LOANS FOR STUDENTS

HC Deb 15 February 1990 vol 167 cc482-516

Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 1 to 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are to consider amendment No. 10, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, at end add— '( ) This Act does not extend to Scotland.'.

Mr. Simon Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to move the amendment standing in my name. This group, as I understand it, is the Scottish group standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar.)

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) is in the process of moving amendment No. 9.

Mr. Watson

I think it is important, although some reference has been made today to the situation in Scotland, to have it spelt out quite clearly that simply to read the legislation across from England and Wales to Scotland is not good enough. Quite apart from their different education systems, the effect, because of that difference, will be that the application of a student loan scheme will be considerably more harsh in Scotland.

This point has been made several times. It was made in the Adjournment debate on 20 October 1989, on Second Reading on 5 December and several times in Committee—all, I have to say, to no great effect as far as the Government are concerned. Whether the arguments by me and other hon. Members this evening will convince them is at best open to question. None the less, because these points are important and remain valid, I and my colleagues will continue to press them.

It is quite clear that Scotland's unique education system has been ignored in the White Paper. Despite the fact that the White Paper was 48 pages long, Scotland merited no more than 18 lines. The lip service paid to Scotland, unfortunately, has been confirmed by Government Members on both Front and Back Benches throughout the Bill's progress.

The Bill completely fails to acknowledge that the Scottish education system has at its cornerstone the four-year honours degree. There has been no shortage of opportunities for the Government to take that point on board and incorporate it in the Bill through a number of amendments. They have chosen not to take those opportunities. In fact, they have made no concessions whatsoever at any stage in the process on any facet of the Bill.

The four-year degree course in Scotland will be profoundly affected by the operation of the scheme. The financial implications will take a number of forms. First, the additional year's loan which will be required for students studying on a four-year course will be at least 50 per cent. greater than for those on a three-year course. That takes into account a fairly generous prognostication of the rate of inflation. The whole White Paper is charted through to the year 2027 on the basis of a 3 per cent. annual increase in inflation, which is rashly optimistic.

Mr. Allan Stewart

rose——

Mr. Watson

I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is about to say that that does not matter, that it is the real effect which counts. I shall give way to him, although I am sure that I can anticipate what he will say.

Mr. Stewart

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the rate of inflation is irrelevant because there is a zero real rate of interest on the loan? Does he agree that it is the real and not the nominal burden which matters to those who are repaying the loan?

Mr. Watson

I do not agree that the rate of inflation is irrelevant. I gave an example in Committee. The Government's intention, charted to the year 2007, is that there should be a 50 per cent. loan element and a 50 per cent. grant element. The present level of grant stands at about £2,200. Therefore, if the scheme were fully operational now, we should be asking students to borrow £1,100–50 per cent. of that figure. If the hon. Member for Eastwood is saying that that figure is inconsiderable and that students will not bother about it, I must take issue with him, as would many others who are currently studying or who might wish to study in the future. I am happy to deal with the matter in either way. On the real value, the figure is £1,100 a year at 50:50. That figure is large enough to prove a disincentive to students and potential students.

Secondly, over and above that figure is the cost of an additional year's loss of benefit through studying for an extra year. The loss of housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit will in many ways be more damaging to students than the fact that they will have to borrow a significant part of their income while they are studying. Getting rid of housing benefit is an especially punitive measure for students. The White Paper speaks of an average figure of £211 a year being claimed in housing benefit by students throughout the United Kingdom. Again, that is an optimistic figure.

I have been given figures that cover students based in Edinburgh which show that, for the 30-week portion of the academic year for which students are deemed to be studying, the average figure was about £290. That ignores the vacation period, for which the average figure was £209. With simple arithmetic, we see that that produces a figure of about £500, which is a real loss to students in the Edinburgh area. I admit that housing costs there are higher than anywhere else in Scotland and higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Edinburgh. Does he accept that Aberdeen has had for some time as high a cost of living as London? Whereas students in London receive London weighting, students in Aberdeen have had to make do with the basic grant. That has caused considerable hardship for students in Aberdeen. The problems facing students in Aberdeen can often be greater than for those in Edinburgh.

Mr. Watson

I am perfectly willing to take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. My point is simply that the notional average of £211 is unrealistic when measured against the amount that those who are obliged to claim housing benefit actually claim. Even if those dependent on housing benefit, both through the academic and vacation parts of the year, took the maximum loan available to them, they would still be considerably short of the portion that they are losing in housing benefit. That takes no account of the fact that they cannot claim unemployment benefit and that income support cannot be claimed except in two specialised circumstances. For housing benefit, age is relevant because those over the age of 24 stand to lose an even higher figure, which is a real problem.

Thirdly, the four-year course in Scotland also means that there is an additional vacation which has to be financed. That is often a real problem for students. It is all very well to say that students can obtain jobs in the summer and do not need to claim unemployment benefit, but we all know what the job market is like at the moment. It is often extremely difficult for students to get jobs.

Even those who pick up employment benefit do so for the whole period or even for the larger part of it. At that time, pressures on students increase. If they cannot find jobs, they are at a disadvantage compared to other people who are seeking work. Students cannot claim unemployment benefit or income support if they cannot get jobs. The Government's figures for 1988, published in the Employment Gazette, show that the student unemployment rate during the vacation was 31 per cent. That meant that students up to the age of 24 could claim benefit of £27.40 a week, and those aged 25 or over could claim £34.70 a week. Now that money has gone.

A point to which little reference is made is that benefit will also be denied to further education students who will not have access to loans. They will have to rely on the access funds, so called, which in themselves will be inadequate. Can anyone say that the loss of benefit to a. potential student will not make him or her decide that it is not worth studying? It must be a real disincentive to those who wish to enter higher education.

9.15 pm

The fourth disincentive to Scots or to students undertaking a four-year course in Scotland concerns the extra burden on parents. The Under-Secretary has made considerable play of the fact that part of the aim of the legislation is to take the burden off parents. Many parents cannot or will not make up grants by parental contribution. In theory, the loans system will reduce the burden on parents. In practice, there will still be a strong moral case, if nothing more, for parents to assist students during vacations. Students living at home will make additional demands on parents. Those living away from home may be forced to seek assistance from their parents if they cannot get part-time jobs.

Students may also need to retain accommodation over the holiday period. Again, that comes into the argument on housing benefit. The non-payment of housing benefit to students is a disincentive and means that a moral, if not a financial, burden will fall on their parents.

For students on a four-year course, there will be a delay in entering the employment market. That factor must be taken into account. Of course, it could be argued that someone with an honours degree will have a better chance of getting a job and may even get a job with a better starting salary. But if a potential student adds everything up, he or she may say, "I was hoping to do an honours degree, but the financial implications are such that I will opt for a three-year course."

We were pleased to learn in Committee that the doubt about eligibility for loans for students studying for the certificate of education has been cleared up. Students who take a first degree and then want to study for an additional year to become teachers will have access to the loans scheme. While we are not happy about the loan system, it does not make sense that postgraduates should be excluded. However, honours degree students in Scotland who want to become teachers will have to study for five years. The financial implications, on a compounding basis, should be clear.

A further and wider consideration arises in regard to the education system in Scotland. I have said that the cumulative effect of the Government's actions can only be a disincentive to potential students. It is not just a case of whether they will go into higher education. Some who opt for higher education will choose the three-year course, but if the course on which a student has decided to embark is available in England or Wales, he or she may opt not to study in Scotland but to study instead in England or Wales.

The House should consider what effect that could have on Scottish education. At present, about 3,000 or 6 per cent. of all Scots who enter higher education leave Scotland and study at universities and colleges in England and Wales. About 10,000 students from England and Wales come to study at colleges and universities in Scotland. That makes up about 16 per cent. of the total number of students in higher education in Scotland.

Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that about 23 per cent. of those who study in Scotland do three-year courses. I am prepared to accept that figure, but it leaves 77 per cent. who do a four-year course. That is a high percentage, which should not be brushed aside with the smirk and smile that we are seeing from the hon. Member for Eastwood. It is an important factor. Several thousand students do four-year courses.

I speculate that there will be economic pressures on Scottish students to study in England and Wales rather than stay in Scotland, and on students in England and Wales to stay there rather than come up to Scotland. If the figures of 16 per cent. and 6 per cent. which I mentioned were equalised, for the sake of argument, to 10 per cent.—which is not an unrealistic potential effect of the proposals—some 5,000 students would either leave Scotland to study in England and Wales or would not cross the border to study in Scotland. When one considers that there are about 16,000 students in higher education in Scotland, the implications are clear: one or more colleges or institutions in Scotland could close as a result of loans.

I am conscious of the time and the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak. There is a great deal of evidence from the broadest base of the Scottish educational community that student loans will hit Scots and Scottish education particularly hard. The bulk of informed opinion—not political opinion—from universities, vice-chancellors and central institutions in Scotland regards loans as a bad idea which will have a seriously detrimental effect on Scottish education.

If the proposed legislation cannot be applied fairly and equitably, it should be withdrawn. I suspect that the Government will not do that. Therefore, they should at least recognise that the position in Scotland is different and should allow Scotland to be spared the worst excesses of the measure. The only method of doing that is to withdraw references to Scotland from the Bill.

