods or services, there are some specific rules about how the charge should be determined. It is important to protect Parliament’s right to decide which services should be charged for, and how public resources are to be allocated.”

This principle is as valid in the case of regulation as with any other public service. Setting a fee or charge for a public service usually requires powers in primary legislation, with the charge structure and each charge set out in secondary legislation. Therefore, a parliamentary approval procedure of the kind that my hon. Friend advocates in his Bill already exists, and, as I said earlier, it is one that is less likely to lead to delay and complexity than the albeit well-meaning provisions in his short Bill. The guidance on calculating fees is also clear, stating that the full cost of each category of service should be measured realistically and objectively.

As I mentioned earlier, local authorities are regulators, and they sometimes provide purely discretionary services. In this regard, they operate within an additional framework of control set by the Local Government Act 2003. I know that my hon. Friend will be familiar with section 93 of that Act, because he researches these matters with diligence and care before he comes to the House to speak about them. He will know that that section, which is headed,

“Power to charge for discretionary services”,

contains the power that I have described. This power is subject to a duty to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under the section does not exceed the costs of provision—precisely the point that he made in an intervention a few moments ago.

[Mr Chope]

But that is not the point, is it? Anybody can ensure that their charges do not exceed the costs of provision; I am trying to ensure that the costs of provision are kept down because the charges cannot be increased by more than the rate of inflation.

[Mr Hayes]

The purpose of the Act that I mentioned is to ensure that organisations—in this case, local authorities—do not make a profit out of the service, so that the cost, as I said, is related to the fee. My hon. Friend is arguing, is he not, that even where the cost of provision—it may be a perfectly justifiable cost, by the way—grows or changes for some reason, the fee associated with that cost could not be raised. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would place local authorities—or, if we apply the principle more widely, Government—in the impossible circumstance of not being able to recover costs of provision from businesses or individuals even where those businesses or individuals were gaining from the application of that provision. That would be a perverse effect of his Bill.

[Mr Chope]

Let my try another one on my hon. Friend. It relates not to local authorities but to the Forestry Commission, which is a regulator. The Forestry Commission is having its grant cut by central Government, but it still needs to carry on its regulatory functions. In the New Forest, it is thinking of funding quite a lot of those costs by raising car parking charges, which do not currently exist there. Where does any public accountability come into that?

[Mr Hayes]

Again, I am not going to speak about the specifics of that because it is a matter that I would want to look at in more detail before I said anything definitive. The principle remains that we should address the relationship between the scale of provision, the cost and the fees charged. That should, quite properly, be set out by this House in regulation, if not in legislation, and—I take my hon. Friend’s point—it should be proportionate.

Let me repeat, for the benefit of my hon. Friend and the House, that the Government share his determination to scrutinise these matters with new zeal and with diligence. He is right that we need to have a basis on which we consider and legitimise regulation of this kind and the costs and fees associated with it. I agree with him that it is important that agencies, whether in local government or elsewhere, can justify what they charge. I simply do not think that this Bill is the best way to do that. I welcome the fact that its introduction has given us an opportunity to consider these matters. I may say a little more about that in my final remarks.

The primary authority partnership scheme between businesses and regulators constitutes the kind of discretionary service that I was describing prior to my hon. Friend’s intervention. It was established under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 to provide more consistent regulatory enforcement for businesses, charities and other organisations operating in more than one local authority area. It entails an advisory partnership between a specific business and a given local authority. Having assessed the resource requirements of the primary authority partnership scheme, the local authority and the business have to agree how the costs will be met.

The local authority is entitled to charge the business for services applied through the partnership. In deciding whether or to what extent to charge the business, the local authority should consider all relevant matters, including the local authority’s policy in respect of supporting local economic prosperity and the existing resources provided to the business by the regulatory service and other services of the local authority. When advice and guidance have been developed for use with more than one business, an individual business should pay no more than a reasonable proportion of the costs. Where a local authority decides to charge for some or all of the services provided to a business, it can recover only the costs reasonably incurred in providing those services. In calculating the costs, the local authority should, like a national regulator, have regard to the guidance issued by the Treasury in “Managing Public Money”, to which I referred earlier.

A further statutory provision that affects the way in which regulators charge is the Regulators’ Compliance Code. I am surprised that we have not heard more about the code in our considerations, because its existence mitigates some of the arguments of the advocates of the proposed legislation. It is a statutory code of practice to which regulators must have regard in their work. It puts forward the general principle that

“Advice services should generally be provided free of charge, but it may be appropriate for regulators to charge a reasonable fee for services beyond basic advice and guidance necessary to help ensure compliance. Regulators should, however, take account of the needs and circumstances of smaller regulated entities and others in need of help and support.”

I draw the House’s attention, in those terms, to the effect of regulation on small business. Smaller businesses often find it more difficult to deal with these matters, purely because of scale. Excessive regulation can have an extremely damaging effect on small business growth. As a Government, we will certainly look again at the effect of regulation on business as a direct result of the overtures of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he will look again at these issues. Will he address his remarks to the issue of small charities, such as Julia’s House, which are even more deserving of help? Despite the guidance to which he referred, the Care Quality Commission imposes the same standard charges on a children’s hospice with three or four beds as it imposes on much larger, and even commercial, organisations. How is that consistent with the guidance?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right that small organisations in the voluntary and charitable sector are also affected by the burden of regulation. I will, as a result of his overtures, look at that matter too. I know that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who has responsibility for regulation, takes these matters very seriously. He has been a great champion of small organisations in this respect. However, it is important that the Government are informed by the House. It is clear that Members from both sides of the House understand that if we are to build the big society that we seek, small organisations, charities and community organisations will play a critical part. It is right that we should look specifically at how regulation affects those organisations, and we will do so as a result of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and other Members.

I will move on to explain why we feel that legislation is unnecessary in this case. This Bill, although it makes an immensely important point about the effects of regulation in practice, is not one that the Government can support. That is not just because there are existing controls that address the issues that the Bill seeks to address. It is also because regulators have a responsibility to ensure that they provide value for money and that the costs are as low as possible, while the quality of regulation remains appropriate. There needs to be flexibility in practice. Although we agree absolutely that we need to ensure that the burdens on business as a whole, and on the other organisations that we have just spoken about, are taken into account when we introduce or review regulations, the flexibility that I have described needs to reflect a wide range of regulatory circumstances. That would be inhibited, at least to some degree, by my hon. Friend’s Bill.

There are circumstances in which a modest uniform charge is appropriate. Many licensing regimes, where individuals must apply for a licence to trade, have that character. I spoke earlier about my view that the adoption of professional standards through licences to practise can be helpful in reducing regulation. It can provide a simpler series of mechanisms to guarantee quality, protect public health and ensure public safety.

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry to go back to this point, but my hon. Friend keeps referring to the issue of professional standards and duplication. How does what has happened to dentists fit in with that philosophy? They were already regulated by their own professional standards body, and now have to pay a fee to be regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

[Mr Hayes]

We have spoken of dentists already. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pay tribute to my own dentist, Lisa Jamieson of the Fen House dental practice in Spalding, who looks after my teeth and those of my wife and children. I will discuss this matter with her, because I believe that it is important as legislators that we are in touch with those whom legislation affects. Nevertheless, the case that I made on dentists is that the adoption of the new regulatory regime will simplify how we ensure that dentists are doing what they should. There are circumstances in which a new approach, framed by the desire to reduce regulation, can assist us not only in the matter of regulation, but in its cost.

There are circumstances in which a substantial charge is appropriate. Some regulatory regimes require the inspection of hazardous, highly technical processes, and would otherwise present a substantial cost to the public. There are also circumstances in which a tiered approach is appropriate, for instance to reflect the costs to the regulator of regulating different sizes of business.

The proposal that my hon. Friend articulated with such style and charm would limit regulators’ flexibility to innovate and incentivise in ways that work to the benefit of good, compliant businesses. The existing system, by contrast, supports that flexibility. Regulators might seek to reduce fees for some regulated organisations —we have spoken of small businesses, small charities, community organisations and so on—to reflect the intrinsically lower costs of the services provided to them. Yet they might simultaneously increase charges to organisations when the service in question is palpably more costly. That would surely be the case in respect of larger businesses, in the case of which checking compliance requires significantly more time and resources.

My hon. Friend’s ambition is to allow small organisations, be they businesses, community organisations or charitable organisations, to thrive because of the lighter hand of Government that both he and I wish to see applied. He will note that I take that ambition so seriously that I have said the Government will examine it once again with a critical eye. It is entirely possible to achieve it within the flexible regime that exists in respect of fees and charges, and it might, ironically, be inhibited by the proposals in his Bill.

Meanwhile, the Health and Safety Executive has recently announced a proposal that would impose charges on businesses that were found to be in material breach of health and safety laws. It would not seek to recover costs for purely technical breaches, of course, and compliant businesses would not pay a penny. That is another example of the flexibility that I am advertising as a virtue of the existing regime.

It is fair to say that a range of approaches are appropriate, including ones that create strong incentives for better practice in businesses. In practice, the relevant legislative framework allows for all those approaches, and it is not appropriate to impose a single framework on all regulators. It is for them to determine the relevant approach, within the powers confirmed by Parliament and the public spending rules overseen by the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The existing arrangements provide meaningful parliamentary oversight, combined with a pragmatic foundation for regulators and Government to adjust their approach according to dynamic circumstances. If we were to adopt an entirely different approach founded on the consumer prices index, as my hon. Friend suggests, rather than on a cost recovery basis, the incentives would be very different.

Finally, increases in fees limited to the CPI are unlikely to reflect changes in a given regulator’s costs. My hon. Friend argues that the cost to regulators is not the issue, and that the charge to organisations, whether they be businesses, individuals or otherwise, is always of paramount importance. However, it is equally important that there is some relationship between provision and fee, between cost and charge. It would be a very blunt instrument to apply the mechanism at the heart of the Bill in the way that he suggests.

If the increase in the full cost of a service exceeds CPI, capping fees would either leave the taxpayer to pick up the bill or leave the regulator to do the job within its official resources. It would not necessarily save taxpayers money, and it could arguably let businesses and individuals off the hook, because they would not have to pay the price necessary to cover the regulator’s costs. That might be my hon. Friend’s intention, but I have never heard him suggest before that the taxpayer’s burden should be increased in such a blunt way. Indeed, I know for a fact that he has long been an advocate of cutting taxes where we can.

[Mr Chope]

I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was going to traduce me. I made it quite clear at the beginning that the Bill would not add to the burden of taxation or public expenditure, and that is set out clearly in clause 1(3). I am surprised that he is not praising that subsection. Can he give some examples of where he thinks it is reasonable for regulators to increase their costs beyond the rate of inflation?

