---

Sale of Student Loans Bill

moved Amendment No. 8: 8: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert ““by such organisation as may be specified by the Secretary of State”” The noble Baroness said: I also speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 21 which are tabled in my name. None of these amendments is substantive, in that they are all intended to clarify who is collecting or benefiting from payments made in respect of these loans. Amendment No. 8 merely clarifies who is responsible for collecting the repayments and makes clear that the Secretary of State needs to specify who shall take on that role. In this respect, it refers to Clause 5 which deals with repayments, and brings in Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. For her part, she is anxious to call a spade a spade and makes it clear that the Student Loans Company will collect the repayments. I know of the reluctance of parliamentary draftsmen to name any government agency in the Bill on the grounds that it may not exist in the future. However, it is noteworthy that Clause 5(2)(b) names Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs, even though they have been through an organisational and name change in the course of the past few years. They may yet change again under future Governments. I have played along with the convention in Amendment No. 8 and not named names. Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 21, because it is linked to Amendment No. 8. It is a clarifying amendment. ““Or other person”” is very vague. Accepting the convention that the agent is the Student Loans Company or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the amendment asks that, if it is to be someone else, they should be specified by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 9 is more substantive. We on these Benches are unhappy with the vagueness of ““may include””. It is important in transfer deals of this type that it is clear at the outset who is entitled to interest payments, penalties or other charges which arise from, for example, slow payment or non-payment of repayments due. ““May include”” is much too vague. These things need to be specified clearly in advance, which is what Amendment No. 9 asks for. I beg to move.