Mr. Allan Stewart

References were made to Scotland on earlier groups of amendments. References were also made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It should perhaps be recorded that the Secretary of State is a distinguished graduate of Scotland's most ancient university, which is more than can be said of some of the Opposition Members who propose to contribute to the debate.

I shall be brief but I hope to save the time of the House by pointing out to Opposition Members the disadvantages of dividing the House on either amendment. Amendment No. 9 would exclude the Scottish colleges from the Bill but would not exclude the universities. Amendment No. 10 would exclude the Scottish universities completely.

The consequence of amendment No. 10 would be as follows. The grant would be maintained at its present level north and south of the border. In England and Wales next year top-up loans would be available, representing a 25 per cent. increase in students' resources. However, in Scotland there would be no top-up loans. My hon. Friend the Minister of State might say that there is a political argument for allowing the House to divide and keeping Conservative Members out of the Lobbies——

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

What about students from England who go to Scottish universities? As English students, would they receive a top-up loan while a Scot going to a Scottish university would not? That would be ridiculous.

Mr. Stewart

My hon. Friend is right. It would depend whether amendment No. 9 or amendment No. 10 were accepted. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State were so minded, he could simply keep Conservative Members out of the Lobby in the Division and let the Labour party have the great triumph of depriving students at Scottish universities of loans. As a result, only students in English universities would have loans, so we could go round Scotland saying, "That is what the Labour party wanted", because the grant would not change. I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that there is a political argument for allowing that to happen. However, there are many honest and decent Scottish students who will take up the loans—indeed, who want to take them up—and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that fact in mind before deciding how he should advise the House to vote on these amendments.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) referred to the four-year course. I put on the record the fact that the four-year course is not unique to Scotland. About 23 per cent. of Scottish students do not take a four-year course. I complimented the hon. Gentleman earlier on his ability to deduct 23 from 100 and come to 77. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right with his arithmetical triumph. Another reason why the four-year course is not unique to Scotland is that 22 per cent. of students in England are on four-year courses.

Let us go right to the heart of the argument about the four-year course. Maintenance is only a small proportion of the total cost of a student's course, accounting for less than 10 per cent. or perhaps only 8 per cent. Therefore, about 92 per cent. of the cost is borne by taxpayers—and mostly by English taxpayers. If Scottish students at Scottish universities are not prepared to take on the deferred liability for such a tiny proportion of the total cost, they are making a judgment that, to them, the extra year is not worth having. If that is the student's judgment, why should the taxpayer pay the other 92 per cent?

The four-year course is not under threat from Conservative Members, but it is clearly under threat from the arguments of Opposition Members.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

I have the honour to represent the oldest university in Scotland, of which the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is a graduate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I believe that the hon. Gentleman found it necessary to take a four-year course, and no doubt with the frankness for which he is justifiably renowned he will tell the House in due course whether he received a grant for each of those four years. As I was saying, I listened with interest to his argument—

Mr. Allan Stewart

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because that is not the case. My education was financed by scholarships and bursaries won in competition.

Mr. Campbell

All that I can say to that is that the hon. Gentleman's frankness has been replaced by remarkable immodesty.

As I was saying, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument that, if the amendments were passed, the grant received by students in Scotland would be retained at precisely the same level as in the current year. If the amendments are passed, I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents, who no doubt have children who are students at Scottish universities and colleges, that the Government whom he supports are unwilling to increase those grants in Scotland. I suspect that as many of those who enter higher education in Scotland come from precisely the sources of support that the hon. Gentleman would seek to tap at a general election, he will have a stormy passage.

I wish to deal with the subject on a slightly broader basis. The four-year degree is not some arbitrary period of time that has been fastened on for historic or other reasons in the Scottish education system. The four-year degree course arises from the fact that the system of secondary education in Scotland is separate and distinct from that in England and Wales. Higher leaving certificates are a broader-based set of qualifications than A-levels, although not necessarily as advanced. They are broader because the tradition of Scottish education, as evidenced by the courses that four-year students take in their first year, insists on a wider education with less specialisation, at least at the outset. Whether that is inferior or superior to what is practised in England and Wales is neither here nor there for the purpose of the argument, but it is undoubtedly different.

9.30 pm

The system of secondary education is grooved to fit neatly into that of higher education. If grants are treated as the Bill proposes, and if that creates in the minds of people who might otherwise take four-year degree courses a desire to take only three-year ones because of a concern about the financial burden that may be laid on them, universities will feel bound to respond. I would not be surprised if, in the Scottish universities in which a four-year honours degree course is standard, working parties were already considering how four-year courses can be turned into three-year ones.

Such is the nature of the market influence, which the Government regard as so important in higher education, that Scottish universities will have to respond to an apparent change in demand. If they do so without considering the consequences for secondary education, we shall have a system that is mismatched to that of higher education. That would be extremely serious. There may be arguments about changing the system of secondary education. If so, let us have them here, but let us not, by stealth or implication, cause the material changes in secondary education in Scotland that a three-year degree course, as a matter of generality throughout Scottish universities, would necessarily imply. It is that feature of the proposals that the Government seek to persuade the House to accept that is much the most sinister and potentially most damaging for education in Scotland.

If we are to change these matters we should do so openly and avowedly. There is no real concern about whether the Scottish system of secondary education is changed. I do not believe that it is an oversight because I do not credit Ministers with such a lack of care.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

As someone who taught at Heriot-Watt university for 12 years or more, I well understand why emphasis has been placed on four-year courses in Scottish universities. However, are we not in danger of overlooking the interests of those students who have to study for much longer than four years—for example, architectural and medical students?

Mr. Campbell

That point applies north and south of the border. Courses in veterinary medicine or medicine will undoubtedly result in the student having a higher degree of commitment and financial responsibility. At present, I am concerned at what appears to be a willingness to accept tacitly the potential for substantial change in the Scottish system of secondary education because of the Government's desire to institute a fundamental change in the system of higher education.

For these reasons, the amendments should command the attention of the House. It is frequently said, especially by Ministers in the Scottish Office, that the interests of the Scottish people are best served by the retention of a Parliament that has responsibility for the whole of the United Kingdom. They frequently say that they are the guardians of the Scottish legal and education systems. Their support for the Bill and their unwillingness to accept the logic of the arguments made in support of the amendments makes the claim that they are the trustees for the people of Scotland no more than a sham.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I am a graduate of St. Andrews university and I am somewhat appalled by some of the comments that we have just heard from the temporary hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), whose constituency contains St. Andrews.

We are really being asked by the Opposition to accept the argument that students who are intelligent enough to benefit from a course of higher education are not sufficiently intelligent to realise the worth of that education. That is an insult to their intelligence and it fails to recognise the thirst and enthusiasm of most people in Scotland for higher education.

The success of the Scottish four-year course has never been related to financial considerations. Any student who chose a four-year course at a Scottish university—I remind the House that 40 per cent. of all students at St. Andrews come from England where they could have chosen a three-year course, but they chose a four-year course at St. Andrews instead——

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

There is an even higher level at Stirling university.

Mr. Marshall

The hon. Lady is making my argument for me. All those who have undertaken that course have done so despite the short-term financial considerations. A four-year course has always meant an element of short-term financial sacrifice because the grant in the fourth year would always be less than what the student would receive as a graduate on the labour market.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

Am I right that the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that a university such as St. Andrews should simply be filled with English students?

Mr. Marshall

I said nothing of the sort. One of the strengths of St. Andrews is that it attracts people from a wide variety of backgrounds, not only from Scotland and England, but from outside the United Kingdom. A university should be universal in its appeal, and that is what St. Andrews is.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

I agree that universities should be universal, but the tragedy for Scottish universities at the moment is that they are being dominated by students from England at the expense of Scottish students and at the expense of overseas students for whom fees are cut.

Mr. Marshall

I used to sit in another Parliament where there was another Mrs. Ewing who also used to exaggerate. The hon. Lady exaggerates when she says that Scottish universities are dominated by English students. If she were to go to Glasgow university where I once lectured, she would find that the vast majority of students there come from a relatively small catchment area. If she were to go to Aberdeen university—I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the former Member for Aberdeen, South, come into the Chamber—she would find that the majority of students at Aberdeen come from the north of Scotland. If she were to go to Edinburgh university, she would find that a large number of students there come from Edinburgh and the surrounding areas. She would find that the vast majority of students in Scottish universities are born in Scotland. They are Scottish students from Scottish schools. Therefore, her argument is false.

The amendment would have the perverse effect of encouraging Scottish students to go to English universities. Under the amendment, Scottish students going to a Scottish university would get no loan, but a Scottish student going to an English university would get a loan. Are we asking the House to approve an amendment which encourages Scottish students to go not to Glasgow, St. Andrews, Edinburgh or Dundee, but to Leeds, Essex, Nottingham or Warwick? That is what the Opposition are up to. It is nonsense.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and start from the assumption that the Government will not listen to the strong arguments that have been made by Opposition Members. One of the great tragedies for Scottish education is that 1984 has come and gone, yet Big Brother still thinks that he knows better than the rest of us. If we in Scotland pride ourselves on our education system, it is pride in our traditions. We acknowledge that there are opportunities to better Scottish education, and in all the debates on the Bill we have argued that the Government's proposals will do nothing to improve Scottish education but will undermine it.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office should remember that Scottish education and the Scotish legal system are among the institutions that have mainly been responsible for maintaining Scotland's separate identity over the centuries. I have no doubt that the Bill and legislation affecting the Scottish legal system are deliberately being introduced by the Government to undermine Scotland's identity in respect of those two major institutions.

