HL Deb 07 July 1998 vol 591 cc1096-117

64G Clause 19, page 14, line 30, at end insert—

("( ) Regulations under this section may make provision for the Secretary of State to secure that any arrangements for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth year of study at a higher education institution in England or Wales apply equally to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in Scotland or Northern Ireland as they do to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England or Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64F standing in my name. With it there are two other amendments, one standing in my name—namely, Amendment No. 123G—and one standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, Amendment No. 123E.

Amendments Nos. 123E and 123G are at the centre of the disagreement your Lordships are having with the other place. Perhaps I may explore the issue for a few minutes. I believe it is a very simple one. I can persuade your Lordships that we ought to disagree with the other place again.

Honours degrees at Scottish universities take four years. That is a long and honourable tradition. I was very surprised to read in Hansard of the other place for 8th of June (col. 794) that the Scottish Education Minister, Mr. Brian Wilson, described it as a "bogus tradition". I can assure your Lordships that there is nothing bogus about it. The Scottish universities and their graduates feel it to be a serious slur on the high reputation of Scottish universities to describe the four-years honours degree as bogus.

When the Government decided to charge £1,000 a year in tuition fees—we are not arguing about that today—they realised quite quickly that charging £4,000 for an honours degree in Scotland and £3,000 for an honours degree at an English or Welsh university, was not right. The Scottish Office rapidly agreed to fund the fourth year at Scottish universities only for Scottish-based students. So full marks to the Scottish Office. It did the right thing when it saw this issue coming up. However, it is a pity that yet again the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has been put into the firing line to defend decisions which are not his and when his department well realised what the problem was.

Having said something kind about the Scottish Office, I suspect that, unfortunately, lateral thinking is not its strong point. Many students from outside Scotland attend Scottish universities and they will all have to pay the extra £1,000, making a total of £4,000. That would at least have some logic about it, although it would have been unfair to students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

However, along came the killer punch for the Government, changing what I submit would be unfair into what I suggest is plain daft. Students from countries in the European Union have to be charged the same as Scottish students; in other words, the Scottish Office will have to fund the fourth-year tuition fees of anyone from Italy, France, the Republic of Ireland or any other member state of the European Union, except other parts of the United Kingdom. As I explained recently to your Lordships, when Mr. Brian Wilson, the Minister for Education and Industry, was asked on "The World at One" why a student from France should be asked to pay only £3,000 while a student from England will be asked to pay £4,000, he replied, "Because France is in the European Union", to which the interviewer replied, "Isn't England?". There is no answer to that.

We are now in a position where students from North Berwick in Scotland, from Bonn in Germany and even from Bosisio Parini in Italy, which some of your Lordships know is dear to my heart, will have to pay £3,000, yet students from Berwick-upon-Tweed in England will have to pay £4,000.

Perhaps I may look briefly at the Government's defences, if that is what they call them. The first defence is that the changes that your Lordships would like to make would cost £27 million and not the £2 million that everybody in the world, bar the Government, think that they would cost. I believe that the Government's assumptions are based on the proposition that they would have to pay for the fourth year of every student at an English or Welsh university. That has never been our intention. We have never asked for that. Your Lordships are not asking for that. What we have said—we do so again in Motion No. 64G—is that if the Government ever decided to introduce a special provision for Scottish students attending English and Welsh universities, that provision should not relate to only English and Welsh students but to all students from the United Kingdom. That is what Motion No. 64G seeks. Those provisions give the Government order-making powers. The ball is entirely in the Government's court. We are not forcing them to do anything.

If the Minister can say to me that the Government have no intention of introducing a grant for the fourth-year payment for any student attending an English university, I would be content to withdraw my first Motion. My intention is not to deal with England and Wales, but to ensure that there is no discrimination and that students from Scotland and Northern Ireland would not have to pay more if they went to an English university than would students from England and Wales. If I can be given the assurance that any future change made by the Government will treat students attending English and Welsh universities on the same basis, wherever they come from, there will be no great argument over my first Motion.

It is on my second Motion and on that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that we have a problem. Perhaps I may therefore consider all the other defences to the amazing proposition that students from all parts of the UK who are attending Scottish universities should not be treated in the same way. I note that it has been argued that all students coming from elsewhere in the UK to study at Scottish universities are "little rich kids" who attended private schools such as Eton, Wellington, Charterhouse and Westminster. Those schools were mentioned by Brian Wilson in the House of Commons. The class war will never be over as long as one breath remains in Mr. Brian Wilson's body.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said in an intervention when we last debated this, "What about the little rich kids from Scotland?". I do not know why I pluck this out of the air, but what about those "little rich kids" from Scotland who went Fettes'? Why should they receive a subsidy of £1,000 from Scottish taxpayers? The private school argument is bogus and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will not use it.

