§
Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 38, after "2" insert
and, as respects institutions in Northern Ireland, the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2").
Madam Deputy Speaker Miss Betty Boothroyd)With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Lords amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 13, leave out from first "to" to "loans" in line 15 and insert
take such steps (whether by the issue of certificates or otherwise) as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of, or in connection with, applications by those students for".Amendment (a), to amendment No. 11, at end insert 'but before doing so shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to the Secretary of State should be desirable: and subsequent changes to these regulations shall be subject to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974'.
No. 12, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
including the provision of information when a person ceases to be an eligible student.No. 13, in page 4, line 28, leave out "discharging functions" and insert
having the function of making loans".No. 14, in page 4, line 43, leave out "discharging functions" and insert
having the function of making loans".No. 15, in page 4, line 45, leave out "functions in relation to" and insert "the function of making".
Mr. JacksonAmendments Nos. 6 and 15 concern the role of the academic institutions in the scheme. In practice that role is limited—but knowing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his taste for detail, I shall specify what it is.
The institutions will identify students, certify their eligibility for loans, certify the level of loan to which the student is entitled, hand forms to students, keep copies of documents for audit purposes, and inform the company if a student leaves a course prematurely. Institutions are not to be involved in the application process. Students will apply for a loan direct to the company, by post. All further communications will be between the student and the company.
We aim at ensuring that loans reach eligible students quickly and efficiently and at striking a balance between the work involved for the institutions, the responsibilities that rightly fall to the individual student, and proper protection for public money—which is a very important consideration. We believe that the proposed certification and application process meets those objectives.
I recognise that Parliament is interested in the question of payment to the institutions. Education departments are discussing certification and application processes with the institutions. An initial meeting was held yesterday at which payment was on the agenda, and we shall make an announcement to the House in due course. We shall work closely with the institutions, as we always do.
The company and the institutions have a mutual interest in developing an effective working relationship that benefits students and taxpayers. It is correct to take a general power on the face of the Bill. We were invited to do so by the vice-chancellors and directors of the polytechnics, and we have done so in a form that gives us flexibility to make minor changes if they are needed in the future.
It is correct also to set out the precise role of the institutions in regulations, and to let Parliament debate those regulations when they are first made. Therefore, I commend those amendments to the House.
I cannot do the same in respect of amendment (a), which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will 1279 speak to. Discussions are already taking place between education departments and representatives of institutions, and the Government have already said that they are willing to make payments to institutions. Costs were discussed at yesterday's meeting with representative bodies, so amendment (a) is unnecessary. I urge the House to reject it.
§ Mr. StrawI am glad to see that we are joined for this part of the debate at least by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who is campaign organiser for the leadership aspirations of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West was absent from our earlier debate on the timetable motion, when I was able to quote his sage words about the comparisons between this fandango of a scheme and the poll tax.
The Secretary of State referred at the end of his speech on the timetable motion to remarks by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and tried to insinuate that it supported the scheme.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)It supports the principle.
§ Mr. StrawI presume the hon. Lady means the principle, not principal—but in no sense does that committee support the principle of the scheme.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanWilll the hon. Gentleman at least admit that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is in favour of a loans scheme, supplemented of course by grants?
§ Mr. StrawThe committee has spoken only in general terms about a scheme under which those who benefit from higher education should make a contribution towards it. That is not the principle of a loan, but it is a principle to which we can all subscribe. I happily subscribe to such a concept, which is why I support the principle that people who earn more should pay more through taxation.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanThe hon. Gentleman is wriggling.
§ Mr. StrawI am not wriggling. I am standing firm. It is the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who are wriggling. They both tried to insinuate that the Commitee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is behind the scheme, but in fact it fully opposes the scheme. That is why the Government had to introduce amendments in another place.
§ Mr. MacGregorThe hon. Gentleman could not have been listening, because I was careful to say that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals subscribes to the principle of what I quoted from the Committee's own document. I agree that it was not the student loans scheme, but the principle. It had been advocating a form of graduate tax, and I have set out on several occasions why I think that that is not an acceptable way forward.
§ Mr. StrawI am not surprised that the Secretary of State is in trouble with the scheme, if he does not understand the difference between this loans scheme and a 1280 scheme of graduate tax, and there is a world of difference between the principles involved. The principle of a graduate tax is that what people pay back is not related to what they receive by way of maintenance support while they are at university or college. It is related solely to their income after they have graduated.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanEven if they graduated abroad?