At a time when the House is looking to developments in Europe, it should acknowledge that Scotland's education traditions are much more suited to the European Community than those south of the border. If the Scottish Office put up a real fight for Scottish education, there would not be the same anger felt by right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies—but we see no sign of it. If there had been a statement confirming that Scotland's four-year university courses would not be pressurised out of existence, Scottish Opposition Members would have felt less depressed. There has been no clear statement to that effect from the Government, despite the many questions asked of Ministers by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. In an earlier debate, the Secretary of State made no clear statement of his view on the Bill's implications for the four-year degree course. If we could see the Scottish Office really fighting to ensure that Scottish universities became part of the international scene, Scottish Opposition Members would be less cynical, but it has taken no such stand.

I point out to the hon. Member for Hendon, South that many young people in Scotland pass their attestation of fitness and gather the necessary number of higher and O-grade passes, yet are denied access to Scottish universities.

That would not be so bad if universities south of the border were prepared to recognise their qualifications. Unfortunately, English universities, with only a few exceptions, do not understand the Scottish education system, nor do they want to know about it. Consequently, our young people are denied access to them.

Scottish universities must be truly international. I have no grudge against students from England, Ireland or Wales coming to Scotland, but I should like to see a truly international dimension, with greater emphasis being placed on helping developing nations, but giving their students easier access to our universities rather than risk them being dominated by another culture.

Mr. Allan Stewart

The hon. Lady fails to pay tribute to the public higher education sector in Scotland, which has expanded enormously under the present Government.

Mrs. Ewing

The hon. Gentleman makes a facetious point, which I anyway find difficult to understand. Perhaps he will explain what he means.

Mr. Stewart

I shall try to explain to the hon. Lady. The public sector is the non-university sector—the other side of the binary divide, but if she does not accept the term, that is fair enough; I shall rephrase my question. Why does she fail to pay tribute to that important sector of higher education in Scotland—the non-university sector, which has expanded enormously under the Government?

Mrs. Ewing

I think that if I were to stray into a debate on the whole of the post-school education system, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker. Pressures are being placed on central institutions and other colleges to ensure that the courses offered are the ones that the Government pay for, for example, the Manpower Services Commission courses and YTS courses, rather than observing the traditions of best education in Scotland to offer a wider course. I can say that from personal experience, because I worked in the post-school system before returning to the House in 1987.

9.45 pm

If the Scottish Office were showing initiative in education, we might have a bit more time for it. We saw the interesting report produced by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which studied the whole of post-school education. That report proposed an integrated system, but it was rejected by the Government. I have never understood why we have not been able to consider the entire post-school education system in Scotland. No real strategy for Scottish education is emerging from the Scottish Office. We do not have a Scottish committee that can spend time considering the Scottish education system. We do not have a Scottish assembly, where we can consider it, and we do not have a Scottish parliament. We have two parliament buildings in Scotland but we have no government, and as a result we have no real strategy or idealism for Scottish education.

We have not seen the Government make any major attempt to create jobs that would retain our graduates in Scotland. Eire and Scotland are the only nations in Europe that have a net loss of population. Independent surveys have proved the figures. Conservative Members representing English constituencies may laugh, but this is a major concern for any nation, because we have a net loss of population and there is a drift of the youngest and best away from our community. If there were an initiative to ensure that our graduates had real jobs at the end of the day, we might be more impressed.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The hon. Lady is rightly stressing the unique connection between Scottish and European universities. Is she aware that European countries that have introduced the system of student loans that is advocated in the Bill have found that it has elongated courses, as students take years off to earn money? It is now quite common for people to take seven, eight or even 10 years to get an honours degree. That is bound to discriminate against the traditional Scottish four-year degree compared to a three-year degree, and we shall find that it will take not three years but six or seven in future.

Mrs. Ewing

I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that he and I have been reading the same research documents. It is clear from the research in other countries where there is a loan scheme or a mix of grants and loans that students are taking longer to complete their courses, and there has been a decline in access for some sections of the population.

I agree totally with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke about the traditional breadth of education in Scotland. People who are studying science are encouraged to learn a modern language—usually a European language—and students who are learning languages are encouraged to take a science subject for at least part of their education. I should be very depressed if we followed a system where education narrowed down at an early stage in a youngster's life. Breadth of education is important for each and every individual.

The Government's proposals will lead to pressure for shorter courses, and breadth of education will be forced out. The only principal who has suggested that we should curtail our courses is Mr. McNicol from Aberdeen university. He was roundly condemned by everyone involved in the education system, and all the literature that I have received from all types of organisations shows that we wish to maintain the broad four-year degree course in Scotland, and the breadth of the education system of which we are so proud.

The House would do well to listen to the arguments of Scottish Members, regardless of whether their constituencies contain universities. We are well aware of the anger felt in Scotland about the treatment of our education system, not just in the Bill but in the Government's actions in general.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

I shall be very brief, as most of the points that I wanted to make have already been put very eloquently, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson).

There are many good reasons for excluding Scotland from this iniquitous Bill. Reference has already been made to the differences between the Scottish education system and the system that prevails south of the border. Scotland has a longer tradition of comprehensive education; we have a tradition of broadly based education in both the secondary and the post-school sectors. That is reflected in the fact that the Department of Education and Science has very little remit in Scotland; most of our education system is administered by the Scottish Education Department.

We often hear the Government boast that a Scottish Parliament is not needed to deal with such matters as Scottish education, because we already have administrative devolution. Under the present Government, however, the Scottish Education Department simply acts as a rubber stamp for the DES. For instance, when the DES introduced an assisted places scheme for schools, the Scottish Education Department did likewise. In the post-school sector, when the DES put up fees for overseas students, the Scottish Education Department did the same in regard to the Scottish colleges for which it is responsible.

When the DES abolished the minimum student grant. so did the Scottish Education Department, although in theory at least it had the power to operate its own grant system: by and large, student grants and allowances in Scotland are administered not through the local authorities but through the Scottish Education Department. Now, instead of fighting this alien proposal, the Scottish Education Department simply rubber-stamps the initiative taken by the DES.

The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that Scotland was not unique in having four-year degree courses—I think that he meant that it was not unique within the United Kingdom. It is unique to some extent, however: if a student in Scotland wants to take an honours degree course, he or she must study for a minimum of four years. I understand that that is not the case in most other parts of the United Kingdom, although it may apply to certain disciplines and universities.

The scheme will discourage many students from proceeding to a four-year course. That is why there is such widespread opposition to it, not only from students and their parents—many of whom have written to us—but from the university authorities, which are not always on the same side as the students. The rectors and presidents of the Scottish universities have also contacted us to oppose the Bill.

I urge the House to accept the amendment. I should prefer the whole Bill to be scrapped, but, if that is impossible, I should like Scotland to be excluded from the legislation, and I should like the existing grant system to be retained and improved. Sadly, the grant level has deteriorated since the Government came to power more than 10 years ago. We want it at least to keep pace with the rate of inflation, rather than being phased out and replaced by this crazy loan scheme. The scheme will discourage many students from proceeding to further and higher education, and those who take advantage of it will find that it becomes a financial millstone aroud their neck.

Mr. Dalyell

Will the Minister address himself in the Scottish context to the questions which I put to the Under-Secretary of State and which were unanswered? The first was about the factual advice that the Government had received from the bankers. The second was whether the Scottish Office had an assessment of how the Government would attract teachers, clergy and others to the professions that were less financially rewarded, and whether an assessment had been made to see whether that was a problem. The third was whether the Government had consulted Scottish lawyers on the law of liability, it being Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

Mr. Worthington

Earlier this evening, we debated an amendment concerning a proposal for a review board for England and Wales and a review board for Scotland. The Secretary of State dealt with the case applying to England and Wales and then said, in effect, "It will be the same for Scotland," and that was the only consideration that he gave the issue.

That has been the trouble with this measure all the way through. Opposition Members have pointed out eloquently that we have not just the feeling but the knowledge that Scotland is a separate and distinct nation and that a pillar of that nation is its education system. Indeed, the only reason for the presence of a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench is that there is something distinctly different about Scotland.

Unfortunately, time and again with legislation we have experienced the feeling that the Scottish education system is not being built upon from its roots and traditions but is being bent into an English shape. All too often English measures have been adopted in a Scottish context. That has applied to the assisted places scheme, the opting out schemes, school boards and universal testing.

We have had to take all that and we have had to take this Bill, even though it will do considerable harm to the Scottish education system. It will mean that students in Scotland will start paying for their education a year earlier than students anywhere else in the United Kingdom, because of the four-year degree system.