What about Northern Ireland? Are students from Northern Ireland "little rich kids" who have attended private schools? Perhaps I may quote briefly from a letter that I have received from Richard Baker, the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland. It states: NUS Scotland has been inundated with telephone calls from anxious students from Northern Ireland who wished to know if they could escape the additional £1,000 fee by gaining Scottish residency. We arranged to meet with a large number of them in Belfast". I understand that there is the ploy that if those students spend one night in Scotland just before they go to university, they might be able to claim Scottish residency and thus be absolved from the fee. I say "Good luck to them".

Mr. Baker continued: Of 40 or so students we met, not one was from a 'privileged elite'. None were well able to afford fees, none were confident of missing out the first year of the four year degree, and most did not have that option".

The Minister will tell us that if students do not come from the privileged élite, their parents will be means-tested and they will not have to pay, but there is a whole chunk of youngsters in the middle whose parents have reasonably well paid jobs but who are by no means rich or belong to the privileged élite, and they will have to pay. Those are the facts about Northern Ireland. Is it not ridiculous that when we are attempting to bring together people in the island of Ireland we have the proposition that if a youngster from Belfast attends Glasgow University he or she will have to pay £4,000, whereas a youngster from Dublin will have to pay only £3,000. That is unfair on any count.

Then there is the argument about what will happen to student numbers. The Scottish universities are particularly worried about this because a proportion of their students—in some universities, quite a high proportion—come from outside Scotland. To be honest, it is too early yet to say positively what will happen, but we do know that after years of seeing an increase in the number of applicants from England to Scottish universities, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, applications from England are showing a slight fall this year. That fall was initially denied by the Prime Minister, who said on 24th June that the numbers were up, not down. A week later, he had to put the record straight and admit that it was true that overall, for all Scottish education, there had been a fall in such applications. Perhaps the Prime Minister had been misinformed previously. However, he has now been properly informed. I know that it is his finger on the trigger, so I hope that he will look at this afresh, given that the facts that he seemed to be using are not correct.

There is also the point about second-year entry to Scottish universities. Only a tiny number of youngsters from outside Scotland enter in the second year. Your Lordships will be told in a little while that this year double the current number will be second-year entrants. Perhaps I should point out that "double the number" means an increase from 600 to 1,200. That is a lot, but when it is set against the background of 25,000 youngsters from England, I think that your Lordships will see that the vast majority of youngsters enter at the beginning of the first year. As I said when we last discussed this—I shall not go over it again because noble Lords who were present then will remember—the Association of University Teachers made it abundantly clear in a letter that it did not think that second-year entry was a sensible or wise option. Indeed, the association did not think that such a move was successful because within a few weeks of entry many second-year entrants—a very small proportion of all the youngsters attending Scottish universities—fall back from the second year to the first year. The fact is that the argument about second-year entry is bogus and the Government should not use it.

The last argument with which I want to deal is that youngsters in Scotland spend a year less in senior school than do youngsters in England. The proposition is that youngsters in Scotland go to university at the end of their fifth year. When we last discussed this, I reminded your Lordships that in a previous life I was the head of a mathematics department in a large comprehensive school which, I am pleased to say, sent many youngsters to Scottish universities. I must tell your Lordships that the vast majority of those youngsters stayed on for two years, taking more Highers or studying what was at that time the certificate of sixth-year studies, which in many ways was the equivalent of A-levels.

This bogus argument has been exposed not only by me but by Mr. Dennis Canavan, a Member of the other place, who was also the head of a mathematics department. (That is about the only thing that we have in common.) Mr. Canavan underlined the point that I have made to your Lordships when he said that in his experience the vast majority of youngsters went to university at the end of the sixth year.

All the arguments are bogus. I hope that I do not hear again the "fifth-year" argument. Nothing shows people's ignorance of the Scottish education system more than an argument such as this; it demonstrates that they are unaware of something upon which they are pontificating. I know that the noble Lord will not do that because he comes from the University of Aberdeen and knows what happens on the ground.

However one looks at this, the Government are in a hole and insist on continuing to dig. This afternoon noble Lords have before them an amendment that allows the Government to stop digging and throw away the spade. That appears to be the most sensible course to take.

I end where I began by referring to those who agree with me, or us if I may include the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood: the National Union of Students, which is not usually in the same camp as me; the Association of University Teachers; the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals; and all the Scottish media. That is certainly a novel experience. I have a letter from Mr. Baker, president of the National Union of Students Scotland, in which he writes: On behalf of the students of Scotland and in the interests of all UK students I ask you again to defend fairness. What was unjust and bad legislation last week has not been altered by the Commons this week. I recognise that we are asking Peers to vote against the Government for a third time on this issue and understand the possible consequences and sensitivities this will raise. I wish you to know that this is not a request that NUS Scotland would make lightly and is motivated by genuine indignation on the part of students at the inequity that the proposals seek to introduce".