§ Mr. StrawI leave aside the question whether they graduated abroad. Even if they graduated at Lancaster university, they would, under a graduate tax, receive grant support related to their income position and that of their parents at the time when they went on that course. What they paid by way of a tax would relate to their income thereafter. The two would not be related. There is a complete distinction between a graduate tax, which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is supporting, and the Government scheme, and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West—the same can be said of his choice of leadership candidate—is aware of the difference.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanThe Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does not distinguish those who—such as a couple of sons of mine—graduated abroad. They would be paying graduate tax although they had not received the benefit of a university education in this country. That could happen to any number of people who went abroad, who would still be paying, unjustly, not having received the benefit of a university education in this country.
§ Mr. StrawShould a graduate tax ever come before the House, I would agree with the hon. Lady that she had a strong point. Although I would have to think about it, I would almost certainly be on her side in saying that those who received their higher education completely outside this country, and for whom the taxpayers here had not paid a penny piece, would find it unjust if they then had to pay the graduate tax.
§ Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is supporting. I thought, from what he said on an earlier amendment, that he was supporting the position of the vice-chancellors. The principle of their scheme is related to income—the fact of having higher education means that one will have a higher tax rate because one has had the privilege of higher education. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that?
§ Mr. StrawI am not supporting the position of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I was offering some education and illumination—
§ Mr. Straw—to the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary about the difference between what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was proposing and the Government loans scheme, because it is dissembling in the extreme to suggest that the vice-chancellors are supporting even the principle of the Government scheme.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe position of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been clear from before the Bill until now. It is that the vice-chancellors have always accepted the principle that those who 1281 graduate should contribute to society consequentially. But they have always strongly opposed the principle that people should have to borrow, in whole or in part, before and during the time that they undertake their education at universities and colleges. They take that view because they regard the latter as a deterrent and the former as no deterrent but, rather, as a fair way of recompensing for academic rewards attained.
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The best sign of the fact that the vice-chancellors do not support the Bill is that they have refused to co-operate with the Bill unless forced to do so by law. The provisions that the Government have been forced to put into the Bill are in amendment No. 11 from the other place. That gives the Secretary of State power to require institutions to administer part of the scheme. The vice-chancellors, polytechnic directors and other college directors have made it crystal clear in terms, in writing to the Secretary of State, that they would not co-operate unless they were forced to do so, and that is why we have the Government proposals now.
The Under-Secretary tried to give what he described as some detail about the administrative arrangements that were being proposed by his Department, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and he said that in due course the House would be informed. He said that because of that, and because it looked as if a hunky-dory scheme with the vice-chancellors was on the road, there was no need for our amendment, which picks up the wording of amendment No. 11, but adds that it should not operate
before consultation with, and the provision of full compensation for, the institutions concerned.As his Department has already given more detail to the press than the Minister has given to the House, it might be helpful if I read out the detail that is being offered.It is proposed that for each student who fills in, and has certified by a university or college administration, a Student Loans Company form, the institution concerned should receive the princely sum of £3.50. Whether that is an adequate sum for all the training of staff that will be required and for the administration of the system and the certification remains to be seen.
I have with me a wonderful letter from the chairman of the Student Loans Company—the chairman of a nationalised board; I hope that it is being reported to the Prime Minister that she has presided over the nationalisation of a body that was to be wholly in the private sector—with a most felicitous choice of wording. Mr. Vereker writes:
I also explained that Ministers have decided that the maximum payment per eligibility certificate will be £3.50, but that this will be subject to an incentive regime.What a choice of words—a regime involving incentives. He continues:I offered you a choice of incentive regimes … a regime rewarding a high rate of correctly completed forms, whereby institutions would receive £3.50 for each form if 80 per cent. of the forms received in a given period were correct, but £2 per form if the 80 per cent threshold was not met, or …a regime rewarding correct completion and penalising incorrect completion, whereby institutions would receive £3.50 for each correctly completed form and nothing for incorrect forms.After that choice of incentive regimes, the veritable Mr. Vereker goes on: 1282We agree that you and the others represented would endeavour to reach a consensus as to which of these incentive regimes you would prefer, and let me know in writing by the end of the week … But"—to make it clear that it is a fatuous choice—in other words, no choice at all—I stand ready to convene a further meeting if that would he helpful … I recognise that institutional representatives may not reach agreement among themselves on which incentive regime is to be preferred, in which case Ministers reserve the right to decide.It is clear that the time of senior officials is wasted, as a result of this crazy scheme, on devising incentive regimes by which institutions shall receive £3.50 for each form if 80 per cent. of them are received in a given period, but £2 for those which are incorrect, or £3.50 for each correctly completed form, and nothing for incorrect forms.One wonders whether a standard assessment test will be established, to decide whether a form is correct or incorrect, and whether true facts will be specified in an order laid by the Secretary of State, with attainment targets—Mr. Vereker says that there probably will be attainment targets for the completion of forms. Probably, the view of the School Examinations and Assessment Council will be sought before final decisions are made on whether a form has been filled in correctly.