[Mr Hayes]

If the cost of provision to a regulator rises for technical reasons, and that regulator has a perfectly sensible set of regulations with the protection of public good or public safety at their heart, it would be entirely appropriate to relate the cost of that provision to its price. That should be legitimised and justified, and it is absolutely right that we put in place criteria that ensure that any such price increase is a true reflection of a change in cost, but to do the opposite and prohibit any change in charge regardless of a change in the cost or character of provision, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be a very blunt instrument. I am arguing for flexibility; he, rather untypically, is arguing for a rigidity in the application of public policy, insensitive to circumstances. With a bitter irony from his perspective, that might increase costs to the taxpayer, contrary to the part of the Bill that makes it clear that that is not his intention.

I do not wish in any way to be excessively critical of my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished Member, but I argue that the Bill has at its heart a contradiction. I know that that is unintended, but none the less, it would have potentially dire consequences for the Government and for him. His reputation as a tax saver, as a guardian of the public interest and as a man who stands in the way of excessive state interference in the affairs of individuals and in the freedom that he cherishes, is at stake. I stand here as his guardian, and as the protector of his interests.

I know that this will disappoint Members, but I wish to begin to move to my conclusion. It would be bad for both the public, whom we are seeking to protect, and conscientious businesses that are doing their best to comply with the law, if we left regulations unenforced because the Government did not have the capacity or power to supplement any shortfall. The Bill would limit the Government’s ability to intervene, which would create just such a circumstance.

Our view is that the existing flexible framework provides the best means of controlling and keeping an appropriate limit on the fees and charges imposed by regulators. However, for the avoidance of doubt and to reassure my hon. Friend, let me be crystal clear that there is a certain determination on the part of this Government to ensure not only that the quantity of regulation is reduced but that its quality is re-examined with a vehemence that has not been typical of recent Governments, and that the costs associated with any such regulation are tested empirically in a way that protects individual, business, consumer and taxpayer interests. The existing regime, which provides for charging at full-cost recovery, enables regulators to recover costs from those who are regulated.

It is right that regulators have a responsibility to ensure that regulation is efficient, effective and provides value for money in the way the Bill intends. My hon. Friend is in tune with C. S. Lewis, is he not? The latter said:

“Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither.”

My hon. Friend aims at a heavenly circumstance in which regulation is only ever applied out of absolute necessity and at minimum cost. We are sympathetic with that spirit, but perhaps the more important point to take from this debate is the extent to which any regulation necessarily brings with it some expense. We need to get to grips with that problem at source. I have spoken repeatedly in this speech about the measures the Government have put in place to constrain the flow of regulation. I believe that that is the right way forward. We have listened to his overtures, however. This debate has given us the opportunity to reconsider these matters, and has been an additional spur, a goad or perhaps just an encouragement to be still more determined to reduce the regulation on individuals, businesses, charitable organisations and others that might inhibit growth and, worst of all, inhibit virtue.

[Mr Chope]

I would like to reply briefly to this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out, in just over an hour, all the reasons why his Department does not think that this Bill is the right solution, although at least he acknowledges that there is a problem. In the absence of any other possible solutions, however, I am not sure that one can say this Bill is not worthwhile. Although the Minister talks a lot about sympathy and says he wants to reduce the quantity and increase the quality of regulation, it is apparent from the figures that he gave, as well as the quotes from the CBI and the Institute of Directors, that things are probably getting worse rather than better. The shadow Minister made that point in relation to the number of regulations being introduced and removed from the statute book. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister: he is not the Minister responsible for deregulation; that is not his main brief and he is here today as the departmental Friday duty Minister. However, I was disappointed that he did not respond to what the hon. Lady had to say.

In essence, this is whether we are going to try to control the stealth taxes reflected in the increased charges that regulators impose on consumers, individuals, businesses and charities. Nothing I have heard from the Minister gives me any encouragement in that regard. He was unable to explain—to my satisfaction anyway—why the Care Quality Commission is now trying to regulate dentists. He was unable, or did not wish, to engage in an argument about how we were going to pay for OFFA, the higher education access regulator, and whether it was justified or whether it was going to be a new financial burden on the universities. He was unable to answer my question about the Forestry Commission now seeking, because of a cut in Government grants, to fund its regulatory activities by imposing new charges that will force people to pay for their car parking in the New forest and elsewhere.

Treasury guidance states that regulators must increase their charges to reflect their costs, but there is no guidance saying that those costs must not increase by more than the rate of inflation. That is the key to it. If the regulators were not allowed to increase their charges beyond the rate of inflation, they would have to keep their costs to within the rate of inflation. They would have to reduce their costs and become more efficient. I cited Ofcom as an example of a regulator that has reduced its costs by 20% in the past year. The BBC, too, is now having to concentrate its mind on reducing its costs significantly because of the pressure put on it.

[Mr Hayes]

I plead guilty to two things—to not being the Minister for regulation, and to what my hon. Friend described earlier as elegant and flowing rhetoric. However, I will not plead guilty to not dealing with dentists. We did dentists to death! My argument was that the new regime would simplify the regulatory system and its associated costs and fees. That is in contrast to the current regime, which is more costly and confusing. Surely that is in the spirit of his Bill.

[Mr Chope]

I forgive my hon. Friend because I do not think he is an expert on dentistry. However, I do not think that he or his officials have addressed the fact that dentists are already properly controlled by the professional dentistry bodies. The CQC is now adding to that regulatory burden, rather than substituting for or simplifying it. However, we can have a separate debate about that on another occasion perhaps. That example alone shows that all the lofty rhetoric about the Government’s intentions —even those in the coalition agreement—to reduce the burden of regulation is not being reflected in practice.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for his support for the Bill, to the shadow Minister for her observations and to the Minister for what he has said. In essence, he has criticised the two parts of clause 1 designed to introduce flexibility. I could have just said that no regulatory authority should introduce a charge in respect of a service currently provided free of charge. Perhaps on reflection that might have been better because it would have been clear. I thought that we needed some flexibility, which is why I used the wording I did, yet now I have been criticised by the Minister for doing so.

The Minister said—this is the most worrying aspect of today’s debate—that the panoply of the legislative framework covering regulation is so complex and impenetrable that it is impossible to simplify and cut across it in the way I am trying to do with the Bill. I hope that his Department, instead of producing these long, wordy briefs, will start getting to grips with rationalising the legislative framework around regulation and regulatory burdens. I hope then that we will be able to deal with the issues in a simpler way.

[Mr Hayes]

I will give this guarantee to my hon. Friend for the benefit of the whole House. In the matters for which I have responsibility within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I will stand tested by the criteria that he in broad terms has established. We will create a system that is freer, less burdensome and less regulatory and that allows those associated with further education, skills and lifelong learning to go about their business properly, in the way they see fit and in response to need, rather than be dictated to by the micro-management that typified the last Government.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that commitment. In due course perhaps I will table a parliamentary question so that he can explain what has happened under his leadership over the past year on those matters. It is important that the Government do not just talk about what they are going to do in future; they must show that they are reducing the burden of regulation. I am very depressed that they are not prepared to support the Bill, although I wish to test the will of the House on the matter.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Further and Higher Education (Access) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

This is a Bill to make provision to require all institutions of further and higher education in receipt of public funds to allocate places on merit, something that I understand my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for universities and higher education very much supports. I hope, therefore, that the Government will support the Bill today; and if they do not I hope that the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who I am pleased to see on the Front Bench, will spell out in detail exactly why not.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given way at this early stage. There is no doubt about our shared commitment to the principle that people should advance on the basis of merit. It would clearly be precipitous for me to say more about the Bill, but I give him the absolute assurance that that principle guides all that we do in the Department, and that it is a view shared by all Ministers who have responsibilities in this area.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is obviously demonstrating that he has an open mind on this subject, which is more than I can say for the Government in relation to another Bill that I have on the Order Paper, the Minimum Wage (Amendment) Bill. Yesterday, before he had even had a chance to the listen to the arguments for that Bill, the Leader of the House said that the Government would be against it. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has an open mind on this issue.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a lot of confusion at the moment, among universities in particular and other institutions of higher education, because the Government seem to be at sixes and sevens in developing their policy in this area. Originally, the Government said that they would publish guidance to the Office for Fair Access by the end of January to enable it to give guidance to universities by the middle of February on their admissions policies for the academic year starting in 2012. Despite full guidance having been issued in the middle of February, with the Minister for Universities and Science saying in a press statement at the time that OFFA would be able to advise universities by the end of February, as of now, in the first week of March, there is still no information from OFFA on the principles that universities should apply for next year’s admissions.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On the subject of guidance, may I ask why my hon. Friend has, unusually, not published explanatory notes and guidance to his Bill?

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. The reason is that I thought that my Bill was exemplary in putting forward an argument in simple language that everyone should be able to understand, and that it did not need any guidance. I will come to the detail of the Bill shortly. I hope that, having read the Bill, he accepts that it is plain about what it seeks to achieve.

[Mr Knight]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. My point was that if he had issued guidance, the House might not need him to make such a long speech explaining his Bill.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend has just succeeded in getting his Bill through its Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading very fast. I hope that my Bill will make similarly rapid progress. That is why I look forward eagerly to hearing what the Government’s attitude to it will be. As a general rule, I am not sure that the length of the explanatory notes, or the fact that there are explanatory notes, is a good guide to whether a Bill will make progress. If I recall correctly, the Wreck Removal Convention Bill, which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and which we will discuss in a fortnight, has quite extensive explanatory notes. I am not sure that that is necessarily an indication of how much time will be spent discussing it.

I return now to one of the principal reasons for my concern about the guidance. The full guidance that was issued by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Minister for Universities and Science to the director of fair access in February was based on the draft guidance that was issued on 7 December 2010. Paragraph 6.1 of the draft guidance was very clear:

“There have been no changes in the legal constraints on your powers as Director of Fair Access. You are not empowered to interfere in institutions’ decisions about the admissions of students and you may only set conditions that clearly relate to promoting participation and access.”

When the final guidance was issued last month, that paragraph was omitted. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for Universities and Science, asking why it had been omitted. Unfortunately, the fact that I received a holding reply rather than an immediate substantive reply makes it obvious that he had to think about why it had been omitted. Eventually, he came back with an answer pursuant to the holding answer of 16 February:

“Paragraph 6.1 was unnecessary as it provided no new information.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 981W.]