I do not want to hear about the constitution or anything like that. Your Lordships will be in agreement with everyone else outside if you return this matter to the Commons today. You will be in agreement with the letter that appears in today's Times from the president of the NUS, the president of the NUS Scotland, the convenor of the NUS Northern Ireland and the president of the NUS Wales. Will the Government stop digging and start to listen?

Lord Barnett

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he will be aware that I always enjoy the noble Lord's bit of fun, particularly in a case where I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that he makes. However, he did not deal with why the other place rejected the amendment; namely that it involved a charge on public funds. I do not argue about the £27 million, £1 million or £2 million. But there is a major problem here. This is the third time that this matter is being considered. I am aware that the noble Lord has changed the amendment slightly, but basically he is rejecting the amendment of the elected Chamber and seeking to send it back. Is the noble Lord telling noble Lords that he is prepared to do that three times, four times or five times?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, perhaps I may rehearse what has happened. This Bill started off in this place. The first time on which noble Lords voted on the issue and inserted an amendment into the Bill they were not disagreeing with the Commons. They may have been disagreeing with the Government, but that is a different matter. The Bill then went to the Commons, who sent it back to us. We sent it back to the other place. This is only the second time that we have disagreed with the Commons. As I would expect from a former Chief Secretary, the noble Lord reminds me that the Commons believe this to be about money and that that reason may be deemed to be sufficient. I have read out the letter from the NUS. I do not believe that it is the view of the NUS that it is sufficient or that the public regard it as sufficient. I believe that we should ask the Commons to think again.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 64D in lieu of Commons amendment No. 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 64E, but do propose Amendment No. 64G in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill.—

(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

Lord Steel of Aikwood

My Lords, normally when I rise to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, it is strongly to disagree with him. Therefore, this is a very pleasant change. It takes my mind back to the time when he and I debated together as students at Scottish universities, no doubt paid for by the state. I see the noble Lord nodding in agreement. Certainly, it was paid for in my case. We had the good fortune to be students in the days when we were financed by the State, in my case for five and not four years. I was not a dilatory student but took two co-ordinated degrees. It is a pleasure to follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The fact that he has covered the ground so fully means that I can speak briefly.

I begin by dealing with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. My Amendment No. 123E is much more tightly drawn than the proposal previously rejected by the Commons, costing some £27 million. If the noble Lord looks at the Marshalled List he will see that my amendment is even more tightly drawn than his second amendment. My amendment refers specifically to the fourth year of study for first degree courses at Scottish universities. The estimated cost to public funds is £2 million, not £27 million, and does not come into effect until the year 2001. We are considering here a very modest amount of public expenditure to remove a glaring anomaly in the Bill which would arise if we rejected the proposal of the Commons without putting anything in its place.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The amount of money involved in this case is irrelevant. The reason that has been given is that it involves a charge to public funds. That is the reason given by the other place, not that the cost is £27 million or £500,000.

Lord Steel of Aikwood

My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said, but surely the amount involved is relevant. It will be for the Commons to consider the matter if we send back a new proposal which is more limited. In considering that matter, the Commons will take into account the cost of the proposal contained in the Bill. That is my plea to the House this afternoon.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, when the proposal to introduce tuition fees was put forward, this particular anomaly had not been spotted. When the Scottish Office quite properly reached its decision to extend the payment of fees through to the fourth year and this anomaly was spotted, the reaction of the Government was one of ministerial bluster in both Houses. That has been the situation throughout. We have heard bogus arguments about how Scottish students tend to leave school in the fifth and not the sixth year. That is untrue. Unfortunately, we do not have any statistics but anecdotal evidence based on our particular experience shows that, like myself, most students who enter Scottish universities stay on for a sixth year at Scottish schools, just as students in England do. All the schools in Scotland, not just Fettes, at which students take O and A-levels instead of Scottish Highers—there are many of them—presumably will be allowed to send on their pupils, who will have their fees paid, whereas students who take exactly the same examinations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not.