We believe that if this onerous requirement is to be placed on institutions, they must be adequately compensated for it and they must be properly consulted. The Secretary of State cannot deny that people should be consulted. Indeed, the letter from Mr. Vereker says—
§ Mr. StrawThe Under-Secretary says that the Government are. I expect that he also does not wish to deny that there should be proper compensation. If he denies neither, why can we not have a requirement for consultation written into the Bill?
One other aspect of this set of amendments, which has vexed Opposition Members a great deal, is the reference in the Bill, through amendment No. 6, to Northern Ireland. It is well known in the House—it is not necessary for me to repeat it now—that large chunks of legislation have to be pushed through by affirmative resolution. Measures that would take days, weeks or months if they referred to England, Scotland or Wales are allowed an hour and a half. For example, we had the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was discussed for one and a half hours on 30 December—
§ Mr. Simon HughesThree hours.
§ Mr. StrawYes, three hours. That order contained 167 paragraphs and 10 schedules and was almost as large as the Education Reform Act 1988, but it was pushed through the House in less than an evening. All that can be said for the present statutory provisions on Northern Ireland is that there have to be affirmative resolutions before legislation relating to Northern Ireland comes into force. In the Bill, the provisions, including amendment No. 6, mean that the Secretary of State is able to introduce the student loans system into Northern Ireland simply by a negative resolution. That is wholly unacceptable and insulting to the people of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI am grateful to the Under-Secretary, as he anticipated that I would be, for giving us some information. One of the great battles during the 1283 various stages of the Bill has been to obtain information. That we have had to wait until the last possible moment—literally—before we get some information is consistent with the practice of the Government.
I have two comments to make on the substantive administrative issues, and one comment on Northern Ireland in relation to this group of amendments.
As the Under-Secretary will probably acknowledge, it was just the sort of information he supplied on the involvement of institutions that we have demanded from the beginning. We asked what the work of universities, polytechnics and colleges would be. Clearly it took a long time to work that out. It is helpful that at least it has been recognised that there needs to be a framework for the work done by the institutions, and it would have been helpful if we had been supplied with that information at the beginning of parliamentary debate on the Bill.
The most important point that remains to be discussed is that alluded to by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—recompense for institutions. The institutions have consistently gone on record as opposing the Bill. They have never resiled from that position. They are against the Bill and they believe that it is detrimental to higher education. The parliamentary private secretary shakes his head, but he well knows that the institutions have consistently said that. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—he is not a parliamentary private secretary, but he was in Committee, and he is sitting behind the Minister. We have clearly understood that that is the case throughout proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made it clear, none the less, that as they would be required by law to carry out certain duties obviously they have no choice but to obey. The Government responded by saying that they realised it was not a scheme that the Committee liked but that they were going to impose it, in spite of advice to the contrary, and that they would legislate to ensure that the institutions could not escape from it. Therefore, the issue of financial recompense remains. I hope that during the present negotiations—whether they are conducted by the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary or another Minister—they will recognise that the institutions must be properly paid for the functions that they are to perform.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seems to think that academic Britain is wallowing in unusual and unique extravagance, but that is not the case. She thinks that it is suddenly the recipient of Government largesse, the like of which it has never seen before. One only has to ask. Any vice-chancellor or principal will say that they are particularly strapped and that there are many things that they cannot do, not least in research and postgraduate work. They cannot afford to make a contribution to the running of a student finance scheme, when in the past they have not had to make a contribution.