I am not convinced by that and remain very suspicious. Indeed, the full guidance is more extensive than the draft guidance. The full guidance is some seven and a half pages long, whereas the draft was only five and a half pages long. That clearly expressed paragraph is omitted from the final guidance.

I share the concern of many people in universities that the Government are trying to increase regulation and interference to tick boxes on social engineering and social mobility, and that that is ill conceived.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

In the guidance—I am not sure on what date the guidance I have was published—have not the Government directed OFFA that it must be “fair, transparent and evidence-based” in all that it does? Does my hon. Friend have an issue with that? It seems quite clear from the guidance that I have read.

[Mr Chope]

Well, we will have to see what happens. If one looks at the detailed guidance—I do not have the paragraph to which my hon. Friend is referring to hand—one can see that it is full of contradictions. The director of fair access said that, based on the guidance, he would issue advice to universities before the end of February to meet their tight time scales. The fact that he has not yet done so perhaps indicates that he is finding it a bit problematic.

This issue even appears in today’s newspapers. In The Times, there is a letter from John Foster, a former chairman of the council at the university of Leicester, expressing strong concern about the Government

“digging itself into an ever-deeper hole”

over universities and student fees. In particular, he states that the Government

“now proposes to penalise some universities that wish to charge the maximum level by cutting their student numbers and diverting thus-frustrated applicants to lesser institutions.”

He states:

“Many will regard this as confirmation that the Government is viscerally opposed to students in general and to higher education in particular. Others will interpret it as a deliberate discouragement to excellence and a reward to mediocrity. I have no doubt that it will weaken the international standing and competitiveness of some of our finest universities.”

Such comments are coming thick and fast from people on the front line in higher education, and they reflect the concerns of, for example, the Russell group of leading universities. It issued a press release on 10 February commenting on the Government’s guidance to OFFA, which made a number of good points and emphasised that

“admission to university is and should be based on merit, and any decisions about admissions must also respect the autonomy of institutions and maintain high academic standards.”

That is four-square with my Bill, because clause 1, which is headed “Duty to allocate places on merit”, states:

“It shall be the duty of all institutions within the further or higher education sectors in receipt of public funds to consider applicants domiciled in England for any course of study below post-graduate level on the basis of merit alone unless the circumstances in section 3 apply.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend explain why that applies to people domiciled in England, but the Bill would have effect in England and Wales?

[Mr Chope]

Yes, I will explain that to my hon. Friend. It is because under our conventions, it is not possible to have an Act that applies exclusively to England. Acts have to extend either to England and Wales, to England, Wales and Scotland or to Northern Ireland as well. Although my Bill has to extend to England and Wales, it would actually apply only in England, because the issues that are the subject of it are reserved matters for the Welsh Assembly. I did not think it would be right for the House to interfere with the Welsh Assembly’s discretion on them.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

But does that mean that a Welshman who applied to Oxford could be admitted not on merit, but an Englishman who applied would have to be admitted exclusively on merit?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is very good at interpreting the words in the Bill, and that is obviously a factual situation. He will know from his constituents who apply to universities outside England that they are sometimes concerned whether they will be accepted purely on merit or whether, for example, a different set of criteria applies to students from Scotland compared with those from England applying to Scottish universities. I recognise that that is a potentially contentious matter, and I thought it would be better to limit the scope of the Bill in the way that I have.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

As vice-chairman of the all-party group on universities, I hope to speak a little later.

Does my hon. Friend feel that a higher, philosophical question that should be uppermost in our consideration of the Bill is the importance of underpinning the freedom of our universities? It seems to me that they are crucibles of free inquiry, free speech and the freedoms that we as a society cherish. Although I recognise the intent behind his Bill, I worry about any Bill that places more burdens on our universities. Does he agree that the principle of freedom should be sacrosanct?

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, and my Bill is designed to promote the freedom of universities to decide the issues in question for themselves and to restrict the Government’s ability to interfere in the governance of our universities, many of which are international institutions of high repute. They are expanding and raising their standards in the global higher education context, and they are highly respected. They do not need an interfering Government, who are pledged to reduce regulation, increasing the regulatory burden on them. However, that, of course, is exactly what the Government’s current policy seems to be.

[Julian Smith]

As I understand it, one of the biggest problems that the Government are trying to solve is that people of merit from socially disadvantaged backgrounds have not been getting to good further and higher education institutions. Does it not concern my hon. Friend that the Bill could restrict such people’s ability to get into our universities?

[Mr Chope]

Looking at the Bill, I do not see how that can be the case. I define merit in clause 2 as

“academic ability, potential and aptitude as assessed by the institution of further or higher education”,

thereby emphasising not just academic ability as reflected in exam results but potential and aptitude, to be assessed exclusively by the institution in receipt of an application. That emphasises the importance of giving institutions the freedom to make the judgment themselves.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would happen if, once the Bill had been passed, an institution did not admit students on the basis of merit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

That institution would be in breach of a statutory duty, so all the remedies that flow from such a breach would be available to anybody who wished to challenge it. Putting a mirror to what the hon. Gentleman says, I believe that the same problem is writ large in the guidance to OFFA. It looks as though it will tell universities that are considering charging more than £6,000 a year in fees from 2012, “Unless you come forward with an access agreement that we support, you will not be able to charge those higher fees.” What will happen if a university applies to charge fees above £6,000—we have read in the newspapers in recent days about some that intend to do so—and OFFA tells them that they cannot? What will the sanction be? Ultimately, the less interference there is in the process, the better.

It is a pity that it is necessary to encapsulate in a Bill such as this something that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science has said is already as plain as a pikestaff in legislation—the idea that the Government cannot and should not interfere in universities’ access arrangements. My problem, and the problem of a lot of people involved, is that although the Government say that, the whole rationale of OFFA’s director seems to be to interfere rather than leave judgments to the universities themselves.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

One must consider the concept of interference alongside the concept of fair access to universities for people from less privileged backgrounds, because there is a difference between the two. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that such people can go to the highest-performing universities, and if we can assist in that through legislation, it is right and proper to do so.

[Mr Chope]

The essence of what my hon. Friend says is in the phrase “if we can assist in that”. I do not believe that the Government can assist in that. The premise of what he says is that the universities themselves do not want to facilitate wider access or ensure that the best people can gain access on merit. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that they want to achieve that aim, but they resent the fact that the Government are using OFFA to try to impose additional criteria on them. That is certainly the view of the Russell group and other universities.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend’s perspective and the Government’s are close. We have a perfectly proper desire to widen access in the way that has been described, but we differ on the admissions system. I shall speak at some length about that when I reply, but he needs to address it too.

[Mr Chope]

I shall certainly address that, and I look forward to responding at the end of the debate to the Minister’s comments.

Perhaps one way to address the issue is to look at what the Russell group says. It states:

“We share the Government’s commitment that every student with the qualifications, potential and determination whatever their background has the opportunity to gain a place at a leading university”,

but emphasises that

“the most important reason why too few poorer students even apply to leading universities is that they are not achieving the required grades at school.”

If the main reason why students do not apply is that they do not achieve the required grades, why do the Government, who are responsible for almost all primary and secondary education in the country, not concentrate on that problem, rather than interfering in an area of education in which they have not hitherto interfered? That is a typical approach of the Government: rather than focus on their failure to undertake their responsibilities, they try to introduce more regulation for things that run perfectly adequately. That is the difficulty.

[Rehman Chishti]

I was here for the universities debate when the Government made it quite clear that through the pupil premium and other support, they will help to ensure that students from less privileged backgrounds get access to universities and improve their grades. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that those from less privileged backgrounds are given the opportunity and support they need to ensure that they get those results. I was the first in my family to go to university and I went on to become a lawyer and an MP. People like me need such help, but the Government have already committed in the universities package, which includes the pupil premium and other support, to support those from less privileged backgrounds.

[Mr Chope]

It is one thing to make a commitment and another to deliver on it. I hope the Government can deliver on that one, but my response to my hon. Friend is that if they concentrate on delivering on it through the pupil premium and other measures, they will not need to interfere in the right of the universities at the other end of the system to choose people on merit.

My point remains: there is something desperately wrong with how many our schools operate. They do not allow the full potential of their pupils to be realised in the form of exam results, which is one barrier to access.

The Russell group states:

“The main problem is that students who come from low-income backgrounds and/or who have attended comprehensive schools are much less likely to achieve the highest grades than those who are from more advantaged backgrounds and who have been to independent or grammar schools”,

and points out that

“this gap in achievement according to socio-economic background is getting wider. Too many students don’t choose the subjects at A-level which will give them the best chance of winning a place on the competitive courses at leading universities.”

That is why everyone in the House, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, will be pleased with the Russell group’s informed choices initiative. It tries to ensure that students choose the right subjects at A-level for the courses they are thinking of taking at university.

My daughter is studying veterinary medicine at university. Had she not discussed her preferences with her teachers before choosing her GCSEs, she might not have made the right subject choices. She made those choices on the basis of information provided to her, but quite often people who aspire to take veterinary or medical courses at university do not take the hard subjects in their preceding exams to enable them to do so.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend once again hits on a key reason for the failure of many students to achieve their potential—the lack of advice and guidance. I hope he will take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s commitment to an all-age career service to deal with some of the disparities he describes.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely—I am not pouring cold water on that initiative. The Government have demonstrated over the past several months that they share many of our concerns about the failure of the education system to deliver.

The statistics show a desperately serious situation. In the last 15 years, the proportion of A-level students at comprehensive schools who achieve three A grades or more has increased from 4.2% to 8.2%, while the proportion at independent schools has increased from 15.1% to 32.3%. That is a commentary on the previous Administration’s lack of achievement. Anything that can be done to put that right would be a good thing.

[Ian Lucas]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but the statistics that he has presented are grossly misleading, because they take no account whatever of the restrictions on admission to many fee-paying schools, which do not apply to schools in the comprehensive sector. He should at least recognise that when he presents such figures.

[Mr Chope]

They are not my figures—they are from the Department for Education, but they speak for themselves. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants more figures to confirm what a miserable failure the previous Government were in that respect, I should tell him that 29.9% of all students who got three A or A* grades at A-level in 2009-10 were at comprehensive schools, which was 8.2% of the total taking A-levels at comprehensives, but that those comprehensives accounted for 46.7% of all A-level students. That shows that the comprehensive schools just did not deliver on the potential of the students whom they taught.

[Mr Hayes]

I recognise, and indeed acknowledge, that prior attainment, as well as advice and guidance, is a key factor in subsequent achievement. My hon. Friend might remind the shadow Minister that, as C. S. Lewis said:

“Failures are finger posts on the road to achievement.”