We in Scotland have a higher participation rate—I will not describe it as noble and brilliant, just as better—because of the Scottish education system. Particularly ironic is the fact that Conservative Members constantly say how much they admire the Scottish education system and only wish the English system was as good. Why, then, must we put up with English-inspired measures that do not fit the Scottish need? The amendment is designed to say, "Enough is enough."

We wonder whether this is the end of making students pay for their education. I am particularly worried when I think back to a visit I paid to the Under-Secretary earlier this year, when we discussed veterinary education. We were selling the merits of the Glasgow veterinary school. The Minister clearly thought the school was magnificent, but I got the impression that going through his mind was the thought, "If it's that good, people will pay for it," and they have started paying for it through the Page report.

We do not want the principle of people having to pay for higher education in Scotland, which is why we are asking that this and future Bills should not apply to Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang)

It is astonishing and depressing that the Oposition have so little faith in the quality and strength of Scottish higher education as to think that it would be damaged by the student loan proposals which will amount to less than 10 per cent. of the total cost of a student's higher education.

The amendments seek to distinguish in various ways between the treatment afforded to students domiciled in or studying in England and Wales and those in Scotland. Their practical effect would be anomalous in many ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that the amendments would deny Scottish students the £420 advantage to be gained by English and Welsh students this year under the proposals.

Under amendment No. 9, students in higher education in Scotland outside the universities would not have access to the extra resources provided by loans, while those at university in Scotland could receive the benefit of loans. Under amendment No. 10——

It being Ten o, clock, the debate stood adjouned

Motion made, and Question put, That, at this day's sitting, the Education (student Loans) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

The House divided:Ayes 229, Noes 185.

Division No. 78]	[10 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Aitken, Jonathan	Evennett, David
Alexander. Richard	Fallon, Michael
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Favell, Tony
Amess, David	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Amos, Alan	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Arbuthnot, James	Fishburn, John Dudley
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Fookes, Dame Janet
Ashby, David	Forman, Nigel
Aspinwall, Jack	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Atkinson, David	Forth, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Fox, Sir Marcus
Batiste, Spencer	Freeman, Roger
Bellingham, Henry	French, Douglas
Bendall, Vivian	Fry, Peter
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Gale, Roger
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gardiner, George
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Gill, Christopher
Body, Sir Richard	Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Goodlad, Alastair
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Boswell, Tim	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Gow, Ian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bowis, John	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Green way, John (Ryedale)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Gregory, Conal
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Brazier, Julian	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bright, Graham	Grist, Ian
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Ground, Patrick
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Hague, William
Buck, Sir Antony	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Budgen, Nicholas	Hampson, Dr Keith
Burns, Simon	Hanley, Jeremy
Burt, Alistair	Hannam, John
Butcher, John	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Butler, Chris	Harris, David
Butterfill, John	Hawkins, Christopher
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hayward, Robert
Carrington, Matthew	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carttiss. Michael	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hill, James
Chapman, Sydney	Hind, Kenneth
Chope, Christopher	Hordern, Sir Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Colvin, Michael	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Conway, Derek	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hunter, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick	Jack, Michael
Couchman, James	Jackson, Robert
Cran, James	Janman, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Jessel, Toby
Curry, David	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Key, Robert
Day, Stephen	Kilfedder, James
Devlin, Tim	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Dorrell, Stephen	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Dunn, Bob	Kirkhope, Timothy
Durant, Tony	Knapman, Roger
Dykes, Hugh	Knight. Greg (Derby North)
Emery, Sir Peter	Knowles, Michael

Lang, Ian	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lawrence, Ivan	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lilley, Peter	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lord, Michael	Stanbrook, Ivor
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Steen, Anthony
Maclean, David	Stern, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Stevens, Lewis
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Malins, Humfrey	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Marland, Paul	Summerson, Hugo
Marlow, Tony	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mellor, David	Thurnham, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tracey, Richard
Moore, Rt Hon John	Trippier, David
Morrison, Sir Charles	Trotter, Neville
Moss, Malcolm	Twinn, Dr Ian
Needham, Richard	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Walden, George
Norris, Steve	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Oppenheim, Phillip	Waller, Gary
Paice, James	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Pawsey, James	Warren, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)	Watts, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Wells, Bowen
Rhodes James, Robert	Wheeler, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Whitney, Ray
Rost, Peter	Widdecombe, Ann
Rowe, Andrew	Wilshire, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Ryder, Richard	Winterton, Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Tom	Wood, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Yeo, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Shelton, Sir William	Tellers for the Ayes:
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.
Shersby, Michael
Sims, Roger

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Canavan, Dennis
Allen, Graham	Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Alton, David	Clay, Bob
Anderson, Donald	Clelland, David
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cohen, Harry
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Coleman, Donald
Ashton, Joe	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Baldry, Tony	Corbett, Robin
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Corbyn, Jeremy
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Cousins, Jim
Barron, Kevin	Crowther, Stan
Battle, John	Cryer, Bob
Beggs, Roy	Cummings, John
Beith, A. J.	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Bell, Stuart	Dalyell, Tam
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Darling, Alistair
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bermingham, Gerald	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Bidwell, Sydney	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Boateng, Paul	Dewar, Donald
Boyes, Roland	Dixon, Don
Bradley, Keith	Dobson, Frank
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Eadie, Alexander
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Eastham, Ken
Buckley, George J.	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Callaghan, Jim	Fatchett, Derek
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Fearn, Ronald
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Fisher, Mark	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Flannery, Martin	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Flynn, Paul	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Morgan, Rhodri
Foster, Derek	Morley, Elliot
Fraser, John	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Fyfe, Maria	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Galloway, George	Mullin, Chris
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Murphy, Paul
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Nellist, Dave
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Golding, Mrs Llin	O'Brien, William
Gordon, Mildred	Paisley, Rev Ian
Graham, Thomas	Patchett, Terry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Pendry, Tom
Grocott, Bruce	Pike, Peter L.
Hardy, Peter	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Prescott, John
Haynes, Frank	Primarolo, Dawn
Heffer, Eric S.	Quin, Ms Joyce
Hinchliffe, David	Radice, Giles
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)	Randall, Stuart
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Redmond, Martin
Home Robertson, John	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Hood, Jimmy	Richardson, Jo
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Robinson, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Hoyle, Doug	Rowlands, Ted
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Ruddock, Joan
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Sedgemore, Brian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Janner, Greville	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Short, Clare
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Skinner, Dennis
Kennedy, Charles	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Lambie, David	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Lamond, James	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Leadbitter, Ted	Spearing, Nigel
Leighton, Ron	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Lewis, Terry	Steinberg, Gerry
Livsey, Richard	Stott, Roger
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Straw, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McAllion, John	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
McAvoy, Thomas	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
McCrea, Rev William	Turner, Dennis
McGrady, Eddie	Vaz, Keith
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
McKelvey, William	Wareing, Robert N.
McLeish, Henry	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Maclennan, Robert	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
McWilliam, John	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Madden, Max	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mallon, Seamus	Winnick, David
Marek, Dr John	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Worthington, Tony
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Martlew, Eric	Tellers for the Noes:
Maxton, John	Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.
Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, that the amendment be made.

Mr. Lang

It is typical of the muddle and confusion in the minds of Liberal Democrat Members that they should have sought to delay the House with that Division. Their muddle and confusion was reflected in the debate that preceded it. Within the space of a few minutes, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that student loans would lengthen degree courses, but the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that they would shorten them. It is hardly surprising that Liberal Members have put their names to these extraordinary amendments.

Under amendment No. 9, students in higher education outside universities in Scotland would not have access to extra resources provided by loans, while those at university in Scotland would receive the benefits of loans.

Under amendment No. 10, students from north of the border would have access to loan facilities to study in England and Wales, while those from the south would apparently have access to a loan if they were studying at university but not at other institutions in Scotland. I cannot conceive of a system that would be more damaging to Scottish higher education.

Whatever the intention of the amendments, the long-standing convention is that support arrangements for students undertaking courses of higher education should be broadly the same throughout the United Kingdom. Although student support in Scotland is governed by different legislation and administered by a different Department, we operate on the principle of broad comparability of treatment. I am sure that that system is in the interest of Scottish higher education, and I see no reason to depart from it. To do so in the way proposed by the amendments would mean that some students would enjoy the benefit of additional resources, while others undertaking the same or similar courses would not. There can be no justification for such a distinction.

Much has been made of the disincentive effect of loans for students wishing to take the Scottish four-year honours degree, but the point has to be made yet again that four-year degree courses are not unique to Scotland; nor are all Scottish degrees of four years' duration. Any special provision for them would thus create more anomalies than it would resolve, particularly in relation to even longer courses, such as those for medicine and architecture, to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred.

10.15 pm

There is no sound reason for altering the basic principle that a loan should be made available for each year of the course, irrespective of its nature or length. A four-year degree course must by definition be more expensive than a three-year course, for all concerned: for the institution, the student support system, the parents and the student, in terms of both time and deferred earnings.

We allow the students themselves to make the judgment of additional cost versus added value, and we then offer them positive help to take the course of their choice. Students on four-year courses already receive more assistance by way of maintenance and tuition fees than their counterparts on three-year courses, and those students will enjoy the same positive benefits under the loan facility for each year of their course.