Under the present regime it is the local authority which administers grants that students apply for, and the institutions do not have to play a part in that. The Bill proposes a quango. One of the extraordinary features of the student loans scheme is that the Government are effectively setting up a nationalised company to carry out the scheme. The Bill will also require universities to carry 1284 out extra tasks. I hope that the Government will recognise that it is important that the institutions must be properly recompensed. My noble Friend Lady Seear and many others in the other place put that point across as stongly as they could.
8.45 pm
As the Department of Education and Science is thinking of compensating universities, it might be nice if they passed a message to their friends in the Department of the Environment suggesting that it might compensate local government which is having to administer the poll tax without being granted adequate money to do so, particularly in the light of yesterday's announcement.
One amendment in this group relates specifically to Northern Ireland. It is logical that there is an amendment that says that, if the Government want to legislate for Northern Ireland, they have the same facility to introduce secondary legislation for Northern Ireland as they do for the rest of the country. It would be illogical if that were not the case. There may be comments from colleagues representing Northern Ireland on this issue. Throughout the passage of the Bill in both Houses, there has been no enthusiasm, as far as I am aware, for the proposals in Northern Ireland from either institutions or students. Therefore, I expect that there will be opposition tonight to the idea that we should give Parliament and Government the wherewithal to legislate for Northern Ireland.
The view of the institutions, the students and all those consulted so far in Northern Ireland is as strong as it ever was. They believe that the scheme will be particularly harmful to them. Like Scottish institutions, they consider themselves as having a particular problem and in many ways being particularly vulnerable. It is a pity that the Government did not listen to their words of warning. I hope that institutions in Northern Ireland as well as in Scotland will not suffer too harshly as a result.
§ Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)I agree with what has been said about students from Northern Ireland. I say "from Northern Ireland" because many of them are educated on this side of the water and that interchange works in the other direction too, and the Ulster Unionists party has always encouraged that.
I reinforce the plea that students in Northern Ireland should not be further disadvantaged because of the peculiar arrangements we have for governing Northern Ireland from this place. This is not the time to engage in a history lesson on how we came to be in this difficult situation. When direct rule was imposed as a temporary measure 18 years ago, Northern Ireland legislation was moved down one peg. Primary legislation became secondary, and secondary went into third place and so forth. That has deprived Members of this House, whatever constituency in the United Kingdom they represent, of the opportunity to scrutinise Northern Ireland legislation in the way that we are entitled to do.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) properly drew attention to the vast volume of education reform legislation for Northern Ireland. He referred to the fact that it has to be dealt with in three hours and that it cannot be amended. Even if we had been able to convince the team of Northern Ireland Ministers on the Treasury Bench that there was a misprint in line 14, they could do nothing about it. That illustrates how futile the exercise is. 1285 The hon. Member for Blackburn also said that if that volume of Northern Ireland legislation had been Great Britain legislation it would have taken weeks rather than just three hours to go through the House. However, I commend to Ministers a simple device. All that they need to do when they next introduce a Bill dealing with education or any other matter is simply to insert a clause which specifies that, when the Bill becomes an Act, it will apply to Northern Ireland. Then we should not have to sit up late at night debating an Order in Council which in most cases contains exactly the same provisions as those which have been passed by the House for Great Britain.
Some hon. Members, some of whom are here tonight, have written in their constituency magazines how frightfully boring it is to be have to here late at night listening to the Irish drivelling on about Orders in Council. If they were to apply a little pressure to the business managers, I suggest that they would be relieved of that tedium late at night. We should be happy to engage openly—
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanWho said that?
§ Mr. MolyneauxI do not want to name names, but I can identify some hon Members who are present who have said precisely that.
Let us put an end to such nonsense. We shall not then need the admirable amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn and his hon. Friends
Given the injustice that arises from such a peculiar system for governing Northern Ireland, I hope that the House will support the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We do not want to place a further hurdle in the paths of those who legislate for Northern Ireland and of those hon. Members who have the privilege of attempting to scrutinise the legislation.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his reading of the Standing Committee proceedings that we sought to incorporate the principle which he supports: that legislation should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. However, in this case we tried diligently to ensure that the legislation did not apply to Northern Ireland because it is an unpopular measure. We succeeded on the first count but, unfortunately, not on the second. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would have been better had we succeeded on both.
§ Mr. MolyneauxI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who served on the Committee and who did their best to look after our part of the United Kingdom.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanThere are few hon. Members in the Chamber. I simply cannot believe that any of my colleagues who are here would have made the discourteous remark which the right hon. Gentleman has alleged. If he will not say who said that, he casts aspersions on us all.