It is a long road for the Opposition and many finger posts.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend the Minister is great with quotes, and I notice that the shadow Minister does not wish to respond to that one yet—he will have the chance to do so later.

Let us not think that the universities are doing nothing. They are trying to encourage people to apply and are engaging in outreach initiatives. The Russell group alone is investing £75 million a year in initiatives designed to help the least advantaged students to win places at university, which is quite a lot of money.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Does not the fact that the universities, whose only interest is in academic excellence, find it necessary to make such investment, tell us everything we need to know about the lack of need to regulate them further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend and I are on the same side. The universities are taking such steps voluntarily, so we do not need more regulation.

[George Freeman]

I am sorry; I did not make myself clear. I meant regulating universities further through my hon. Friend’s Bill, which would further complicate the matter and require them to be guided by the words in the Bill. If it became law, it would place on them a duty to choose only on the basis of merit, as he has defined it. Can we not just trust them to work with the Government? Does not the fact that they already invest such sums in outreach give us all the reassurance we need that they believe that it is important and that therefore it must be?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is trying to attack my Bill as a regulatory measure, when in fact it is a deregulatory measure. It aims to prevent the burden that the Government are trying to place on universities in a less than transparent way—using the Office for Fair Access—and which is increasing regulation on universities. That would be prevented by the Bill, because it would be at odds with the duty to allocate places on merit other than in accordance with the exemptions set out in clause 3. He stands four-square with me in saying that we want to reduce the burden on these universities. However, at the moment the burden is being increased by the Government under their measures to try to bring about social engineering in a rather partisan way.

[Julian Smith]

Is the key fact not that, whether it was the fault of universities or the previous Government, there has been a failure to get people from disadvantaged backgrounds into our better universities? A piece of research by Martin Harris concluded that

“while there have been substantial increases in participation among the least advantaged 40 per cent of young people across higher education overall compared to the mid-1990s, the participation rate among the same group of young people at the top third of selective universities has remained almost flat over the same period.”

Is it not morally right that the Government are trying to address this issue?

[Mr Chope]

There might be an issue there, but Sir Martin Harris has a vested interest; he is the director of the Office for Fair Access and obviously has to keep himself in a job. He is saying that there has been an increase in admissions to universities from people from poorer backgrounds, but that that has not yet percolated through to the top universities. He is therefore seeking a mandate to have more powers to interfere in those top universities. I am trying to put the point of view of the Russell group, which is a representative sample of those top universities. It points out that it has made enormous progress without that sort of interference. Indeed, it thinks that the Government’s ideas—and, by implication, Sir Martin Harris’s ideas—on this will be dangerous and counter-productive by being too prescriptive.

The Russell group has commented on the question of how we are going to measure success in improving access. It is the same with all these principles: if we cannot measure it, we cannot control it. It says:

“Any measurement of universities’ progress in improving access must be undertaken with great care. The investment of Russell Group institutions into outreach activities benefits the sector as a whole, with many students being inspired to study at other institutions as a result of our widely targeted work with potential candidates of many ages and backgrounds. We believe our universities have a role in helping all students to fulfil their potential, not simply widening access to our own institutions.”

That demonstrates how difficult it is to judge an individual university’s outreach programme solely on the basis of how many students it has brought into its own university as a result of that outreach programme, because that programme might have enabled students from poorer backgrounds to apply to, be accepted by and go to other universities. Obviously, the next question that arises is, how will we possibly measure that? It would be very complicated. That takes me back to the point that we do not need to have all this regulation. Why can we not trust these universities to carry on doing as they have been doing up until now.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend referred to the Russell group’s saying that £70 million will go towards ensuring that people from less privileged backgrounds can go to university, but if I remember correctly—from the universities debate—the Government were looking at providing £150 million for widening access. Surely it has to be a good thing that more money is made available to allow more people from less privileged backgrounds to have hope and aspiration.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, but the £150 million is going towards scholarship funds. At the moment, the Russell group, which represents only about 20 universities, is already investing more than £75 million a year. Pro rata, it is already investing more than the Government are promising to invest in the future, yet the Government are saying that if a university wants to raise its fees to anything beyond £6,000, the Government will, through the Office for Fair Access, interfere in its ability to do so and exercise their own judgment on the level of the fees because they are concerned about improving access. I am saying that these universities should be trusted. Many of them are international centres of excellence and should be trusted to make their own judgments. There is no reason to criticise anything that the Russell group universities have achieved, or indeed what some other universities have achieved.

I suspect that at the heart of all this is a feeling on the part of some elements of the coalition Government—I will not spell out, following the Barnsley by-election, which elements I have in mind. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) says, it is the part of the coalition not represented in the House today.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

They came sixth.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman obviously wants to put it on the record that they came sixth in the Barnsley by-election.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we should get back to the subject, rather than discus the Barnsley results.

[Mr Chope]

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would ill-behove either you or me to bask in any glory as a result of that by-election result. It is a pity, however, that there is no Liberal Democrat representative in today’s debate to discuss these very important issues.

I turn to the measures being taken already to improve access. There is going to be a measurement system under the proposals for assessing the ability or willingness of OFFA to allow universities to charge higher fees. The system for measuring the success in improving access needs to include—it does not at the moment—access to other institutions as a result of the work carried out by a particular university. The Russell group welcomed

“the Government’s guidance that institutions should set their own targets and measures of progress”,

but was concerned that

“existing…widening participation benchmarks are unsuitable as targets against which institutions’ progress can be meaningfully measured.”

It quotes Lord Browne—the guru on this issue, who produced his report last year—who found that

“the benchmarks do not provide a sophisticated enough picture of the student population actually qualified to meet the entry requirements of many courses. For example, they take no account of the fact that someone with 4 A*s at A-level might have a high tariff score but would not have a strong chance of being accepted on a Medicine course if these A-levels are in the wrong subjects…Moreover, financial penalties for not meeting these targets would be unfair and unhelpful to our aim of investing in ways to help poorer students win a place at our universities.”

[Mr Knight]

We are having a very interesting debate, but underlying it is the question of whether we should support the Bill. I have to say to my hon. Friend, however, that the more I look at his Bill, the less I think of it. I do not see how it can achieve anything, because clause 3 on exemptions blows a hole in clause 1, under which a decision has to be made on the basis of merit alone. Clause 3 states that a course can be advertised where there are

“criteria additional to or in substitution for the criterion of merit”.

To use an extreme example, if this Bill was the only arbiter that universities have to follow, they could advertise a course for aspiring gentlefolk where the only requirement is that someone can pay the high fees.

[Mr Chope]

Exactly, but my right hon. Friend fails to appreciate the transparency of the measure. If an institution of higher or further education is going to give places on a particular course on criteria other than merit, it should make that clear when people are considering applying to that university. For example, if it offers a sports science course, and welcomes in particular people who are proficient at playing soccer, it should say so in the application so that people who cannot kick a ball at all will not apply, or understand that if they do so it is unlikely that they will be accepted. Clause 3 tries to make sure that where universities give places on criteria other than academic merit those criteria are spelt out openly and transparently. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend is concerned about that. Perhaps he will accept that his interpretation of the clause is incorrect.

[Ian Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he has been generous in accepting interventions. Does he believe that the current system of university admissions is transparent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I believe that it is pretty transparent, although some academic work has been done that shows that, inevitably, subjectivity is involved in assessing people’s suitability for going to university. There is no way in which someone who has been refused a place at a university can find out the specific reasons for that decision, although it is normally possible for them to obtain informal feedback from the university through their school or college.

I am not suggesting that the current system is completely transparent, which is why it would be better for it to be plain as a pikestaff that admissions should be made on the basis of merit. There is a feeling, borne out in research for Oxford university, that some admissions tutors for that university are inclined to choose pupils who do not come from independent schools, because they believe that independent school pupils have an unfair advantage and they wish to discount that advantage. They do so on the basis of subjective judgments, which very much runs against the principle of transparency. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. A problem with the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science on 17 February was that he misquoted some of the evidence from the Ogg, Zimdars and Heath report for Oxford. He used that evidence to suggest that there was a bias in favour of pupils from private schools, when a proper reading shows quite the reverse, with a bias against pupils from private schools.

With all these issues, the problems that concern me are problems of definition. If we are going to try to categorise schools, whether they are independent or private on the one hand, or state schools on the other, how do we categorise those pupils who move from the independent sector into the state sector in the last two years of their course, or perhaps leave an independent school and go to a tertiary college to resit their exams and apply to university? There are quite a lot of independent schools with pupils who came originally from the state sector, often with bursaries. Will those pupils be penalised when they apply to university—or do the universities accept those pupils?—because their last place of education was an independent school, even though they started off in the most difficult circumstances? Many pupils at independent schools are in receipt of education maintenance allowance, which may surprise the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), and it may cause some people to say that that is another reason why EMA is ill-targeted. However, there are many pupils at independent schools whose backgrounds would be regarded as poor or disadvantaged in the context of the higher education access arrangements that the Government are discussing.

[Mr Knight]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not convinced me. It is quite clear that clause 3 is so wide as to blow a hole in clause 1. In response to my earlier intervention, he appears to accept that it would be quite possible, if the Bill were the only arbiter, for a university to decide that it wanted to take unintelligent people with money. It could advertise a course for aspiring gentlefolk when, to use a colloquialism, all that it is interested in is money from rich thickos.

[Mr Chope]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has read today’s press reports about the London School of Economics and one of its erstwhile postgraduate students from Libya. I am not sure whether his remarks would apply to that particular happening. If a university chooses to have a closed scholarship arrangement, as some do, there is no reason why that should not continue under the Bill, provided that it is set out transparently. Ultimately—this is why the desire for ever more Government regulation is ill conceived—why can we not trust those universities to do what is best for them in the great marketplace? No self-respecting institution wants a reputation, to use my right hon. Friend’s example, for taking on a lot of thickos who will not perform at university, because that will push the university down the league tables, and will affect its ability to attract research grants and the brightest and the best. The Government cannot second-guess all those decisions—they have to be made by universities or other higher education institutions themselves.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. Everyone in the House will agree that the educating of thickos, rich or otherwise, is not the role of our universities. However, does he believe that an important role for universities is to develop leadership? In that education sector, are we not sometimes in danger of over-emphasising purely academic criteria? Would we want clause 3 to be used by universities to encourage a wider definition of leadership in society? That is something that our universities have always done, and it is not purely academic.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. My view is that we should allow universities to do that if they want to, and clause 3 would enable them to do so, and would give them that freedom. The debate centres on the overt desire by the coalition Government for more bright students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to the top universities. It is likely, however, that the consequences of the access arrangements that they are seeking to impose will be counter-productive and certainly discriminatory.