The threat that hon. Members perceive to the Scottish higher education system is not supported by the facts: the fact that the full-time student population has risen over the past decade in Scotland by around 15,000—an increase of over one fifth; the fact that the number of entrants to higher education has risen from around 18 per cent. of the relevant age group 10 years ago to over 21 per cent. by 1988 and that by 1991–92 it is on target for 23 per cent.—a level which our colleagues south of the border hope to reach by the end of the century. It is hardly surprising that the Education Scotsman, on Wednesday 20 December, had a headline "Scotland reaches tertiary target a decade early".

Student award applications for 1989–90 are up over 70,000 for the first time, despite the demographic downturn. We in the Scottish Office, the universities and the central institutions are all planning and funding for a further increase in 1991. So to talk of closure of colleges as a result of the student loan system, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) did, is alarmist nonsense.

I do not believe that the prospect of an extra year's study and a somewhat larger loan commitment will discourage students who want to embark on a broad-based Scottish four-year honours degree course. We already know, for example, that some 25 per cent. of the students undertaking four-year courses at Scottish universities come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is evidence of the value which students attach to those courses. They accept the delay in entering the jobs market that the longer course means. I believe that they will be unshaken in their commitment by top-up loans.

I am in no doubt at all that a student's own perception of the nature and content of the course, together with his assessment of the value of the final qualification—a point very ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—will continue to be the most significant factor in the choice of institution and course. To suggest otherwise would mean that the additional year was of little value to students, and there is no evidence to support that theory.

For many years, we have had a broadly uniform system of student support in the United Kingdom. These amendments would end that uniformity and introduce a whole host of anomalies. They would be to the detriment of Scottish higher education, and I invite the House to reject them.

Mr. Wallace

I want first to take up what the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), said when he tried to make the very technical point that if these amendments were passed it would put Scottish students at Scottish universities and colleges, or those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom attending Scottish universities, in a different position, as they would not be entitled to the loans to which students attending colleges elsewhere in the United Kingdom would be entitled. In the strict technical sense that is true, but it is not possible for the Opposition, in framing amendments to this Bill, to make provision—because of the rules of which you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister are well aware—for the grant system to continue in Scotland and for it to be increased each year in line with inflation.

The Minister cannot be saying that if it is the will of the House that the loans scheme should not apply to Scottish institutions of higher education we shall be left high and dry. The will of the House would be perfectly clear—that the present grant system should continue in Scotland. If the Minister is saying that he will campaign throughout Scotland and say to the students in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that it will leave them high and dry, he is in for a rude awakening. I do not believe for one minute that that is precisely what he means.

When he resumed his speech after the vote on the business motion, the Minister said that there was a contradiction between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Clearly, the Minister cannot understand the distinction between my hon. and learned Friend saying that many Scottish universities are considering the need to reduce their honours courses to three years and my right hon. Friend saying that the length of time that it would take students to complete that course might increase to six or seven years. Perhaps he was not paying attention. If that is the case, he should not try to make smart comments about those points.

Mr. Lang

indicated dissent.

Mr. Wallace

I see that the Minister is shaking his head. He was probably paying attention, so he cannot have understood the difference. Perhaps he should go back to university.

The Bill is a disgrace. On a later amendment, we shall focus on how little is in it and how much will be left for orders. There is little reference in it to Scotland. There are one or two passing references to Scottish legislation and Scottish places of education, but the only substantive provision relating to Scotland is paragraph 5 of schedule 2, which is headed "Insolvency: Scotland". It speaks volumes that the Government are having to make specific provision for Scotland in the context of debt failure.

Mr. Allan Stewart

The hon. Gentleman made the same point on Second Reading. Why is he delaying the House by repeating it?

Mr. Wallace

Because despite the fact that the Bill has gone through Committee, there has not been much improvement, so the point is worth making again, if only to underline it.

If the Government consider it right and proper, having regard to the distinctive legal system in Scotland, to enact separate legislation for major reforms to the legal system in Scotland, as distinct from that in England and Wales, why should one of the other great pillars of the Scottish nation—its education system—be lumped in with arrangements for England and Wales?

What depressed me most about the Minister's speech was when he said that, although Scotland had a four-year honours course, other places, too, had courses lasting for more than three years. He did not not seem to appreciate the importance and distinctiveness of that four-year honours course. Again, that must be the result of not listening. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East clearly illustrated how the four-year honours course in Scotland follows from a broad-based system of secondary education. The two are interlinked, so to take away what underpins one threatens the other. That is why Opposition Members, especially those who represent Scottish constituencies, are so concerned about the damage that we believe will be done to Scottish education if the Bill is passed.

Even if we accept the Minister's argument that there are other places where courses are longer than three years, we must wonder what will happen, for example, to teacher training. After four years, students will have to go through another year of teacher training, which will mean another year of debt round their necks before they start to earn—and we all know how little teachers earn, especially in the early years.

One distinctive feature of the Scottish university system is its four-year course and its broad base. Another is that far more pupils in Scotland go to local authority-maintained schools than is the case in England and Wales. That is part of the Scottish tradition. As a constituent said in one of the many letters that I have received, education is not a privilege; it is a right. The Government seek to bring into effect in Scotland what is already the case in England, where education is seen as a privilege rather than a right. We fear that, by putting these financial burdens on students, youngsters from poorer homes will be unable to afford to take on the burden of going to university, or will think twice about it.

If Conservative Members do not believe me, I shall quote from a letter I received from a constituent at Edinburgh university. She said: If these plans are implemented then students will lose all entitlement to housing benefit and income support. They will have their grant frozen and be eligible for a loan of £420 a year. Fortunately, I am in the position where I rely on my parents' contribution to finance my education. However, the proposals spell disaster for my colleagues and education in the future. Not just the additional burden of loans but all the changes in housing benefit and the social security regulations, as well as the imposition of the poll tax, will make it far less attractive for Scottish students to go to university and fulfil their potential. Government policy is shortsighted in the extreme because it means a loss not only to individuals, which is important in itself, but to society and the community as a whole if those individuals cannot fulfil their potential and cannot add their skills to the wellbeing and welfare of the community.

The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) talked about developments in eastern Europe and the opportunities and challenges involved in them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale. Ettrick and Lauderdale made a similar point in his intervention. It is disappointing that in a letter which I received today the Minister of State said that provision would not be made from Scottish Office funds to enable a Czechoslovakian student, who has spent some time at the Anderson high school in my constituency, to take up a place at Glasgow university if he meets the academic requirements. It is said that where there is no vision, the people perish. I cannot imagine the West German, French or Italian Governments being so narrow-minded in regard to the opportunities opening up in eastern Europe. No doubt those Governments are welcoming eastern European students to their universities, but our Government are putting up financial barriers.

I conclude by disagreeing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East on one point. He said that if the Government are trying to change the system of education in Scotland, including secondary education, we should debate that here, and not through the mechanism of this tawdry little Bill. I do not believe that we should debate it here; we should be debating it in a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 201.

Division No. 79]	[10.26 pm
AYES
Alton, David	Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Anderson, Donald	Barron, Kevin
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Beggs, Roy
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Beith, A. J.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Leadbitter, Ted
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Livsey, Richard
Bermingham, Gerald	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Boateng, Paul	McAllion, John
Boyes, Roland	McAvoy, Thomas
Bradley, Keith	McCrea, Rev William
Bray, Dr Jeremy	McGrady, Eddie
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	McKelvey, William
Callaghan, Jim	McLeish, Henry
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Maclennan, Robert
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	McWilliam, John
Canavan, Dennis	Madden, Max
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Mallon, Seamus
Clay, Bob	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Clelland, David	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Cohen, Harry	Martlew, Eric
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Maxton, John
Corbett, Robin	Meale, Alan
Corbyn, Jeremy	Michael, Alun
Cousins, Jim	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Crowther, Stan	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Cryer, Bob	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Dalyell, Tarn	Morgan, Rhodri
Darling, Alistair	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Nellist, Dave
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Dewar, Donald	O'Brien, William
Dixon, Don	Paisley, Rev Ian
Dobson, Frank	Pendry, Tom
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Pike, Peter L.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Eadie, Alexander	Primarolo, Dawn
Eastham, Ken	Quin, Ms Joyce
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Redmond, Martin
Fatchett, Derek	Richardson, Jo
Fearn, Ronald	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Fisher, Mark	Rowlands, Ted
Flannery, Martin	Ruddock, Joan
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Sedgemore, Brian
Foster, Derek	Sheerman, Barry
Fraser, John	Skinner, Dennis
Fyfe, Maria	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Spearing, Nigel
Golding, Mrs Llin	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Graham, Thomas	Steinberg, Gerry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Stott, Roger
Harman, Ms Harriet	Straw, Jack
Hinchliffe, David	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Home Robertson, John	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Hood, Jimmy	Wallace, James
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Wareing, Robert N.
Howells, Geraint	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Hoyle, Doug	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Winnick, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Kennedy, Charles	Worthington, Tony
Kilfedder, James
Kirkwood, Archy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lambie, David	Mr. John Battle and Mr. Frank Haynes.
Lamond, James