§ Mr. MolyneauxI undertake to convey in private to the hon. Lady the identity of the hon. Member whose article I resented.
I hope that the same diligence will be shown if any attempt is made to introduce the poll tax to Northern 1286 Ireland. The Government have not yet succeeded in applying it there. One of the reasons may be the difficulty of finding volunteers to collect it in Crossmaglen.
§ Mr. Harry BarnesI should be surprised if Conservative Members criticised our debates on Northern Ireland. Among those who are here, I do not see any who attended the numerous hour and a half or three hour debates on Northern Ireland. I should welcome the involvement of more hon. Members in Northern Ireland debates, despite the fact that they are held late at night and that no amendments can be made to Northern Ireland orders. The position of Northern Ireland was dealt with in Committee and on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) introduced amendments on Report.
§ Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Conservative Members who have had some contact with Northern Ireland, perhaps as parliamentary private secretaries in the Northern Ireland Department, acknowledge freely the valuable contribution that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament make to our debates? We also acknowledge the quality of education in the Province—but there, of course, they have retained the grammar schools. We could learn a lesson from that.
§ Mr. BarnesMy point is that the quality of Northern Ireland debates and our understanding of its problems would benefit from the participation of many more hon. Members in our late night debates. If more hon. Members discussed economic and social developments in Northern Ireland and the daily bread-and-butter issues of Northern Ireland politics, we might be able to make a significant contribution towards the solution of the problems there. The House is full only when a dramatic terrorist outrage is being discussed. There is great concern about student loans because so many working class people and women in Northern Ireland take advantage of education. Their increased participation ought to be welcomed.
When the amendments were moved by the Minister, he did not refer to Lords amendment No. 6. It was a general introduction. Nevertheless, this is an amendment that deals specifically with Northern Ireland. Clause 4(4) refers to the fact that, apart from subsection (2), the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) refers to the fact that Northern Ireland will not be allowed to use the affirmative resolution procedure, which would automatically lead to an hour and half debate. Only the negative resolution procedure will be allowed. It would therefore have to be forced on to the agenda, presumably by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, if they so wished.
The Government intend to stick the student loans provision on to Northern Ireland. They said that a further debate on Northern Ireland matters would not be needed because Northern Ireland was already covered by the earlier measure. So quite a strange arrangement exists which just assumes that when a particular piece of legislation is passed it will go for Northern Ireland as well, although Northern Ireland is specifically excluded from the coverage of the Bill.
It is an unfortunate arrangement. Apart from the problems of not being allowed in the House to amend resolutions and orders on Northern Ireland, if there are to be certain areas that are just ruled out because it has already been assumed that the decisions coming from the 1287 Department of Education and Science on this occasion are exact replicas of what has been produced before, we will be in a strange procedural position as regards Northern Ireland. That is not unusual on this Bill.
When the amendment is added to the subsection that I read out earlier, it would read:
Except for section 2 and, as respects institutions in Northern Ireland, the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 of schedule 2, this Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.So there is to be another bit that is to extend to Northern Ireland.As I understand it, and as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) outlined it, the problem was that it had not been realised that many students from Northern Ireland studying in another part of the United Kingdom would require student loans under these provisions and were not being catered for by the legislation. Someone had missed this out. It had been overlooked, despite the fact that we had had no timetable provision. We had gradual development through Committee and full debate and discussion in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, and still it had not been discovered that Northern Ireland was not included. It should not have been for Opposition Members to produce an amendment on this.
Quite a good arrangement could exist whereby, if Northern Ireland students in Northern Ireland, perhaps temporarily, were not operating under this law but under grant provision, those who came to England, Wales and Scotland to study should maintain their grants under it as well.
§ Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)Does the hon. Member agree that it is a matter of regret that parents who pay full rates at the level deemed appropriate in Northern Ireland are adversely treated when their children attend universities on the mainland and, in addition, are now required to pay poll tax?
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. BarnesA very strange situation exists with regard to poll tax. We are talking about operations equivalent to local education authorities and their provision of grants and now also the operation of loans. We have a different system of funding local government, or the equivalent of local government, provisions that exist in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It may be that the Government will discover as they go along, if they are not going to give the advantages, as they see them, of the community charge to Northern Ireland, that they are in some kind of inconsistency. They may, therefore, not want to introduce exactly the same provisions for Northern Ireland students going to Northern Ireland universities as they are now placing on other Northern Ireland students attending universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. They could yet be in a constitutional conundrum.
