Tuition Fees and Student Loans (Hansard, 20 October 1989)

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
I wish to present a petition signed by Paul Wilkinson of Pemberton drive, Bradford, president of the University of Bradford union and 700 constituents, including students. The petition reads: The Humble Petition of citizens and students of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sheweth that any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees and student loans, whether partially or fully, will further limit access to higher education. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do reject any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees or student loans. My constituents and the petitioners urge the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whom I am pleased to see in his place, to understand that young people, especially those from working class backgrounds, will be discouraged from going into higher education because they will fear that they will be unable to get a decent job enabling them to—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not in order to make a speech when presenting a petition.

§ Mr. Madden
The petitioners also believe that young people will not want to incur a lifetime of debt to pay for excercising their right to enter higher education.

§ Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of some 600 constituents at Glasgow college, a central institution within my constituency. It has been signed by Donna MacKinnon of 51 Camphill avenue, John Watt, and by some 600 others.
The petition reads: The Humble Petition of citizens and students of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sheweth that any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees and student loans, whether partially or fully, will further limit access to higher education. Wherefore your Petitioners Pray that your Honourable House do reject any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees or student loans. My constituents are particularly concerned that the White Paper does not mention that the proposals would hit students in Scottish institutions and colleges proportionately harder were they to be introduced, given that Scottish courses traditionally last four rather than three years.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)
I beg to present a petition from 1,432 students studying at Napier college in Edinburgh, headed by Mr. John Barr of Fernieside gardens and Mr. Ben Kingston of Strathearn road in my constituency. The petition protests against the Government's iniquitous student loans proposals which are so damaging to Scottish education in particular and to education in the United Kingdom in general.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
I beg to present a petition from more than 590 medical students at London hospital and Newham general hospital, east London and all hospitals in the London hospital training district. Not 377 only are many of these students presently living in east London but their presence sustains the local medical structure and many, when qualified, stay to serve the people of the east London boroughs, who are among the most deprived in Britain.
The petition shows that the introduction of loans into the grant structure will be prejudicial to all students but will have even greater effects on medical students in general and those in London in particular. The reasons for this are as follows. First, medical students have no opportunity for vacation employment during the final three years of their five-year course when they have to pay for specialist personal equipment, essential but expensive textbooks, and more travel to teaching and practice centres.
Secondly, the additional cost of living in London—likely to increase still further—will act as a further deterrent for applicants to the London medical schools and will also reduce the significant proportion of future doctors taking the optional sixth year bachelor of science degree in medical technology. The consequential effects on the quality, variety and coherence of medical education in the University of London will inevitably undermine its status and reputation in, and contribution to, worldwide medicine.
Thirdly, since loans may be more quickly repaid—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is in order to read out the petition.

§ Mr. Spearing
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I should say that the petition is rather longer than my description of it.
Thirdly, since loans may be more quickly repaid by medical employment in sectors other than community care, their introduction will prejudice these services, particularly where teaching links have been established with local community medicine, for example, in east London, where its services to east Londoners will be prejudiced.
Furthermore, the introduction of loans will inevitably bear more heavily on students of modest means and women, since the prospect of specific family responsibili-ties will reduce their capacity for repayment. For medical students of both categories the effects will be dispropor-tionate for the reasons described. Since loans will produce additional deterrents and penalties for these and other groups of students the scheme will have discriminatory effects.
The petition concludes: Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will petition Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their plans for students' loans in general and to investigate their likely effects on medical students and medical education in London, and consequential effects on the quality of medical practice and provisions in our capital city.

§ Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whatever one's opinion about the merits of the Government's proposals, is it not an abuse of at least the spirit of the procedures of the House that today's debate should be pre-empted by the presentation of a series of petitions? Will there be an opportunity during the debate to draw attention to the attendance of those hon.
378 Members who have presented the petitions to discover whether they sit through the debate on a matter about which they profess to be so concerned?

§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)
rose —

§ Mr. Speaker
Taking a further point of order will delay the debate, but I shall hear it.

§ Mr. Baldry
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm the rules in relation to the presentation of petitions? If one is entitled to read out the whole of a petition, as I am my own Member of Parliament, is it in order for me on Fridays, when I want to make speeches early, simply to present a petition on behalf of myself as my Member of Parliament, which is what Opposition Members seem to have done today? That would prevent my having to wait patiently to take part in the debate, as other hon. Members appear to do.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
We are delaying the debate, but I shall hear another point of order. However, I hope that hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate will not feel unhappy about the delay.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the changes in relation to petitions took place some time ago while the present Government were in power? The decision to change the nature of the presentation of petitions was done in accordance with the wishes of the Government's Chief Whip to facilitate the business of the House. Will you also confirm to Conservative Members who do not often come to the House on Fridays that petitions are presented almost every Friday morning, whatever the debate? Will you also confirm that it might well be an abuse of the House for the Government to table for debate on a Friday an important topic such as student loans when it should be scheduled on another day to allow a vote at the end of the debate?

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I could easily answer these matters, but I shall hear the hon. Lady.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My students came to see me yesterday and I presented my petition yesterday precisely to save time today because I propose to be here throughout the debate and want to hear what hon. Members have to say.

§ Mr. Madden
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Government and their supporters are not seeking to intimidate hon. Members in order to dissuade them from bringing petitions, as is their right. It ill becomes Government supporters to belly-ache about the presentation of petitions, the contents of which they dislike, when hon. Members are speaking on behalf of constituents who find Government policies most offensive and unpopular.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will dispel any lingering suspicions that, rather than having television cameras in the Chamber to show people what goes on in this place, their arrival might limit the rights of hon. Members by stifling our right to debate or to present petitions. Therefore, will you make it abundantly clear that we have every right to present petitions? We shall continue to 379 present them as long as this Government continue to present offensive and unpopular policies which hit many of our constituents very hard.

§ Mr. Spearing
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please confirm that when a petition has been passed by the Table Office as being in order, and if its contents are sufficiently accurate and are in reasonably objective language which is not too lengthy, it is the right of hon. Members to read out either it or a description of it to the House? Will you also confirm that the presentation of petitions is one of the most ancient practices of this House? They can be used to petition the House to initiate action or to bring attention to grievances which have been provoked by the Executive and to which the petitions can be a reaction. Many of this morning's petitions fall into the second category. Therefore, the reasons for the petitions lie with the Government and the initiatives which they have taken, not with any other quarter.

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider the fact that the right of petition is the most ancient right, not of hon. Members but of their constituents. Those who petition the House are protected from punishment outside it, as a case now before the Committee of Privileges establishes. Therefore, were any attempt to be made to limit the right of petition, it would not be hon. Members who suffered but those who seek the protection of the House when complaining about matters that concern them and their welfare.

§ Mr. Speaker
Let me clarify the issue. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is absolutely right: the presentation of petitions is time-honoured—indeed, Parliament has proceeded by petition since the earliest times—but nowadays, although it is still the absolute right of an hon. Member to present a petition on behalf of his constituents, he should do so by summarising its contents briefly or reading its prayer. It is not in order for a long speech to be made. Nevertheless, this is a time-honoured procedure, and I hope that it will continue.