NOES
Adley, Robert	Atkinson, David
Alexander, Richard	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Batiste, Spencer
Amess, David	Bellingham, Henry
Amos, Alan	Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Arbuthnot, James	Bevan, David Gilroy
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Biffen, Rt Hon John
Ashby, David	Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Body, Sir Richard	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Fishburn, John Dudley
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Forman, Nigel
Boswell, Tim	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Forth, Eric
Bowis, John	Fox, Sir Marcus
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Freeman, Roger
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	French, Douglas
Brazier, Julian	Fry, Peter
Bright, Graham	Gale, Roger
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gardiner, George
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Buck, Sir Antony	Gill, Christopher
Budgen, Nicholas	Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Burns, Simon	Goodlad, Alastair
Burt, Alistair	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Butcher, John	Gow, Ian
Butler, Chris	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Butterfill, John	Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Carrington, Matthew	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Carttiss, Michael	Grist, Ian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Ground, Patrick
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Chope, Christopher	Hague, William
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Colvin, Michael	Hampson, Dr Keith
Conway, Derek	Hanley, Jeremy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Hannam, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Couchman, James	Harris, David
Cran, James	Hawkins, Christopher
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Curry, David	Hayward, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Day, Stephen	Hill, James
Devlin, Tim	Hind, Kenneth
Dorrell, Stephen	Hordern, Sir Peter
Dunn, Bob	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Durant, Tony	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Dykes, Hugh	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Emery, Sir Peter	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Evennett, David	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Fallon, Michael	Hunter, Andrew
Favell, Tony	Jack, Michael

Jackson, Robert	Sims, Roger
Janman, Tim	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Jessel, Toby	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Kirkhope, Timothy	Steen, Anthony
Knapman, Roger	Stern, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Stevens, Lewis
Knowles, Michael	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Lawrence, Ivan	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Lightbown, David	Summerson, Hugo
Lilley, Peter	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Lord, Michael	Temple-Morris, Peter
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Thurnham, Peter
Maclean, David	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Tracey, Richard
Malins, Humfrey	Trippier, David
Marlow, Tony	Trotter, Neville
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Viggers, Peter
Mellor, David	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Walden, George
Morrison, Sir Charles	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Needham, Richard	Waller, Gary
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Norris, Steve	Warren, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip	Watts, John
Paice, James	Wells, Bowen
Pawsey, James	Wheeler, Sir John
Powell, William (Corby)	Whitney, Ray
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Widdecombe, Ann
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Wilshire, David
Rost, Peter	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Rowe, Andrew	Winterton, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard	Wood, Timothy
Sackville, Hon Tom	Yeo, Tim
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Shaw, David (Dover)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Tellers for the Noes:
Shelton, Sir William	Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 13, at end insert— '(5A) The powers to make orders and regulations under this section to amend Schedule I or to make regulations under Schedule 2 to this Act shall, insofar as they are exercised in order to establish a scheme, in the first year in which such a scheme is to have effect shall be exercisable by order within the terms of this subsection, and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker(Miss Betty Boothroyd)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 17, in page 2, line 14, after 'section', insert 'other than any such orders or regulations falling within subsection (5A) above.'. No. 18, in page 2, line 15, after `Act', insert 'other than those falling within that subsection.'.

Mr. Beith

The House will note the length and complexity of the amendments. However, their purpose is straightforward and important. They seek to ensure that the House can properly consider the student loans scheme that the Government intend to introduce. The whole process that this House and another place have gone through has, because of the character of the Bill, given us no opportunity to consider the Government's proposals—that is because the Bill does not contain the Government's proposals. In an extreme form, the Bill is characteristic of the desire of Ministers and civil servants to write the law as they go along. Hon. Members who doubt that that is the nature of the Bill should read it and they will see that it contains almost nothing except the power to make regulations.

The purpose of the amendments is to provide for parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations, of any changes to schedule 1, relating to courses eligible for loans, or of any changes to regulations made under schedule 2, which relates to the level of interest, the manner of repayment and the issuing of certificates. The amendments state that if in the first year of the scheme there are any changes to schedules 1 or 2 that relate to its establishment, they shall not come into effect unless they have been approved by Parliament. The amendments are protective in that they ensure that, if there is to be a change, it cannot be without parliamentary approval.

It is disgraceful that so major and fundamental a policy should be enacted by means of delegated legislation. That so significant a departure as the reversal of the practice of student support in this country should be brought forward on the basis of regulations made by Ministers is totally inadequate. That point has been made in this place and, vociferously, in another place, where it was one of the major criticisms of the Bill.

This is not simply a matter of academic interest. It means, although I understand from those Members who served on the Committee that the Under-Secretary of State did not seem fully aware of this at that time, that the scheme proposed by the Government cannot be amended. Is it incapable of amendment; there are no procedures for amending statutory instruments.

It is conceivable that the Government can bring forward a scheme setting out which courses are eligible for loans, the manner of repayment and the issuing of certificates that is wholly without fault or flaw? It is absolutely beyond the bounds of imagination that they can devise and draft a scheme that does not need amendment.

I invite Conservative Members, who have often proposed, and sometimes had accepted, amendments to Government Bills, to recognise that they will not have that opportunity when we consider the student loan scheme. The procedures are not available to the House, because the matter is being dealt with entirely by statutory instrument. I cannot understand Ministers who, when in opposition, complained about the way that legislation was being pushed through the House, putting their names to legislation that will not have proper scrutiny in the House. The problem is not merely that the regulations that implement every aspect of the Bill proceed by way of delegated legislation, but that they do so under the negative procedure. They are not required to be debated on the Floor of the House, and there is no guarantee that the House will have a vote.

Let us recall what you, Madam Deputy Speaker, know well: the procedure for the kind of statutory instrument under which every aspect of the Bill will be brought in. The regulations are devised by civil servants, and made by Ministers, and it is up to hon. Members to table prayers against them. Those prayers appear on the Order Paper and there is no guarantee that they will be debated even in a Committee. It is entirely within the hands and at the behest of the Government whether they give the House permission to debate the scheme under which student loans will be introduced.

Let us suppose that the Government decide to allow a debate on one of the dozens of statutory instruments that will spew forth to implement the scheme, but as they do not want a lot of fuss about it, they insist that it is held in Committee. They will put a motion on the Order Paper stating that the debate will take place in Committee.

What happens then, Madam Deputy Speaker? Wonder of wonders, if 20 hon. Members wish to object to its being taken in Committee, they can rise in their places to signify that. Consequently, it will not go to Committee. But do not assume, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that means that they will get their way and that it will be debated on the Floor of the House. The result will be that it is not debated at all. The Committee will not be set up and the House will be unable to debate the matter on the Floor of the House because the Government will still be under no obligation to bring this most fundamental of changes, and its major details, before the House.

Let us imagine that those 20 hon. Members, or many more, decide that since it is the only debate that they will get, they will not object, but consent to the Bill going into Committee. The matter will go upstairs to Committee, and for one and a half hours those Members chosen to serve on the Committee can debate the scheme. Any other hon. Member can take part in the debate. But if, during those proceedings, it becomes clear that the whole thing is a complete mess, first, there can be no amendment and, secondly, if the entire Committee draws the conclusion that the Government have made a hopeless mess of the drafting of this part of the scheme, there is no way in which it can pursue that objection. They could, if they felt so inclined, resolve that the Committee had not considered the instrument, and from time to time that has happened. But the consequence nevertheless is that it is reported to the House that the Committee has considered the instrument. It is not even reported to the House that the Committee has decided that it has not considered the instrument. The fact that objection was made by every Member of the Committee never appears on the Order Paper.

10.45 pm

Let us also suppose that in the meantime the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, chaired by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has, as it does with all statutory instruments, looked at the matter in some detail and discovered that there is an abuse of power or an unusual use of power in the way that the Government have drafted the important student loans scheme. That would not be unusual. It has happened three times in the past few weeks. All that would appear on the Order Paper is a notice that the Joint Committee has drawn the attention of the House to the instrument, but that notice does not give rise to any debating time or any proceedings.

If an hon. Member has taken the trouble to go to the Vote Office, read the report and discover what has, in some recent cases, been severe criticism of the way in which civil servants have drafted statutory instruments giving rise to an abuse of power, he has no opportunity to draw it to the attention of the House because you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were in the Chair, would be obliged to put the question forthwith on that statutory instrument. The only information before the House is that the Committee has drawn the special attention of the House to the instrument.

It is even possible, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will recall from an incident about 10 days ago, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not even had time to get on to the Order Paper the fact that it has considered the instrument and wishes to draw the attention of the House to it. We had a case recently where the matter was brought before the House for a vote before the Committee could get that information on to the Order Paper.

So we have the major features of the Government's much vaunted, cherished student loans scheme. A Committee has considered the merits of the instrument and has voted that it is rubbish, but all that it has been able to do is to vote that it has not considered the instrument. Then the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which considers the use of powers in the scheme, considers the matter and has drawn attention to the unusual or improper use of powers under the scheme. Neither of those facts is before the House when it is required to vote forthwith on the instrument. That is an absurd procedure, of which Ministers are well aware.

