HL Deb 14 July 1998 vol 592 cc112-6

123HB Clause 20, page 15, line 40, at end insert— ("(4) The Secretary of State shall, not later than six months after the passing of this Act, appoint an independent body to review the arrangements for England and Wales relating to the payment of grants in respect of fees payable in connection with attendance on the final honours year of first degree courses at higher education institutions in Scotland.

(5) The Secretary of State shall invite—

  1. (a) the Scottish higher education principals,
  2. (b) the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and
  3. (c) such other bodies as he considers appropriate,
to make representations to the body established under subsection (4): and the report of that body shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than 1st April 2000.

(6) If that body recommends that the arrangements referred to in subsection (4) should be modified in accordance with this subsection, the Secretary of State may modify those arrangements so as to secure that they are no less favourable than the arrangements made by regulations under section 73(f) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 for the payment of allowances in respect of fees payable as mentioned in subsection (4).

(7) In subsections (4) and (6) any reference to the arrangements for England and Wales is a reference to arrangements made either under the Education Act 1962 or under section 19 of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. This gives effect to the undertaking that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made in another place last night to review payment of fees for the fourth year of a university course in Scotland.

The Motion I am moving follows closely the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in his amendment that is before the House this afternoon. We are happy to accept the principle of his amendment, and I pay tribute to him for bringing forward a very helpful proposal. However, the noble Lord's amendment is not in the Government's view tabled at quite the right place in the Bill. It would need some technical redrafting. For that reason we have tabled our own amendment in lieu, which I move with this Motion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will be content that the Government's amendment meets the substance and intention of his amendment and gives effect to it in the right form on the face of the Bill.

Perhaps I may say a little about the review which is the subject of the amendments before the House. In response to the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere, my right honourable friend in another place last night offered a future independent review of fee arrangements relating to Scotland. It will be a serious review, and not cosmetic. In line with our stated intention to monitor the effect of tuition fees as they are introduced, we are willing to set up an independent review of the arrangements for fee support for students in the fourth year of Scottish honours degree courses. The fact that it will be independent is stated in the amendment. Such a review would take place next year in the light of evidence on applications and admissions to four-year courses in 1998–99 and early evidence on applications to four-year courses in 1999–2000. This will allow for all the evidence to be assessed, including the impact on Scottish universities.

To give statutory effect to this review, I am therefore moving a government amendment which will require an independent review body to be set up within six months and to take representations from the parties most closely concerned: the Scottish Principals, the CVCP and others. The provision in our amendment for the Secretary of State to invite such other persons as he considers appropriate could, for example, cover other interested bodies such as political parties. This is very similar in purpose and effect to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. However, it will amend Clause 20 rather than Clause 25 because it is Clause 20 that will govern the arrangements for financial support for fees that is available to students ordinarily resident in England and Wales.

An amendment to Clause 20 to refer to Northern Ireland is unnecessary. We fully recognise that this is an issue which has implications for students from Northern Ireland as much as from England and Wales. However, provision for Northern Ireland will be made, as is customary for Northern Ireland, by means of an Order in Council made under Clause 31 of the Bill. That order will be made very shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It will make provisions corresponding to Clause 20 of the Bill as to other clauses and will fully reflect the changes set out in the Government's amendment today.

Until the need for such arrangements has been proved and weighed against the greater anomaly that they would create for students in the fourth year degree courses at institutions in the rest of the UK, the Government are not prepared to make special provision. But if the independent review were to recommend that the absence of special arrangements for students from England and Wales and Northern Ireland in the fourth year of degree courses at Scottish institutions should be modified, then we should, of course, be prepared to look again at the arrangements for providing financial support with fees for such students.

I hope that the House will accept our proposal. The review, combined with the rest of the Bill, now gives us the way forward.

Let me now rehearse again some of the main reasons for the Government's decision to make a concession in the first place to Scottish students in the fourth year of honours degree courses in Scotland. That arose directly out of recommendations from the Dearing committee of inquiry into higher education and its Scottish committee under Sir Ron Garrick. Their recommendations in turn stem from the difference between the Scottish education system and that in the rest of the United Kingdom. There has been much argument in this House over the extent of the difference between the two systems. Of course, the difference can be exaggerated, but I have to say that if there were no difference at all, then there would be no argument for any concession in the first place.