Someone said to me the other day that merit is almost the last taboo in terms of discrimination; that we have outlawed discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, gender and all the rest, but we still allow discrimination on the ground of merit, and the Government are really keen to do away with discrimination on the ground of merit. The Bill is designed to ensure that that does not happen, and that the Government’s arrangements for access to further and higher education will not be allowed to be at the expense of merit.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend talks about various forms of discrimination, but the recent education legislation tackled another form of discrimination. For a long time there was discrimination against part-time students, who were unable to get funding on the same scale as full-time students, and who often tended to be mature students. On that basis, it was absolutely right and proper for the Government to put that package through, so that mature students could have their aspirations fulfilled. The Office for Fair Access guidelines mention

“the scale and nature of outreach activity to be undertaken to attract mature students—including work with local communities”.

That must be absolutely right and proper, and this Government have already committed to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend implies that that is at odds with my Bill; I am not saying that it is.

[Rehman Chishti]

If my hon. Friend is saying that he does not agree with the Government’s regulation and the OFFA guidelines, some of which I have just read out, and if his Bill goes against giving OFFA a number of different guidelines and the option to make sure that more mature students can go to university, then of course it is at odds with his Bill.

[Mr Chope]

If those students are going to go to university on the basis of something other than merit, or on some basis other than the exemptions that are set out in clause 3, but my understanding is that the Government want to open up opportunities for part-time students but not on the basis of anything other than merit. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me.

I have been speaking for longer than I intended, so I shall briefly outline how I think the problem can be dealt with more effectively. Hon. Members will be aware of the Social Mobility Foundation. Sir Terry Leahy, the outgoing chief executive of Tesco, has now joined the board as a trustee. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said:

“The Social Mobility Foundation provides an exemplary service to help academically-talented disadvantaged students achieve their potential. I and many other Cabinet Ministers have been delighted to host SMF students”

and he encourages others so to do. It seems to me that that is the way forward. If we want to encourage the brightest and the best to be able to get access to our universities, we can give support to worthy organisations such as the Social Mobility Foundation.

What is interesting is that even the Social Mobility Foundation has to set eligibility criteria for those who apply to it for assistance. To join the aspiring professionals programme, students have to be in year 12, in receipt of education maintenance allowance or free school meals, and, significantly, in possession of at least five A grades in five different subjects at GCSE and predicted to obtain at least an A grade and two B grades at A-level. Even the Social Mobility Foundation is accepting that academic performance has to play a part in deciding whether people are appropriate to be taken on for help from that foundation.

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend must know that leaving this issue to institutions such as the Social Mobility Foundation will not have anywhere near the same effect as the Government taking a stand and saying that we will select young people on merit, and we must get more people of merit from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. He must know that Government involvement is the only way to deal with that.

[Mr Chope]

I am afraid that I am completely at odds with my hon. Friend, because I think that getting the Government involved will be—even more so than it is already—a disastrous policy, and it would be much better to improve the quality of education in our mainstream schools.

I want to quote a final statistic. In 2009, only 232—4.1%—of students in maintained mainstream schools who are known to be eligible for free school meals achieved three or more A grades at A-level. It is a matter not of trying to get more of those students into higher education but of trying to increase that cohort of students, from 4.1% to maybe five times as many. That is the problem. I am not sure that anything that the Government are proposing to do in interfering in this area will help that problem; instead, it will exacerbate it.

There is a mass of literature on all these matters. I was looking—some hon. Members may say, surprisingly —at a couple of articles in The Guardian. One was headed, “Grammar schools do not improve social mobility for working-class. Study shows little difference in work prospects for poorer children who attend grammar schools and comprehensives.” Earlier this week, on 1 March, there was an interesting article by Mr Owen Jones, headed, “Social mobility is a dead end. Our society relies on working-class jobs—dangling a narrow ladder for moving up is a diversion from tackling inequality.” I do not know whether those are articles on which my hon. Friend the Minister intends to comment in his response.

[Mr Hayes]

I had not intended, given the breadth of the material that I shall have to address, to deal with that matter particularly, but I will do so in the form of an intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to allow me to do so. Grammar schools pertain in my Lincoln constituency. I went to a grammar school myself and I hope that my young sons, if they are bright enough, will go to one too. I think that explains my views on grammar schools pretty clearly.

[Mr Chope]

Good. I am glad that I have given my hon. Friend the opportunity to put that firmly on the record.

I was looking at the access agreement 2010-11 for the university of Exeter. The university has been criticised in some quarters for announcing, this week, that it is going to charge £9,000 fees—subject, of course, to being able to get approval for that. Yet that university has achieved an enormous amount in recent years in increasing access to those who are from less-favoured backgrounds. I cannot understand why the Government wish to interfere in the right of that university to charge whatever level of fees it wishes up to the maximum, when it already has a very good record of increasing access to the university. There has been a significant increase in the number of students from state schools and from lower socio-economic groups.

The problem, I think, is that the Government realised that it would not look good if they allowed some universities to have no limit on the fees that they charged, so they introduced a ceiling of £9,000. They then allowed the loan system backing that scheme to be fixed in such a way that it is actually adding significantly to the potential burden on the Exchequer. The Minister for Universities and Science has said that if universities charge more than £7,500, that will add to the costs to the Exchequer, given the generous loan scheme and the fact that the Government expect a third of loan applicants never to pay anything back.

As the Treasury has looked at the figures, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has realised that it has to try to put the brakes on allowing universities to increase their fees to £9,000. It is using the threat of access restrictions and sanctions against those universities to try to get them into line. However, courageous universities, such as those in the Russell group and the university of Exeter, are saying that their first duty is to maintain academic standards in their universities and that if students pay higher fees, it is because they want more investment in the services that they receive. Those universities are not prepared to allow the Government to threaten them with sanctions if they exercise their freedom to take such decisions. My Bill would prevent the Government from interfering in universities any more and effectively forcing them to put quotas on the numbers from different backgrounds who should be admitted. The Minister has told the House that quotas are illegal, but ways short of express quotas are being used to threaten and cajole universities, and the Bill would prevent that from happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is very depressing when we get to a state at which there is a bit of legislation that we do not like, about which we have doubts and that we think ought to be changed, and yet instead of arguing to get rid of that legislation we say that the clever thing to do is to have yet more legislation. We go on and on legislating so that the British people are weighed down with a mass of rules, regulations and complications that mean that they do not know where they stand. If the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is that we should scrap the controls in place, he should argue for that and his Bill should be a repeal Bill, which might then be supported by other hon. Members.

[Mr Chope]

If the Bill was amended in Committee to clarify that it was effectively a repeal Bill, would it then command my hon. Friend’s support?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think the Bill should have said that in the first place. I am even more suspicious of the new Labour approach of a Bill that says one thing initially and then does something completely different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. That is absolutely right. Transparency is, in a sense, everything. As long as people know where they stand, they will be able to see what they ought to do. It is a tremendously beneficial reform for the Russell group to have said which subjects it views as being proper subjects, because now pupils from across the country can say, “If I do history, classics and double maths, I have a really good chance of getting in, if I do well; but if I do knitting and photography, I won’t have a very good chance of getting into the top-rate universities. My chances and opportunities will be limited.” It is absolutely right to let people know at an early stage the way that they ought to be going. Understanding the interview process when one applies to a university is also extremely helpful. If one is going from a public school to Oxford, one will be very well trained in what to expect in the interview, and that should be made as widely available as possible to people from other schools and backgrounds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his point on transparency.

We have, I think, established that in terms of merit, the Bill has a lot of waffle in it. What it says is fundamentally subjective, cannot work in practice, and, if taken to the courts, would be impossible to adjudicate on. It is hard to see where the Bill is going, in that respect. The exemptions are glorious, because they are so splendidly old-fashioned. By and large, I rather like things being old-fashioned, and I do not normally use it as a term of disapprobation, but in this case it means that one could reintroduce the closed scholarships. At New college, Oxford, which has a close connection with Winchester, places could be reserved for Wykehamists. People may think that that is all fine and dandy, but as an Etonian, I would feel that I was being prejudiced against, and that it was wrong to give places to Wykehamists rather than Etonians—or, more seriously, to deny them to people from all over the country. Allowing the reintroduction of a system of closed scholarships cannot be what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is really trying to do. That cannot be an advance for universities, and it does not make this a sensible Bill to pass.

[Mr Chope]

The Bill applies only to places that are funded by the taxpayer. Does my hon. Friend not accept that if a university wishes to give closed scholarships, at its discretion, to students who will not be funded by the taxpayer, it should have the freedom so to do?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We should always deal in the realms of reality, and not assume that people would be so barkingly eccentric as to run off down that route. Universities want to be places of great academic excellence, and they want to be able to have a system that admits people fairly and freely. We are sometimes too suspicious of people’s motives. I accept that the Bill applies to publicly funded universities, but most universities receive public funding of one kind or another, if only via their charitable status.

That helpfully moves me on to another point—the key point of money. Money is always relevant to our discussions, but it is one of the most dangerous things with which Governments have to deal. We give money to an independent institution—great universities—and say, “Now we’ve given you some money, we must decide how you spend it,” and then, “Now we’ve decided how you should spend it, we must take a little more control”—and it becomes more and more control, until independent bodies become agents of the state. The Bill continues that process. Instead of our saying that the money will now come from students, and universities will become more independent of the state, the Bill is an effort to claw back state control. We see in the charitable and university sectors that when Governments spend money, they always want their pound of flesh, and the pound of flesh is interfering in the day-to-day running of organisations, denying them their freedoms. In some cases, that does not really matter, but it is crucial that academic freedom, as a fundamental good, be maintained as an absolute priority.

Let me carry on dealing with the details of the Bill. I raised this matter in an intervention: I am very much against passing Bills that are slightly absurd—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for being so harsh as to use that term. To have a Bill that applies to England and Wales only, and also only to people domiciled in England, does not seem to work. Surely, the universities in England should admit on the same basis anyone who comes along. To say that they will admit English people on merit but that they can admit the Scots, Irish and Welsh and people from the Commonwealth or European Union not according to merit does not make any sense. If we are to pass laws of this kind, there must be the same principle of application and entry for everyone who is eligible to enter subject to public funding. One might say that it is a good idea to take some overseas students because they can pay a vast fee that will subsidise some of the rest of the university’s operations, although after the Gaddafi affair one might not think that quite such a clever idea, but one really does not want to say that people from Scotland can be taken in on a completely different basis from the people of England.

