§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether the breadth and strength of the opposition to their proposals for student loans has caused them to make any alternative proposals.
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, the Government have considered alternative proposals but have concluded that the top-up loans scheme is the best way to provide more resources to students, while sharing at the same time the cost of student support more fairly between taxpayers, students and their parents.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, I am almost tempted to congratulate the noble Baroness on that reply. It appears that the Government intend to consider no alternative to what is regarded in academic circles as the most vicious and unjust scheme ever produced in academic history. That view is shared by many Members on both sides of this House. However, I am not so much interested in the future of the Tory Party as in the future of education in this country. Is the noble Baroness aware that this measure constitutes a grave threat to higher education and to staff and students, and that the scheme will not in any way save any money but will only cause grave embarrassment to students, their parents and the staff of our universities?
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not agree with anything that he has just said. I believe those parents who now find support for students a great burden will welcome the changes that will be brought about by the Education (Student Loans) Bill, as will some of those students who do not enjoy the full support of their parents who have an obligation to support them. It is a great pity that the noble Lord has not been able to take part and to put his point of view in the debates on the Bill so far.
§ Lord Rippon of HexhamMy Lords, I support the generality of the Government's proposal. However, will the Government give consideration to the idea that was put forward in The Times the other day by Sir Philip Goodhart whereby there could be some revival of the former scheme enabling graduates who become teachers, doctors or nurses to have some clawback, as it were, of the loan over a period of years?
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, I understand that the point that my noble friend made is the subject of an amendment to the Bill. All such detailed points are being considered as the Bill proceeds through this House.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, in view of the fact that your Lordships' House is quite rightly devoting a great dual of time to discussion of the Bill, is it necessary to have an additional debate at Question Time?
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, I believe that the Question is superfluous at this time. So far we have spent three days on the Bill. We shall spend most of next Monday on the Bill and then there will be Third Reading. There has been every opportunity for the noble Lord to put forward his points in that debate.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I was in this Chamber and listened to the notable speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Those speeches were approved of by university staff and students. Can the noble Baroness say what is the Government's estimate of the cost of all of this, which is going to disrupt higher education?
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, I do not believe that it will disrupt higher education. If the noble Lord is interested in the detail of the matter I suggest that he sits through the debates. He may learn the answer to his question.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords,—
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, my last question was fundamental. Will the noble Baroness tell the House and the country the cost of the scheme?