We have heard arguments over whether Scottish students enter higher education after one year's extra education after statutory schooling at around the age of 17 or whether they do so later, after two years. I wholly accept the fact that many Scottish students stay on for a second year and enter higher education later, but I do not think it is entirely relevant. The point is that Scottish students can qualify for university entry on the basis of higher qualifications, while students in the rest of the UK have to do a two-year course leading to A-levels or the equivalent, in order to qualify for entry to higher education. It is that which has led to Scottish honours degree courses normally lasting four years as opposed to the three years in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Students from the rest of the UK can obtain an honours degree for a maximum contribution of £3.000 in tuition fees. By meeting the full cost of the tuition fee in the fourth year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is ensuring that Scottish students can also obtain an honours degree for a maximum of £3,000 in tuition fees, just like students in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We have heard many arguments that our policy will result in unfairness. But, on the contrary, let me repeat that our proposals mean that all students in the UK will have the opportunity to study for an honours degree for a maximum contribution of £3,000 towards tuition costs. Our policy thus recognises and, indeed, preserves the diversity of the UK higher education system which we value, while offering equality of opportunity.

Let us be quite clear that this is not an issue of nationality or country of birth; it is simply about two different education systems. Scottish higher education has a very high reputation around the world and my right honourable friend and I have a very high regard for it. The Government recognise that many students in the rest of the UK can and wish to benefit from studying at a Scottish university, in particular those who may have Scottish family ties. We quite understand that they may wish to study for an honours degree at the same institution as their parents. But let us also be clear that no student from any part of the United Kingdom will be prevented from attending a Scottish university or college because they cannot afford a fourth year of tuition fees. Students from outside Scotland who come from low income families will in any case be entitled to free tuition and many more from middle income families will receive financial assistance with their fees.

To extend free tuition to all UK students in the fourth year of honours courses at Scottish institutions, regardless of financial circumstances, would help only those from better off families. It would be of no benefit whatever to students from less well off backgrounds because, as I have already explained, they will already be entitled to free tuition. Moreover, to pay the whole tuition fee for all English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students simply because they are on the fourth year of a degree course in Scotland, which could be completed in three years elsewhere, would create unfairness. It would be unfair on those students studying for a fourth year at a university outside Scotland who still have to pay fees. Why should, say, an English student from a well off family get free tuition for a fourth year at Edinburgh or St. Andrews University but not at Newcastle University? Why should a student from Northern Ireland have all his fees met if he is in the fourth year of a course at Glasgow University, but not at the Queen's University of Belfast?

As I have indicated, extending the concession in itself would create a bigger anomaly and would, no doubt, lead to mounting pressure on the Government to meet the fees for all UK students on the fourth year of degree courses at institutions all over the UK, whether or not there were a legal obligation on us to do so. Putting right that anomaly would cost more than 10 times as much—in the region of £27 million a year and possibly quite a lot more. Such an exemption would benefit the well off, since only they would be required to contribute towards tuition fees. I repeat that it would do nothing to benefit those most in need of assistance and in practice a subsidy of £27 million or so for better off families would mean £27 million less in public funding for universities and colleges. The money would have to come from elsewhere in the higher education system and we simply do not agree that a significant part of the £165 million that we have invested this year in higher education in England or of the new investment that my right honourable friend is announcing today should be diverted away from improving access, providing extra university places or funding research.

The cost is significant, but the principle is just as important. We believe that, as Dearing recommended, those who benefit from higher education should share its costs. There is no reason that those students who voluntarily choose to undertake four-year courses and who come from families that can afford to do so, should not contribute towards the cost of all four years.

Our proposals are in tune with the principles of Dearing and Garrick. They protect the diversity of the higher education system in the UK without giving an unfair advantage to Scottish institutions over other institutions in the UK. They promote equality by ensuring that across the school and higher education systems as a whole no students in Scotland are disadvantaged in the number of years of education they can receive at public expense compared with students from elsewhere in the UK. They provide all students in the UK with the opportunity to study for an honours degree for the same maximum contribution towards tuition costs. That is why the Government disagreed with the last amendment that was passed in this House and reversed that amendment in another place yesterday.

I hope it was helpful that I should re-explain the Government's position. I commend the amendment to the House.

Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 123E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 123H, in lieu of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 123 to which this House has agreed, but do propose Amendment No. 1123HB in lieu thereof.—[Baroness Blackstone.]