What I strongly object to is the assumption that a measure to be brought before us on some future occasion will be an exact replica of the measure now in front of us and that therefore other amendments have to be made in order to fit in with the legislation at this stage, so that the whole thing will work together within some general 1288 pattern. There is something nonsensical in the way in which we deal with Northern Ireland measures, which I referred to on earlier amendments, when there was a possibility that we could have had in front of us a procedure for student loans where proposals put before us would not just be dealt with by affirmative resolutions but could be amended by us. There would be some sense in that being added to Northern Ireland legislation, and perhaps a useful start could be made with regard to student loans.
Mr. JacksonMay I first join the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in welcoming the presence in the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). The whole House knows of his great interest in these matters. If I may take this opportunity, I would like to say how much I appreciate the support that he has given to our proposals.
§ Mr. StrawI wonder if the Under-Secretary is trying to invite the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to ensure that he is borne in mind under a Heseltine administration.
Mr. JacksonI would not dream of allowing such considerations to enter my mind.
I was amused by the hon. Member for Blackburn's hair-splitting about the difference between principles and principals. It reminded me of the old crack about the collective noun for a collection of vice-chancellors being a lack of principals. The hon. Gentleman referred to the principle of loans, but the vice-chancellors are on common ground with the Government in affirming that graduates should make payments in respect of their maintenance over and beyond their normal tax obligations. We are all agreed—and Opposition spokesmen in another place were agreed—on the fundamental principle of the anticipation by students of some of their future earnings as graduates.
Northern Ireland has been the subject of some misconception during the debate in the remarks of the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Southwark and Bermondsey, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). Amendment No. 6 does not introduce the loans scheme into Northern Ireland as has been implied; it is purely and simply a consequential amendment which flows from the other amendments, but that is not what appeared to be understood by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
Amendment No. 6 is consequential on the other amendments which introduce various conditions in relation to institutions. We are requiring Northern Ireland institutions to certify institutions originating from Great Britain. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, that is a logical implication of the votes in both Houses to include students at Northern Ireland institutions within the scope of the Bill.
§ Mr. Harry BarnesIf I have not understood what was being said, perhaps the Minister can explain a bit more clearly. I was arguing that if people from Northern Ireland study in England, Scotland or Wales, some institutional arrangements are needed in the same way as for other students. Is that the case?
Mr. JacksonHaving served with the hon. Gentleman on the Standing Committee, I am afraid that he tempts me to say that I am not sure that he would benefit from an explanation. 1289 I noted the rather discouraging remarks from the hon. Member for Blackburn about the idea of incentive regimes. The hon. Gentleman should start to learn about such ideas. I understood that it was Labour party policy now to be converted to the idea of market economics. When he investigates that idea, he will find that the concept of income incentive regimes is a natural one.
§ Mr. Andrew SmithWhile we are learning about incentive regimes, if the Minister thinks that it is worthwhile to pay £3.50 to institutions for every correctly completed certification form, how much will he pay institutions for each completed application for access funds and for the processing of those access funds, which will cost a great deal more than certifying students for eligibility loans?
Mr. JacksonThere were many occasions on which the Standing Committee went into seminar mode, but the House would not thank me for doing that now, because we want to press on with the amendments.
Mr. JacksonI shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I noticed that neither the hon. Member for Blackburn nor the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, with whom it is always such a pleasure to debate, gave any ground for dissenting from our assessment of £3.50 per student account as an appropriate sum. The hon. Member for Blackburn also confirmed that the Government are consulting the institutions. In the circumstances, I construe that as an admission that the amendment is unnecessary and I recommend accordingly that the House rejects it.
§ Mr. StrawI should like briefly to refer to our amendment to Lords amendment No. 11. If hon. Members were in any doubt about the need to write into the Bill a requirement for the Government first to consult and then to pay full compensation for operating the ramshackle scheme, those doubts would be allayed entirely by the complete failure of the Minister to answer a simple and direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I am not allowed to refer to the officials in the Box, but if the Under-Secretary looks to his left he will notice that someone is scribbling an answer to be passed to him. If he wishes to intervene, I shall allow him to read the answer.