Ministers may claim that the House should change those procedures, but so long as the procedure is so inadequate, how dare they put the whole weight of the student loans scheme on so creaking a piece of machinery? Ministers know the inadequacy of those procedures. They know the importance of the issues raised under the procedures in the legislation. So why did they not at least accept the pleas made in Committee, including pleas from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who spoke eloquently on the subject, that we should have affirmative instruments for the major matters?

If Ministers are not prepared to go that far, why cannot they go at least as far as our amendment, which has the limited effect not that all subsequent changes to the scheme have to go through the affirmative procedure, but that at least the first time that the original scheme is introduced it should be properly debated in the House?

It may not be understood or recognised outside the House that, unless we amend the Bill, we are putting in place today arrangements under which the whole character of the student loans scheme will be precluded from parliamentary debate, amendment and proper consideration.

The Government seem happy that that should be so. That is an outrage and it is not without significance that it was this Bill, and that feature of it, which was so widely quoted in another place when a prominent Conservative, a former Secretary of State for the Environment., Lord Rippon, drew the attention of Members to the disgraceful practice of widening the ability of Ministers to legislate by delegated legislation. Again and again, the Bill was instanced as the worst example to date of that practice.

There are records of those who argued before the second world war that Parliament should have the power to bring about radical change unencumbered by the representatives of class interests on the Tory Benches, who otherwise would seek to prevent such changes from taking place. That argument was made by the Socialists, some of whom asserted that Parliament should have powers allowing Ministers to sweep through the radical changes that they saw as being necessary for society. Today, Conservative Ministers are taking the opportunity, which the Socialists never seized for themselves, to make laws up as they go along. The House should never consent to such a practice in respect of any major issue, and the Bill is one such issue.

Mr. Straw

I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on an extremely well-informed and powerful speech.

It is wrong for the major part of the scheme to be incorporated in legislation that is unamendable in this House or in another place. When I did a paper on the British constitution, I was informed that statutory instruments were reserved for subordinate or secondary legislation. But there is nothing subordinate or secondary about the Bill, which will be brought before the House and rubber-stamped—if anyone is allowed to pick up the rubber stamp—under the scheme.

As we know, the Bill is merely an enabling measure, with one operative clause and two relatively minor schedules. The rest of the scheme—for which no precise parallel exists in this country, and for which no parallel exists in any other country—will be established by delegated legislation that is neither subordinate nor secondary.

In the 20 October debate, on Second Reading, and many times in Committee, the Secretary of State and Under-Secretary sought to justify the Government's abuse of delegated legislation by claiming that the scheme used for the Bill was the same as that adopted for the Education Act 1962, which set up the present grants system following the findings of the Anderson committee the previous year.

I hope that the Under-Secretary has identified the fundamental difference between the Act and the Bill, but I shall place it on the record so that the Minister does not attempt to draw that parallel again. The 1962 Act made one change and one change alone. It transformed the discretion that local authorities had to make grants into a duty. Discretion had existed since the Education Act 1944. After 18 years' experience of that legislation, all the Anderson committee did was to say, "We believe that the various discretionary arrangements that exist throughout the country should be turned into a mandatory, uniform scheme."

Section 1 of the Education Act 1962 therefore states that it shall he the duty of a local education authority to make a mandatory grant. The rest of that legislation was subordinate, laying down how that duty should be undertaken.

That is completely different from the Bill, which begins not by imposing any duty, which could not only be tested in this House and in another place but continually in the courts, by becoming a justiciable matter; instead, the Bill imposes a power on the Secretary of State, enabling him to make any arrangements that he requires in establishing a loans scheme. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, all that is to be brought forward.

No right hon. or hon. Member believes that every jot and tittle of Government decision-making should be subject to an elaborate procedure in this House. We all know that that is not the real world.

There are some decisions that are made by ministerial fiat, and it is appropriate that others should be made by regulation, subject to negative procedure—although I accept the criticisms that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made about the inadequacy of that procedure.

I hope that the Under-Secretary accepts that there are other decisions which are in the nature of primary legislation, which for one reason or another are not in the primary legislation but which ought, at the very least, to be subject to the affirmative order procedure. It is not asking very much. We are only asking that, before decisions are made, they are brought before the House and there is an hour and a half of debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The hon. Gentleman and I both pursued this matter strongly in Committee, and he will be well aware that one of the Government's arguments was that they did not want a compulsory debate every year because of a minute alteration in detail. The argument for the amendment tonight is that, at least in the first year, when we have seen nothing, there can be no argument against the whole package coming before the House.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reinforce the fact that all the arguments against having such a debate every year fall, because we have not seen the scheme. This amendment has a one-year operation period.

Mr. Straw

I agree with the hon. Member, and congratulate him on his ingenuity in drafting an amendment to enable further debate on this important issue on the floor of the House, after it has been debated at some length in Committee.

The affirmative order procedure is hardly a foundation stone of our parliamentary democracy. It does not allow great scrutiny or amendment, but it changes the nature and quality of decisions that Ministers and officials make. Officials know that what they are serving up will have to go before the House. A Minister has to stand up and justify it, and not have his reputation wrecked through reading out an inadequate brief—all of us have seen that from time to time, but I exclude the Under-Secretary from that. Therefore, the nature and the quality of the decision taken will be better than it would have been under subordinate legislation.

This issue was discussed at some length in Committee. I hope that the Under-Secretary accepts the strength of feeling about it. The amendment is outwith the merits of the student loan scheme. We are not trying to pin the Under-Secretary down. By accepting the amendment, he is not accepting our criticisms of the scheme. He can have all the loan scheme he wants, of the kind he wants, subject only to the approval of the House. That is what we are asking for—that this scheme is legislated on with proper respect for our democracy.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will think again before insisting that the whole scheme should be subject only to the negative procedure.

Mr. Jackson

We had a good debate on these issues in the Standing Committee, and I recommend hon. Members who are concerned—I think we understand the reasons why they are concerned, because high constitutional issues are at stake—to read the account of discussions in Committee.

It will be apparent to anyone who reads the proceedings of the Committee that the Opposition—not only the official Opposition, but the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was fighting a distinguished campaign on behalf of his party—in the course of argument recognised that it would not be appropriate to put all the details of the scheme into primary legislation. That was accepted and borne out by the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It seemed to be the premise of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it would be desirable to have all the details in primary legislation, but the Committee moved beyond that.

The general view of the Committee was that it would be quite acceptable to have most of the legislation in the form of resolution by negative procedure. My hon. Friends supported me in my rejection of amendments at the conclusion of the debate, and it was decided that it would be reasonable to proceed by negative procedure, although the Opposition sustained the argument that there should be an element of affirmative procedure, and that is reflected in tonight's debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes

It is important to put two points on the record. First, the Opposition voted for the procedure that we are now recommending whenever the Committee divided on the issue. Secondly—as I hope the Minister will be fair enough to concede—we argued strongly that, when we did not know the details, it was imperative, now and in the future, for important issues to be dealt with by Parliament in a way that automatically allowed for debate. We never conceded that there should be no guarantee of debate, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, there is no such guarantee under the present arrangements.

11 pm

Mr. Jackson

The hon. Gentleman is being fair, and I am not trying to score a point, but I think that hon. Members will agree that the position changed. At first the Opposition said that the regulations should all be subject to primary legislation, but it was later accepted that they should be dealt with by resolution. There was then a division of views over how much should be dealt with by affirmative resolution and how much by negative resolution, and it was, I think, accepted that much of it should he dealt with by the negative procedure. That, indeed, is the spirit of the amendment, which suggests a negative procedure in later years and an affirmative one in the first year.

We must see how our debates develop, to establish whether the concern described by the hon. Gentleman really exists, but I believe that there are powerful arguments of principle against what he proposes. First, we have become used to operating under the negative resolution procedure for some 30 years, under the Education Act 1962. The structure of the Act, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred, is identical to that of the Bill: the only difference is between imposing a duty and taking a power.

I should have thought that it was more in keeping with the constitutionalist view urged by Opposition Members, and with the spirit of the House of Commons as they see it, for a power to be given—a power that may or may not be exercised—than for a duty to be imposed. Moreover, the procedure whereby every year a mandatory awards regulation is subjected to negative resolution before the House or in Committee has not prompted any complaints; it has worked in an entirely satisfactory way. The document in question is 37 pages long, and is amended regularly. All sorts of detailed points emerge in the course of the year. A graphic case was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier): we all call it the Podger amendment. The negative resolution procedure has worked perfectly well with student grants, and we believe that it will work equally well with loans.

The hon. Member for Blackburn described the Bill as sketchy, but that description is not accurate. It determines the way in which the power can be used in considerable detail. Schedule 1 contains a list of eligible courses, which can be changed only if Parliament does not object. Schedule 2 requires the Secretary of State to provide for zero real interest, and to set out the amount of the loan and the arrangements for repayment, deferment and cancellation. All that is to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Schedule 2 also contains regulations to cover the arrangements to be made with the Student Loans Company, or any other company, for the administration of the scheme. In fact, the Bill contains more detail than the 1962 Act: the argument that it provides excessive discretion simply does not stand up.