I am also concerned about the term “domiciled in England”, because I am not quite sure, legally, where it comes from. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will explain it. I understand that with tax laws for which domicile is relevant, it is United Kingdom domicile that matters, although that may change with the Scotland Bill. I am not convinced that there is an agreed English domicile classification.

I want to elaborate a little more on academic freedoms. What is it that allows thought to develop? What allows us not just to produce people who can go into the workplace, fill jobs and earn a living, but allows that great development of thought that we have had in this country for hundreds of years? Whom should we go back to as our earliest notable philosopher? One could argue for Shakespeare or go back even further and argue for Chaucer, although one might think of them more as literary figures. One could start with Hobbs and Locke and the development of thought in which this country has been so powerfully involved. When talking about science, one could mention Boyle and Newton, both of whom had strong associations with our great universities. How did they achieve that? Yes, they sometimes got Government money: Chaucer was sponsored by the King and so was Shakespeare. Newton was the Master of the Mint and got an income from his service that allowed him to afford his academic studies. So, there is a connection between the state and academic excellence, but it is not a control: it is not the state saying, “You may do only these things or you must educate only these people.”

We must be very wary of putting constraints on our institutions. I hope that the Minister will consider this point in relation to the current state of legislation rather than just in regard to this Bill. Our institutions need to be free to take in the people whom they think best even though we might not agree that they are the best—indeed, they might seem to us not quite up to the mark. Our institutions might decide to take a bet on someone who has no academic qualifications, because they have been failed by their secondary school—such failure has been a problem—but who appears absolutely genius in quality. They might decide to take people who have that spark of intelligence and thoughtfulness that makes them interesting and exciting and means they can push on the great development of thought.

Many areas of university life are not covered by the academic subjects that are done up until A-level. There are developments that people need to take with a philosophy, politics and economics qualification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sorry that we appear to be confusing two things. I am not for a moment suggesting that we ought to go back to the standard of living of the middle ages, or the level of literacy. That is not what we should aim for. It would be bonkers. What I was saying, and I thought I was agreeing with the Minister, is that I would like the status of education to be as high as it was in the middle ages, and to be something that people love and rejoice in. Of course, we want it to be open to everybody rather than only to the narrow, broadly clerical, class that it was open to in the past.

To think of education as a great and exciting thing is tremendously important, and we do that best by allowing the universities their freedom. The less control the Government have, the better. One of the great things about tuition fees is that they will follow the student. Although the Government will provide the money initially, eventually it will be paid back. The Government are beginning to retreat from the financing of the universities, so universities will have greater freedom because they will not be so subject to the Government’s interference.

[Mr Chope]

I am concerned that my hon. Friend accepts too much at face value what the Government say. In paragraph 5.4 of the “Guidance to the Director of Fair Access”, the Government make the point:

“The subsidised loans that Government offers students represent a significant cost to the public purse.”

That is then used as justification for interference. Surely, that is inconsistent with my hon. Friend’s vision, which I share, that universities should be free to charge whatever fees they wish.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We have to evolve. We have to move to a position where freedom is re-established. We are going from a position where most university funding is state-controlled to one where a large proportion of it will come from individuals. The Government would be in a ludicrous position if they were getting students to pay what was the Government’s money. That would not make sense. We have a wise, good and forthright Government, made up of some of the best brains ever born in this country. We are lucky. We know where we are going in terms of tuition fees; we have a well-thought through plan that will aid the independence of universities, particularly once we move through it and we find that the money is being paid back, the loan book can be run profitably and a major cost can be taken off the Government’s balance sheet. I am all in favour of student loans, which will help to achieve the Bill’s aims—the admission of people whom universities want because they have the ability to attend them.

Let me draw broadly to a conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was indeed tempted by the Minister to go down a route that neither you nor I want us to go down.

I will keep my remarks brief because I am intrigued to hear what the Minister has to say. I want to hear some kind of confirmation, not only that while he lives and breathes he will support grammar schools, but that while he is the Minister and while our right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) is the Prime Minister, he will ensure that universities recruit people on merit alone and that people are not allocated places simple because of their background, the school they went to, the socio-economic environment in which they live or the wealth or otherwise of their parents. If we started going down that route, it would be a disaster for this country. The idea of positive discrimination, which lies behind such proposals, is a disaster. Positive discrimination is discrimination, and we should not advocate it, because it demeans people. Many parents make terrific sacrifices to send their kids to private schools. People who cannot ordinarily afford to do so make the most amazing sacrifices, because they understandably want their children to have the best start and opportunities in life.

My parents made terrific sacrifices to enable me to go to a boarding school that they really could not afford to send me to, and I am immensely grateful to them. I do not see why this Government, in particular, or anybody for that matter, would want to say to such parents, “Well done. You’ve made these sacrifices to help your children get the best possible start in life. What we’re going to do now is rig the rules to make sure that all your sacrifices have been in vain, because we’re going to stop your daughter or son having the opportunity to go to the university they deserve to go to, based on the hard work that they put in, as you don’t meet the criteria, you’re not from the right socio-economic background or they didn’t go to the school we would have preferred them to go to.” What an appalling message.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Does he share my concern that the Government, in their desire to bring about social engineering, are going to penalise people who pay off their loans early— perhaps with the help of their parents making the sort of sacrifice to which he refers? Does he condemn that as a gross interference?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As it happens, I voted against the Government on tuition fees for the simple reason that I did not want people from poorer backgrounds to be denied the opportunity to go to the best possible universities. Tuition fees are being increased to pay for more and more people to go to university, and the argument is that if we want more people to go to university, students are going to have to pay a higher price. That is a perfectly logical argument, but I do not want more people going to university. Too many go to university; I want fewer to go. I want universities to be the bastion of high standards again.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) inadvertently touched on that point when he asked, “Shouldn’t people who want to go to university have the opportunity to do so?” My answer to that is no. It should be a question not of whether someone wants to go to university, but whether they have the aptitude and have reached a high enough mark to do so on merit. That should be what determines whether they go.

Otherwise, it is like asking athletes whether they would like to compete in the Olympics—I am sure they all would, but surely nobody is advocating that any athlete who happens to fancy a crack at the 100-metre sprint should be allowed to compete at the Olympics. Most people accept that athletes have to reach a certain level before they are even considered for the Olympics, and the same should apply in education: people should not go just because they want to; they should go because they have reached the level in their education that allows them to go. That is the whole point of merit and, as I see it, of this Bill.

All the other factors that people are trying to introduce into the system can only devalue our education system—dumb down the standards. Then the Government will say, “Isn’t it marvellous? Haven’t we been good for education, because now X% of people have a degree?” Well, no it would not be marvellous—not if the result had been achieved only by dumbing down standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I will not say that it was a U-turn—that would be too strong—but he seemed to clarify his remarks in a way that is helpful to us all in considering these matters in a balanced and measured manner.

The principle that I have described in respect of merit linked to a consideration of potential is time honoured. The other things that OFFA suggests that universities should take into account are no more frightening than those that I have already identified:

“progress towards benchmarks…published by HESA and others more immediate targets and measures agreed”

in respect of those less well represented groups. Targets agreed and measures suggested and agreed do not form the frightening perspective that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch described in his opening remarks, although, of course, I celebrate the fact that he has given us the chance to explore these matters because I want to put on the record what I have told him previously: I agree with him about merit.

[Mr Chope]

How can the percentage of students admitted from state schools, from lower socio-economic classes or from low-participation neighbourhoods directly have a bearing on merit? Surely, they are irrelevant to merit.

[Mr Hayes]

They would be irrelevant were it not for the fact that we know—do we not?—that many high-performing students from state schools do not get to some of the universities that they might get to if they had the wherewithal that is available to people such as he and I and will be available by proxy to our offspring. I have not finished my list, but that brings me conveniently to advice and guidance.

We know—do we not?—from what Lord Browne and Mr Milburn said in their reports that part of the problem in matching the abilities of the under-represented in higher and further education to the institutions that might best serve their tastes and talents is that they do not have the wherewithal to get to where they might want to go. What I mean by that is this: we know that social networks and familial understanding are the basis on which those who are already advantaged cement their advantage. It is not aspiration or ambition but wherewithal that limits working class people from achieving what they might.

This is a difference between the two sides of the House. There has been a bourgeois left misunderstanding of working class culture. Lord Mandelson is a case in point—he felt that there was lack of ambition. Aspiration, we are often told, is what the working classes lack. That is completely untrue. Working class parents and grandparents seek exactly the same for their children and grandchildren as middle class people. What they lack is the means to achieve those ambitions because of a gap in wherewithal. They do not have the social and familial networks that understand the process by which their talents might be turned into actuality through higher learning.

That is why the Government are introducing an all-age careers service from this autumn that will balance the advice that it gives in an empirical and independent way. The Education Bill that is going through the House will place a duty on schools to secure that independent and empirical advice because we know that learning is a key driver of social mobility, and social mobility is a critical component of social justice. I would go as far as to say that a free society, which is by its very nature an unequal society, can be legitimised only when social mobility prevails. The inequalities that are the natural bedfellow of freedom can be ethically justified only by social mobility. That is why social mobility and social justice are so central to our mission.

I return to the requirements published by OFFA in respect of access and admissions, which universities must take into account, as that is a subject that has been raised repeatedly in the debate. The list of requirements goes on to identify

“the support offered to students once enrolled on courses—for example additional study support, mentoring, pastoral support, help with basic skills; and the range of programmes the university will offer which could be easier for under-represented groups, particularly mature students, to access—part-time courses, distance learning, two-year degrees, intensive, accelerated degrees, supported foundation year.”

Why is all that so important? We know that when the rhythms and patterns of study match the rhythms and patterns of many more kinds of people’s lives, they are likely to engage in learning, and that for a mature student, for someone working to fund their study, for someone with caring responsibilities, the traditional three-year degree course, full time, at a leafy campus is not an option. By being more creative about modes of learning and access points to learning, we can engage many more kinds of people.

I gave a speech on broadening access to higher education—I know that you will be familiar with it, Mr Deputy Speaker, but others in the House may not be—some time ago at Birkbeck college in London. I have a copy for anyone who would like one. I am prepared to sign them for particular fans and admirers. Birkbeck college is the embodiment of the principle that I have just outlined. At Birkbeck, the idea of taster courses, first years which allow people to move on to a degree, and the very business of part-time study are intrinsic. It is central to the college’s mission, as it is to the Open university. I was with the Master of Birkbeck college and the vice-chancellor of the Open university briefly yesterday, as I was anticipating this debate. The Open university, too, shows us that by changing the way people study we can change the level of engagement of those who are typically under-represented in higher education. I have mentioned further education, where part-time study is generally the norm, rather than the exception, which is one of the reasons why we want to expand HE in FE.