Mr. JacksonI did not answer the question because I am interested in making progress. The question related to a matter that is not the subject of any amendment before us.
§ Mr. StrawThe Under-Secretary is wrong. The matter relates to Lords amendment No. 11 and to amendment (a) to that amendment. The regulations will require the institutions to administer a scheme to which they object. Amendment (a) provides that there should be full consultation and compensation before the regulations come into force. The Under-Secretary showed that he has not even thought about the need for compensation in respect of one important aspect of the operation of the Government's new policies on student maintenance—the access funds. How will the universities and colleges be compensated for operating those funds?
Mr. JacksonOf course the Government have thought about the point. Lords amendment No. 11 does not refer to consultation or to compensation for work connected with the access funds.
§ Mr. StrawAmendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 11 refers to consultation on and compensation for operating the student loan scheme. Throughout all the debates, the Government have endlessly sought to provide a fig leaf for their indignity and embarrassment about the scheme by referring to the loans scheme. The UnderSecretary cannot have it both ways—parading the access funds when it suits him, but when it does not, pretending that they are not part of the scheme. The only justification that he has been able to give for the removal of housing benefit, which we do not accept, is the existence of some measly access funds, which will barely compensate for the loss of housing benefit at even one university.
I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No. 6.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:
§ The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 191.
1293| Division No. 161] | [9.12 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) |
| Allason, Rupert | Conway, Derek |
| Amess, David | Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) |
| Amos, Alan | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Couchman, James |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Cran, James |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Atkinson, David | Day, Stephen |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Devlin, Tim |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Dicks, Terry |
| Baldry, Tony | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Batiste, Spencer | Dunn, Bob |
| Bellingham, Henry | Durant, Tony |
| Bendall, Vivian | Dykes, Hugh |
| Benyon, W. | Eggar, Tim |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Evennett, David |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Fallon, Michael |
| Boswell, Tim | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Bottomley, Peter | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Fishburn, John Dudley |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Fookes, Dame Janet |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Forman, Nigel |
| Bowis, John | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Forth, Eric |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Brazier, Julian | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Bright, Graham | Freeman, Roger |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | French, Douglas |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Fry, Peter |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Gale, Roger |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Gardiner, George |
| Burns, Simon | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Burt, Alistair | Gill, Christopher |
| Butler, Chris | Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Butterfill, John | Glyn, Dr Sir Alan |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Carrington, Matthew | Gow, Ian |
| Carttiss, Michael | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Cash, William | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Gregory, Conal |
| Chope, Christopher | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Grist, Ian | Mudd, David |
| Ground, Patrick | Neale, Gerrard |
| Hague, William | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Norris, Steve |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Hannam, John | Page, Richard |
| Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') | Paice, James |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Harris, David | Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath) |
| Hawkins, Christopher | Patten, Rt Hon John |
| Hayes, Jerry | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Pawsey, James |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Hill, James | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Portillo, Michael |
| Holt, Richard | Price, Sir David |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Redwood, John |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Rost, Peter |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) | Ryder, Richard |
| Hunter, Andrew | Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Irvine, Michael | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Irving, Sir Charles | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Jack, Michael | Shersby, Michael |
| Jackson, Robert | Sims, Roger |
| Janman, Tim | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Speller, Tony |
| Key, Robert | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Knapman, Roger | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Knight, Greg (Derby North) | Stern, Michael |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Knowles, Michael | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Lang, Ian | Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N) |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Sumberg, David |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Summerson, Hugo |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Lightbown, David | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Luce, Rt Hon Richard | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| McCrindle, Robert | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Maclean, David | Thornton, Malcolm |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Thurnham, Peter |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Tracey, Richard |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Tredinnick, David |
| Malins, Humfrey | Trotter, Neville |
| Mans, Keith | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Marland, Paul | Viggers, Peter |
| Marlow, Tony | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Walden, George |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Waller, Gary |
| Mellor, David | Ward, John |
| Miller, Sir Hal | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Mills, Iain | Warren, Kenneth |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Watts, John |
| Mitchell, Sir David | Wells, Bowen |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Whitney, Ray |