Although I generally defer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who is an expert on parliamentary procedure, I do not believe that affirmative resolution would add much to the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if there were some power to amend under the affirmative procedure, but the same position applies to both affirmative and negative procedures. Parliament has the opportunity to vote the regulations down in either case.

Mr. Beith

The Minister has made two incorrect statements in the space of two sentences. First, far from my having argued that there was a power to amend, part of the burden of my speech was that there was no such power under either of the procedures that we are considering. I had the impression that the Minister had formed that view in Committee and had become confused about the matter, but he is clearly not confused now: he realises that the scheme cannot be amended.

The hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that items coming under both the affirmative and negative procedures were subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The second part of my argument was that they were not necessarily subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative procedure, and that the Government had the capacity to prevent them from being debated under that procedure.

Mr. Jackson

I misheard the hon. Gentleman. I thought his argument was to the effect that one could amend under the affirmative resolution procedure. The fact remains that, whether by way of the affirmative or negative procedure, there is not the facility to amend, so I do not see any great advantage in the plea that Opposition Members are making.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Under the negative procedure, the matter does not come before the House, unless a prayer is tabled, and prayers are never heard. We in Northern Ireland have suffered from that. The Minister should make the position absolutely clear.

Mr. Jackson

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I should be willing to hear any prayer that he has to offer, and my hearing is very acute.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Would the Minister do more than hear it?

Mr. Jackson

I should seek to answer it, too. But there is some dependence on the Opposition in the matter. It is perfectly possible under the negative procedure for matters to be brought before the House, if the House so wishes.

Mr. Straw

The Minister has not had the benefit—I do not say this in a mocking sense—of any period in opposition. We hope to correct that in a year or so, but meanwhile, Conservative Members who have been in opposition will know, as we know, that there is a profound difference between regulations brought before the House under the negative resolution procedure and those brought under the affirmative procedure.

The Under-Secretary does his argument no good by suggesting that there is no difference. Indeed, if he believes that there is no difference, why not concede the case and have the affirmative procedure? There is a difference. It is that the affirmative resolution procedure requires that the matter be debated, whereas with the negative procedure it is at the Government's discretion whether the matter is heard.

Mr. Jackson

I shall be willing to accept tuition from the hon. Gentleman should I find myself in opposition, and I derive great benefit from the instruction of the way in which he handled himself in Standing Committee. I repeat: it is possible for these issues to be debated on the Floor of the House, whichever of the two procedures is followed.

Mr. Beith

In that case, will the Minister explain why so many prayers tabled by hon. Members do not get debated, either on the Floor or the House of in Committee? Will he explain, for example, why the prayer against the regulations under which it ceased to be required for garages to display petrol prices in price per gallon, even though that prayer was signed by a large number of hon. Members——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I hardly think that is relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Beith

I was asking the Minister why prayers such as that, which had the support of many hon. Members, are not debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Jackson

You are right to point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that matter is not within my competence. It is a matter of agreement whether such matters come before the House. On one occasion, I took the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations through a Standing Committee. On other occasions, that instrument has not been prayed against and it has not been necessary to adopt that course.

I have no doubt that if the Opposition, and we, wanted this matter brought before the House, perhaps on the first occasion, it would be possible to agree to do that, without necessarily adopting the amendment to bring it within the affirmative resolution procedure.

There are further practical arguments against the amendment. We agreed on the previous amendment that we should proceed to implement the scheme as from the autumn of this year. It is necessary to press on with that. There would be problems of finding parliamentary time under the amendment. The Government have no desire to short-circuit parliamentary procedure. A negative resolution can be voted down, but we have to make the new system clear to students and others, so it will be necessary to proceed quite swiftly after Royal Assent to adopt the proposals by secondary legislation. The proper way of dealing with that is through the negative resolution procedure. We need to be able to make the regulations and orders quickly after Royal Assent if we are to be ready for September 1990, so I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in rejecting the amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I wanted only to ask the Minister: if clarity is the purpose, why does he think that a debate for one and a half hours would not assist him? Is it not rather that he wishes to obscure?

Mr. Wallace

I shall respond briefly to the points that the Minister made. He gave no convincing reason why the amendment should be resisted.

No doubt any student of constitutional law who can afford to go to university after the passage of the Bill will be told that one of the purposes of the House of Commons is to check the Executive. That is increasingly becoming a big lie. It is becoming less possible for hon. Members to carry out our duty to keep the Executive in check.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Minister's speech was the impression he gave that the negative procedure should be the norm. Many people who believe that we are here to keep control of those in government would resist that notion. Nevertheless, legislation has increasingly introduced statutory instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. That means that there is less opportunity for the official Opposition, and other Opposition parties and Back Benchers to pray against statutory instruments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) gave a pertinent example when he referred to the statutory instrument on the description of petrol prices. It attracted support from both sides of the House, including the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, yet despite that, it was not debated on the Floor of the House or in Committee, because it was not convenient to the Government. Increasingly, more power has been put into the hands of the Government, and it is our duty to resist it whenever we can.

The Minister tried to suggest that what has happened to the awards scheme under the 1962 Act should be the model for what we are about to do. The 1962 Act, inasmuch as it made it mandatory for local authorities to give grants, conferred a benefit on students. The amendment does not aim to deal with the merits or demerits of student loans, but anyone would accept that a loan represents less than a grant. If one approaches one's great uncle for some money, one would prefer a straight grant to a repayable loan, so the scheme is taking something away from students. That is an important distinction.

The Minister seemed to suggest that the present system is a method of fine-tuning the engine, and that our annual debate represents an MOT. The amendment deals not with what will happen year after year but with what we want to happen in the first year, before the scheme comes into operation. If the Minister is saying that it will be debated and we will agree it, he has absolutely nothing to lose by accepting the amendment. The fact that he does not do so gives us sufficient cause for suspicion to divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 158.

Division No. 80]	[11.14 pm
AYES
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Kennedy, Charles
Battle, John	Kilfedder, James
Beggs, Roy	Lamond, James
Beith, A. J.	Leadbitter, Ted
Bermingham, Gerald	Livsey, Richard
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	McCrea, Rev William
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	McGrady, Eddie
Callaghan, Jim	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	McLeish, Henry
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Maclennan, Robert
Canavan, Dennis	McWilliam, John
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Madden, Max
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Clay, Bob	Mallon, Seamus
Clelland, David	Meale, Alan
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Michael, Alun
Cousins, Jim	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Cryer, Bob	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Nellist, Dave
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Paisley, Rev Ian
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)	Pendry, Tom
Eastham, Ken	Pike, Peter L.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Fearn, Ronald	Prescott, John
Flannery, Martin	Quin, Ms Joyce
Foster, Derek	Redmond, Martin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Rowlands, Ted
Gordon, Mildred	Sedgemore, Brian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Sheerman, Barry
Harman, Ms Harriet	Skinner, Dennis
Haynes, Frank	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Howells, Geraint	Spearing, Nigel

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Steinberg, Gerry	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Stott, Roger	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Straw, Jack	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)	Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.
Wallace, James
Wareing, Robert N.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Amos, Alan	Grist, Ian
Arbuthnot, James	Ground, Patrick
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ashby, David	Hague, William
Atkinson, David	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Hanley, Jeremy
Batiste, Spencer	Hannam, John
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Harris, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Hayward, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Boswell, Tim	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hind, Kenneth
Bowis, John	Hordern, Sir Peter
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Brazier, Julian	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bright, Graham	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Buck, Sir Antony	Hunter, Andrew
Budgen, Nicholas	Jack, Michael
Burns, Simon	Jackson, Robert
Burt, Alistair	Janman, Tim
Butterfill, John	Jessel, Toby
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Carrington, Matthew	Kirkhope, Timothy
Carttiss, Michael	Knapman, Roger
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Chapman, Sydney	Knowles, Michael
Chope, Christopher	Lawrence, Ivan
Colvin, Michael	Lilley, Peter
Conway, Derek	Lord, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James	Maclean, David
Cran, James	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Malins, Humfrey
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Day, Stephen	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Devlin, Tim	Needham, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Dunn, Bob	Norris, Steve
Durant, Tony	Oppenheim, Phillip
Dykes, Hugh	Pawsey, James
Emery, Sir Peter	Powell, William (Corby)
Evennett, David	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Fallon, Michael	Ryder, Richard
Favell, Tony	Sackville, Hon Tom
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Fishburn, John Dudley	Shaw, David (Dover)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Forth, Eric	Shelton, Sir William
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Fox, Sir Marcus	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Freeman, Roger	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
French, Douglas	Steen, Anthony
Gale, Roger	Stern, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Stevens, Lewis
Gill, Christopher	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Goodlad, Alastair	Summerson, Hugo
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Gow, Ian	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Thorne, Neil
Gregory. Conal	Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)	Widdecombe, Ann
Tracey, Richard	Wilshire, David
Trippier, David	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Trotter, Neville	Winterton, Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian	Wood, Timothy
Walden, George	Yeo, Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Waller, Gary	Younger, Rt Hon George
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Watts, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Wells, Bowen	Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.
Wheeler, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.