To return to the Bill and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, the real issue is that OFFA’s requirement that universities must use a range of programmes, including distance learning, part-time study and taster and foundation courses, far from being malevolent, is extraordinarily virtuous in achieving the mission that he and I share, which is that those who have the ability should be able to access higher education.

[Mr Chope]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I was just about to say something about Pope John Paul II, but I will give way before doing so.

[Mr Chope]

I do not want to get between my hon. Friend and Pope John Paul II, but if a university court, for example, is to have the freedom to decide what is best for its university, why can we not trust the universities themselves to do what is best? Why are the Government prescribing this set of requirements through OFFA?

[Mr Hayes]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science, when dealing with those issues in the House, has made it clear that universities are indeed independent institutions that will make their own judgments on precisely how they deal with those matters. It seems perfectly reasonable, based on our desire to spread good practice as far as we can, to draw to their attention those salient matters that might affect their ability to give opportunities to those people with merit who typically do not do as well as those with equal merit from advantaged backgrounds. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would not want to inhibit in any way those who are under-represented in higher education, but who have talent and merit, from prospering. I give him absolute assurance that merit is the basis on which universities should choose students, and we are not in the business of dictating to independent institutions on how they go about meeting the requirements, which seem to me very reasonable, set out by OFFA.

We believe that freedom is central to the concept of a university. Indeed, a free university linked to academic freedom and freedom of thought seems to me to be important elements of a civilized society, as was mentioned earlier. I qualify that, however, by noting that John Paul II said that freedom has its merit when it is exercised to pursue truth. I do not want to leave on the record any misunderstanding that freedom is intrinsically of value, separated from truth, because that could misrepresent my views on the character of freedom.

That takes us to Cardinal Newman’s “The Idea of a University”, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will have read before the debate. Newman’s idea of a university was that by definition it should be distinct from instruction, vocation or a profession. That is one of the tenets he sets out in his discourses concerning what a university should comprise. That is no longer the case in Britain. Pursuing a university career in Britain might, indeed, still be about studying something peculiarly—solely—academic, but it might also include studying something that is highly vocational or practical in character, and so it should. I admire Cardinal Newman immensely, but on that matter I disagree with him, which might be because we live in different times. For that reason, however, the business of access to university, tied to what is studied and how, needs to infuse all we do regarding admissions and access. That is why I take a rather more lateral view about the character of higher study: how, where and what people study all seem to be linked when we consider the matter of access.

My hon. Friend fears that we are engaged in social engineering, but I can absolutely assure him that, far from that, the independence vested in universities by their very nature remains unaffected by the Government’s determination to pursue an agenda that will widen access as I have outlined.

My hon. Friend will know, and it has been discussed today, that the Government have been looking at how universities are funded. The changes in fees and funding will put universities on a more sustainable footing, and, as he argues, part of that will involve universities deciding what they charge their students. There are those who think that that will inhibit our plan to widen access, but I absolutely believe that it is not admissions or fees that are central to spreading opportunity in that way, but, as I have said, prior attainment, advice and guidance, what people study, access points to learning and modes of learning.

For example, the Government’s response to Browne, which accepts his recommendations on part-time funding, will, I believe, in a short time have a more dramatic effect on widening access to higher education than any change to the admissions system could ever have. We already know that part-time learners tend to be drawn from a wider cohort than full-timers, and the change has been widely welcomed by the universities sector, in particular in the House yesterday by the Open university and Birkbeck college and, indeed, by others. I know that it is welcomed also by the Association of Colleges, Universities UK and the Million+ group, and it is going to be an essential component in allowing us to achieve our objectives to broaden access.

My hon. Friend seeks to prescribe in law the circumstances by which people might be admitted to university, but my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset suggested—and I was able to help him through an intervention in making the point, I hope, even more clearly—that in doing so my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would prescribe not merely what universities chose to do, but what they chose not to do, because universities that use interviews as a way of assessing students would, I guess, be prevented from doing so.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but why does he say that? In my Bill, there is no restriction on universities being able to assess academic ability, potential and aptitude by interview if they so wish.

[Mr Hayes]

That is a helpful intervention, because a student with less prior attainment, for all kinds of variables that we do not need to expand on now, might well be admitted to a university as a result of an assessment of their potential at interview, whereas a student who had achieved strong results and so had strong prior attainment might not be. I am glad that my hon. Friend is not saying that there is rigidity in these principles. He displays an understanding of merit that is rather more liberal than I had imagined. I assure him that the Government’s understanding of merit is equally liberal. I do not usually like to use the word liberal in a positive way, but we are now in a different world so I will do so. The Government are absolutely clear that it is for universities to make decisions about who will best benefit from their provision, and not for us. We do not want to dictate that any more than I have now learned my hon. Friend does. Universities are, as the Minister for Universities and Science has made perfectly clear in this House, independent institutions, and long may they remain so.

The principle of institutional autonomy is enshrined in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which I happen to have with me. My hon. Friend will know that that Act—from memory I think that it is in section 62 or 63—makes it absolutely clear that universities are autonomous institutions. That limits the power of the Secretary of State. The Act, which I hasten to add is unchanged by this Government, limits the Government’s power, subject to certain terms and conditions. For the benefit of the House, I will read the provisions because I do not imagine that everybody has the Act to hand. Section 68(3) states:

“Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference…to the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students.”

That could not be clearer. It could not be more plain that the Government, in leaving the Act unaffected by any changes that we are making to fees and funding, are absolutely confirming the independence of our universities in those terms. That principle has been observed for a very long time and we do not wish it to be challenged or amended.

Institutional autonomy, whether in further or higher education, remains a central tenet of our system, and it is a key theme in our current considerations. Perhaps I should add that in respect of further education colleges the Government are going even further. We are determined to lift much of the bureaucratic burden that they have endured for too long. To unleash the human capital in our further education colleges and to build on their excellent work, we will free them from some of the target-driven, centrally micro-managed and directed edicts that emerged from the previous regime. In those dark days, further education was undervalued by Government; it is not now. As we have moved from the shadows into the light, so has further education in the United Kingdom. The Education Bill that is currently making its way through this House rescinds some of the requirements that were placed on further education colleges late in the previous Government’s life. It will increase their powers to borrow and invest, and make various other changes. The principles of institutional freedom that I have described will be retained.

Although I understand the reasons for doubts about what OFFA has said about admissions, I do not believe they are well founded. I have given a firm commitment on behalf of the Government to the principle of merit, but I wish to say a little about how we might move ahead in agreement.

To help identify individuals with the greatest potential, institutions may want to use data about the context in which a young person has achieved their qualifications. The Government believe that that is a valid and appropriate way for institutions to broaden access while maintaining excellence, as long as individuals are considered on their merits and institutions’ procedures are fair, transparent and evidence-based.

That is not a change from previous good practice, it is what universities and colleges have always done. Many universities already take into account a range of such contextual information in considering whom to admit. The sector has taken steps further to develop its use of such information, and the sector-led supporting professionalism in admissions programme already has as one of its key themes the use of contextual data to support fair admissions. Good practice principles on the use of such data have been developed.

Comments have been made about the proportion of private school pupils who go to university. We have no policy view on the number of privately educated students entering HE. The Government’s policy view is that access should be on the basis of merit, irrespective of background. It would be wrong for the Government to suggest that the number of people from private schools going to our universities should be limited, and we have no intention of doing so.

There is no chance of the Government interfering or setting quotas. Our recent guidance letter to the director of OFFA makes that point, stating that universities will select their own performance measures and set out, in their new access arrangements agreed with OFFA, the progress that they expect to make in widening participation and access. The Government are quite clear not only that quotas are undesirable, but that as I have explained, legislation simply does not permit us to interfere in university admissions in such a way.

I am inclined to move to my summary now, although I know the House would like me to speak at greater length. The Government fully support the principle that universities and colleges should admit students based on their academic ability, potential and aptitude, as assessed by the institution in question. That is precisely the aim of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch articulated with his usual flair. We believe that his concerns about accessing educational opportunities on merit do not need legislation. I hope that given my firm assurances from the Dispatch Box, he agrees with that, particularly as I have illustrated the legislation that already exists to protect the very interests that he has mentioned.

Chesterton—we have heard too little about him in this debate, have we not?—said:

“Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another.”

In passing on the soul of society, we need always to be conscious of the fact that the relationship between learning and opportunity is profound. It would be inappropriate, but worse than that unethical, for a Government not to focus on how we can spread opportunity as widely as possible. That is one reason why I championed vocational education so vociferously in my time as a shadow Minister and now as a Minister. Many people’s tastes and talents will take them down a vocational pathway, which must be as navigable, progressive and seductive as the academic route. Notwithstanding my support for apprenticeships, to which the Government are devoting unprecedented levels of funding, the tastes and talents of many other people from the kind of backgrounds that I come from will take them towards an academic career in a university. Our duty is to ensure that they too get their chance of glittering prizes.

We believe that my hon. Friend’s objectives do not need legislation, as I said. We know that good sense and good government demand that universities remain free to make those judgments about their future. Accordingly, while recognising the worth of his intentions and admiring his ambitions, and frankly, being envious of his perspicacity, the Government are bound to oppose the Bill.

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank everybody who participated in this debate, which has now extended beyond three hours. This fraught subject commands enormous interest both outside and inside the House, and I hope that as a result of the debate, we have collectively flushed out a bit more of the Government’s thinking.

My hon. Friend the Minister, whom I thank and congratulate on his contribution to the debate, identified section 68(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 as the reason my Bill is not needed. Under that provision, the Secretary of State is not allowed to interfere in the role of universities in deciding their admission policies for students.

On the face of it, that is the end of the matter, but of course, clever Governments try to find alternative means of achieving their objectives. Using the Office for Fair Access, this Government have come up with a clever scheme. They are saying, “We will allow universities to increase their fees to up to £7,500 or £9,000 a year, but we will give OFFA a veto over them if they wish to increase fees beyond £6,000. The veto can be exercised on the basis of advice that the Government give to OFFA.”

That is an attempt to control access arrangements. Obviously, the Government can say ultimately, “It’s nothing to do with us that university X or Y has decided to increase its fees to £9,000, but in return for the privilege”—as it is seen—“of doing that, there will be restrictions on its ability to admit students purely on the basis of merit.” There is a subtle agenda behind that—the policy is designed to put pressure on universities that want to charge the highest fees, and to introduce constraints on their admissions policies, which they cannot freely decide. Whether as a result of intended or unintended consequences, undoubtedly universities that wish to be able to increase their fees to £9,000 a year in exercise of their sovereign power will not be able to do so unless they get the permission of OFFA. However, OFFA will not give permission unless the conditions set out in the regulations are met and complied with. That is why a lot of universities are worried about this meddlesome interference and increased regulation in the system.