| Morrison, Sir Charles | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Moss, Malcolm | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Moynihan, Hon Colin | Wilshire, David |
| Wolfson, Mark | |
| Wood, Timothy | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Woodcock, Dr. Mike | Mr. Irvine Patnick and |
| Young, Sir George (Acton) | Mr. Tom Sackvile. |
| Younger, Rt Hon George |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Allen, Graham | Grocott, Bruce |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Hardy, Peter |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Haynes, Frank |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Heal, Mrs Sylvia |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Henderson, Doug |
| Battle, John | Hinchliffe, David |
| Beckett, Margaret | Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) |
| Beggs, Roy | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Beith, A. J. | Home Robertson, John |
| Bell, Stuart | Hood, Jimmy |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hoyle, Doug |
| Blunkett, David | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Boyes, Roland | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Bradley, Keith | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Illsley, Eric |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Ingram, Adam |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Johnston, Sir Russell |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) |
| Buchan, Norman | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) |
| Buckley, George J. | Kennedy, Charles |
| Caborn, Richard | Kilfedder, James |
| Callaghan, Jim | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Lambie, David |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Lamond, James |
| Canavan, Dennis | Lewis, Terry |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Livingstone, Ken |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Livsey, Richard |
| Clay, Bob | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Clelland, David | Loyden, Eddie |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | McAllion, John |
| Cohen, Harry | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | McCartney, Ian |
| Corbett, Robin | McGrady, Eddie |
| Cousins, Jim | McLeish, Henry |
| Crowther, Stan | Maclennan, Robert |
| Cryer, Bob | McNamara, Kevin |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Madden, Max |
| Darling, Alistair | Marek, Dr John |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Martlew, Eric |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Maxton, John |
| Dewar, Donald | Meacher, Michael |
| Dixon, Don | Meale, Alan |
| Doran, Frank | Michael, Alun |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Eadie, Alexander | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Eastham, Ken | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) | Morley, Elliot |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Fatchett, Derek | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Fearn, Ronald | Mullin, Chris |
| Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) | Murphy, Paul |
| Fisher, Mark | O'Brien, William |
| Flynn, Paul | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Patchett, Terry |
| Foster, Derek | Pendry, Tom |
| Fraser, John | Pike, Peter L. |
| Fyfe, Maria | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Prescott, John |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Gordon, Mildred | Radice, Giles |
| Gould, Bryan | Randall, Stuart |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Redmond, Martin |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| Reid, Dr John | Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam) |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Snape, Peter |
| Richardson, Jo | Spearing, Nigel |
| Robertson, George | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Robinson, Geoffrey | Stott, Roger |
| Rooker, Jeff | Strang, Gavin |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Straw, Jack |
| Ross, William (Londonderry E) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Ruddock, Joan | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Salmond, Alex | Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Turner, Dennis |
| Short, Clare | Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Walley, Joan |
| Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) | Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C) |
§
"(1A) The maximum amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above for the loan to be made to a student in any year shall not exceed—
(a) the amount specified as the ordinary maintenance requirement for students of the class of description to which he belongs by regulations having effect for that year under section 1(1) of the Education Act 1962 (mandatory awards); or
(b) if no such amount is specified for students of the class or description to which he belongs, such amount as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for students of that class or description having regard to the amount specified as mentioned in paragraph (a) above;
but regulations, other than the first, made under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above may prescribe a higher maximum if a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. Andrew SmithI beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), leave out lines 13 to 16.
With four debates to get through in one hour and 13 minutes, under the draconian guillotine procedure, I shall be brief.
Lords amendment No. 7 concedes that which the Government would not concede in Committee or in the House previously, that incorporated in the legislation should be the requirement that the loan amount should not exceed the operative amount of grant, thereby setting the 50:50 parity between loan and grant.
So far, so good. The bad aspect of the Lords amendment is contained in the lines which our amendment proposes to delete, which state that a higher maximum may be prescribed if a draft of the regulations is
laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.That contradicts the concession given in the Lords by saying, albeit through affirmative resolution procedure, that the proportion of the loan could be increased. That is important, because we have always protested that the Government intend not merely to have a top-up loan scheme, but a loan scheme which supplements, and then supplants, grants.The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) gave the game away in the debate on the guillotine motion—
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanShe is very unrepresentative.
| Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) | Worthington, Tony |
| Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) | Wray, Jimmy |
| Wigley, Dafydd | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Williams, Rt Hon Alan | |
| Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Wilson, Brian | Mr. Frank Cook and |
| Winnick, David | Mr. Allen McKay |
| Wise, Mrs Audrey |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.