During the debate, I was attacked by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for being far too left wing and interventionist. I am prepared to take the criticism on the chin. However, I pray in aid my plea in mitigation, which was in a sense anticipated by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): if there was not already interference by the Government in the freedom of universities to decide their own admissions arrangements, and if they were free to chose the level of fees that they charge without interference from OFFA, there would be no need for this measure. The Bill is a response to the Government’s meddlesome regulatory interference in higher education and in the ability of HE institutions to set fees at the level that they want. I accept that criticism, therefore, but my mitigation is that the Bill has been made necessary by the Government’s attitude.

When one listens to and analyses what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, and if one reads paragraph 6.1 of the Secretary of State’s new guidance to OFFA, it is clear that

“In the new Access Arrangements, institutions should agree with”

the director of fair access

“a programme of defined progress each year… The access performance indicators relate to the percentage of students admitted…from state schools or colleges,…from lower socio-economic classes, and…from low-participation neighbourhoods.”

What is the purpose of introducing such criteria, if ultimately the Government do not want to interfere in universities’ freedom to choose their own students? Ultimately, if we trust our universities—my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset and for Shipley made this point—they will come up with the right results, particularly if we set them free, and leave them accountable to themselves, their student bodies and the wider public. We have seen in today’s news about the director of the London School of Economics an example of the exercise in practice of such accountability, independence and freedom. There was no interference from the Government. That institution took responsibility for the consequences of its own decisions, and I am sure that that will be widely welcomed.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for his contribution. We agree about a lot of these issues, although perhaps not interviews. My daughter’s experience when undergoing interviews for veterinary medicine showed that there is more to going on some of these courses, whether veterinary medicine, medicine or other courses, than academic qualifications alone. Students also have to demonstrate an aptitude, and the people who conduct the interviews are good at identifying that aptitude. For example, an aspiring veterinary or medical student who does not like the idea of going to an abattoir or seeing a dead body is probably not heading in the right direction for their career, however good their exam results. That sort of thing can be found out in an interview, but it cannot necessarily be ascertained on the back of an exam paper.

There is an important role for interviews in the admissions process, but I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Wrexham about the delay in putting the higher education White Paper before the people. I share universities’ concern about the fact that time is running out if they are to be able to draw up access arrangements so that students can know where they stand in relation to fees and other things from the 2012 academic year.

I hope that, in the spirit of belt and braces, the Bill is given a Second Reading so that it can go into Committee. If, in the end, we find that I am wrong and my hon. Friend the Minister is right, and there is no covert interference in university admissions policies through OFFA, the Bill will be nugatory, but I fear that the Government’s agenda, egged on by the minority party in the coalition, is one of interference and trying to achieve social engineering. If one wants evidence to back up that suspicion, I can do no more than cite the fact that the Government are intent on penalising people who pay back their loans early. What could be more ludicrous than that? I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

There are further education colleges across the country that are keen to deliver more higher education, and the coalition Government believe that that is an opportunity that they should be able to take up, provided they meet the necessary standards.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T6. Do the Government agree that universities should be free to admit students on the basis of academic merit without interference from the Government, and, if so, why are they intent on more regulation and meddling in the freedom of university admissions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I have made it clear that we are absolutely determined to ensure that the worst-off are not disadvantaged by the new arrangements. However, I believe that there is a strong case for greater discretion to target some of things that Opposition Front Benchers identified as salient in helping people to achieve their best.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of getting more capital into free schools would be to enable them to obtain it on the open market by allowing them the freedom to make a profit, as they can in Sweden? When will my right hon. Friend have the courage of his convictions and enable free schools to have the same freedoms as they have in Sweden?

[Michael Gove]

It is always a pleasure to hear the radical proposals of my hon. Friend, whose stewardship of money when he was a councillor in Wandsworth and a Minister in a previous Conservative Government is a model to all. I shall look carefully at the case he makes, but the one thing that is clear is that we already know that our programme ensures that more new school places are being provided more cheaply than was the case under the previous Labour Government.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have dealt, in interventions, with low-incidence needs and I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman made about that. The key point is about funding and we all felt that the Bill’s original draft did not deal with that properly, but it is now clearly set out.

A second concern of mine, which I expressed on Second Reading, is not so much about the process by which statements appear but about their enforcement. I made some observations in that debate about the need for more detail as to how that will be dealt with. How would a parent who was concerned that a statement was not being carried out or enforced by a school take their complaint further? I understand that complaints to the Secretary of State about the lack of enforcement of a statement in a special school will be dealt with by the Young People’s Learning Agency. I welcome that, but I would want to be satisfied that the YPLA personnel who dealt with those complaints would have adequate training to understand the sometimes labyrinthine process involved in enforcing SEN statements. I would also want the processes to be very clear and to be spelt out to the parents of children with SEN at the outset. I am not going to stray off the point, Mr Chope, but I want briefly to mention amendment 72, which was proposed by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass)—

[The Temporary Chair (Christopher Chope)]

Order. It is not in order to refer to amendments that have not been selected. Will the hon. Gentleman confine his remarks to this amendment? The issue before us is whether special educational needs should be included within academies or not.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful for that guidance, but what I was seeking to explain is that there are some concerns about the process of enforcing SEN statements, which is relevant to the debate about linking special schools to the current network in terms of how academies will work. There are concerns about academies not being part of the LEA system and framework, but those matters could be dealt with by way of a clarification of those processes. I am sure that the Government are listening to what we are saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Lady makes a number of interesting points. First, I agree about the wider community. Her well-made point about consultation reinforces my point about the complexity of provision, whereby a child in borough A will only be able to go to a school in borough B, which has the acute service—for want of a better phrase.

Secondly, the hon. Lady made a more general point about the accountability of the exclusions process, and I imagine that she would want the appeals process—

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. The accountability of the exclusions process does not relate to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman must get back to the content of the amendment.

[Mr Buckland]

I was only trying to address the hon. Lady’s intervention, which I had taken—

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be led astray by the hon. Lady. He should respond to the need to concentrate his remarks on the amendment, otherwise this debate will go on into the early hours of the morning.

[Mr Buckland]

Very well. I have been led astray by the hon. Lady’s film persona on many occasions, and in a very positive way, but I accept what you say, Mr Chope, and I shall return to the amendment.

I do not share the concern that, when it comes to children and young people in special education, the Bill will result in a “them and us” situation. In fact, to accept the amendment would be to create just such situation. If both Houses pass the Bill and we allow schools the opportunity to go down this exciting avenue, we must as a matter of principle allow all types of school to enjoy that potential opportunity, and it would be wholly wrong and discriminatory to exclude special schools from that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

This is an extremely important point; my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) got in just before I could. The Government are talking about expressions of interest from people clicking a button to obtain information. Frankly, if I were head of a school, I would have clicked the button as well to have a look at what this really means and what the Government are really saying. The Government are using the fact that schools have done that—whether it be special schools, primary schools, outstanding schools or any other schools—and saying that clicking a button is almost the same as expressing an interest in becoming an academy. In fact, people are actually looking to obtain information. There is a real difference. I am glad—

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. He has the right to reply to the debate, and if we are to bring it to a reasonably early conclusion, it is important that interventions are kept brief.

[Sarah Teather]

These schools have expressed an interest in finding out more information. We have never said that they have applied to become academies. It is important to make that clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

On a related point, I am unclear as to what the process will be for schools becoming academies under the new scheme. Say, for example, that 500 schools apply. The impact assessment seems to suggest that just 200 a year will be successful. On what basis will Ministers decide which schools become academies and which do not? Within that, will special schools have priority for the reasons that she has set out, or will they have a lower priority than secondary and primary schools?

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. May I point out that the Minister should not respond to that intervention, because it was totally of order?

[Sarah Teather]

I think one element of it was in order, and I shall respond to it because I am keen to respond as best I can despite this being my first Bill. The hon. Gentleman asked about the priority that will be given to special schools. I was about to say that we are treating special schools in a different way from others, which I hope will reassure some Members who have concerns. The process will be longer and slower, and we do not expect any special schools to convert to academies before 2011.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked a number of perfectly good questions, and I accept that more work needs to be done on the matter. That is precisely why the Secretary of State has set up an advisory group to work with head teachers from special schools and mainstream schools with special units, so that we can work through the details of the points that have been made.

The point about partnering is important. We would expect any school that gets academy status to partner with another school. That could provide an opportunity to spread knowledge, particularly on special education. There are already many good examples of special schools that are doing that, but it is not always happening. We will strongly encourage special schools to use the training that their staff have, which is often lacking in mainstream settings, to ensure that we drive up standards for children with special educational needs. We expect partnering to provide that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

Before we move to the next group of amendments, I must announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day on the question relating to Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament). The Ayes were 499, and the Noes were 21, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Vernon Coaker]

I beg to move amendment 32, page 1, line 21, at end insert—

‘(5A) No Academy arrangement may be made under this section with a school that is exclusively a nursery or primary school, or both.’.

[The Temporary Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 48, in clause 3, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

‘(3A) The governing body of a primary school is not eligible to apply under subsection (1).

(3B) Two years after Royal Assent, the following is substituted for subsection (3A)—

“( ) The governing body of a primary school which has fewer than five hundred registered pupils is not eligible to apply under subsection (1).

( ) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section to allow the governing body of a federation to apply, or the governing bodies of a number of schools to apply jointly, for an Academy order provided the total of primary-aged registered pupils in the federation, or group of schools, is five hundred or more.”.’.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is good to come to the second group of amendments. May I formally welcome the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), to his post, as I welcomed his fellow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather)? This is the first Bill that he is taking through the House as Minister with responsibility for schools, a post that I held. He and I have held each other’s posts. In all seriousness and sincerity, I wish him well in his role. I think he has found in the past 24 hours, and will continue to find out in the next 24 hours, as his fellow Minister has done, that tabling amendments is one thing, but having all the answers is quite another. It is good to welcome others too.

We had a good and interesting debate on special schools and we come now to primary schools. I want to start by making a few general points and then move on to some specifics, which is the reverse of my approach in the previous debate. The amendment seeks to raise some of the key concerns felt by many, not just Opposition Members—I note amendment 48 in the name of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson)—about the rapid and precipitate conversion of hundreds of primary schools to academy status.