That is an indefensible proposition. We on these Benches have been advised that on legal grounds it is so indefensible that, ironically, just as the House proposes to introduce into our legislation the European Convention on Human Rights it is possible that the first challenge against the Government will be on this very issue. Rather than spend money on legal fees defending this issue in the courts, the Government would be wise to incur the modest amount of public expenditure that is required to put right this anomaly.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, kindly spared us yet more of his family history. We all begin to feel part of his extended family in Italy. But he is right that the anomalies are so gross that a student from Cumbria will have to pay the £1,000 but a student from Umbria will not; a student from Birmingham will have to pay the £1,000 but a student from Barcelona will not; a student from Colchester will pay the £1,000 but a student from Cologne will not; and a student from Doncaster will pay £1,000 but a student from Düsseldorf will not. I could go on. The comparison that I particularly like is between the student from Rotherham who pays £1,000 and the student from Rotterdam who does not. But the most glaring anomaly is the one raised by the noble Lord; namely, that relating to the island of Ireland. How can we, at this fraught moment, be passing a Bill which suggests that students from Northern Ireland pay £1,000 whereas students from the south do not? It is an absurd proposition.

Perhaps I may quote a little further from the letter from the president of the NUS of Scotland to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred. I do so because I welcome the presence on the Government Front Bench of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who, when I first knew her, was president of the Scottish Union of Students. We all bowed down to her and we bow down to her again today. I hope that she will listen to what her successor in office says on this matter. He, referring to the students from Northern Ireland, states: These students wish to study in Scotland for various and very genuine reasons. Most wish to study courses that are not offered by the few higher education institutions in Northern Ireland. Having to leave Northern Ireland to study, many students also stated that Scotland was nearer; that the Scottish education system was attractive; that they had family connections or other ties there; and were familiar with a wider Scottish culture over that of the rest of the UK. Their choice of study in Scotland, and not elsewhere in the UK, is now to have greater financial consequences for their parents, and is clouding a time for optimism with dilemma and doubt". I believe that he is right.

He concludes his letter by saying: Students in Scotland greatly value the diversity of the student body. We seek to defend the equal choice of all students to benefit from Scottish higher education, and their residence in the UK remains an arbitrary distinction void of educational or moral ground". I believe that to be the case. I know that the Government may try to advance the constitutional argument, and so I address it finally.

We are a revising Chamber. It is not up to us to overturn finally the views of the other place. We are a revising Chamber. What does that mean? It does not mean that we have to do whatever the Government wish, and certainly not when the Government command an overwhelming majority in the other place, and when on this issue there have been at least 30 abstentions on the government side in the other place, because of the great concern, especially among Scottish Members.

This proposal appeared nowhere in a manifesto. No one would write such an absurd manifesto. Therefore, it is reasonable that we ask for a modest rethink by the Government. I hope that they will accept my Motion No. 123D. If they do not, I intend to press it to a Division, because it is no part of our function to legislate nonsense, and certainly not when it is nonsense on stilts.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Shore of Stepney

My Lords, it would be incomplete if this chorus of complaint was not joined by at least one Labour voice. I am certain that what I have to say reflects the strong majority opinion of my colleagues on these Benches. I must say that I think also that what I am going to say will reflect the opinion of most of my colleagues in the other place, who, if they were allowed a free vote on the issue, would make quite clear their own feeling of repugnance at what is being proposed. I use the word "repugnance" deliberately.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, went straight to the heart of the matter, and deployed the strongest argument of all, which is that this is a matter of principle; it is a matter of discrimination. It is discrimination against our fellow countrymen. It is discrimination in the sense that while Scottish students, very properly, are being exempted in their fourth year from payment of fees, English students who go to Scottish universities are having to pay for the fourth year. Welsh students are having to pay; Northern Ireland students are having to pay.

On top of that, which is discrimination that to me is wholly unacceptable, we learn that the whole of the student population of our 14 neighbour states in the EU is to be exempt as well, while our own people, our own students, are to have this imposition placed upon them. My Lords, this is incredible! It is folly beyond all belief. It is not just discrimination; it is reverse discrimination. It is positive discrimination in favour of the 14 countries of the EU—a new dimension of positive discrimination, and positive discrimination against the people of our own land. Never will we accept this. I tell my right honourable friends now that they have to take this back, and they have to think about it again.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord and make a further, even wider, point. During the debate in another place the responsible Scottish Office Minister, Mr. Brian Wilson, commented that this is a peripheral aspect of the Bill. Noble Lords will appreciate that it is not peripheral. There cannot now be many people in Scotland who think that it is peripheral: first, because of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, has just made—it is unjust and it is discrimination—and, secondly, because of its crucial political implications from Scotland's viewpoint.

To charge UK students from outside Scotland for the same course in Scotland more than resident Scots are charged will undermine one of Scotland's greatest assets. Many students who choose to come to Scotland do so because they are attracted by our four-year honours degree. They find themselves enjoying life north of the Border, and stay on to work or live there, or return later in their lives as opportunity offers. That helps Scotland to be the cosmopolitan, outward-looking, talented place that it is.

At present, the SNP's anti-English thinking, and the threat that that thinking may be reflected as time goes on in the policy of the Scots parliament, is a great worry, I know, to many of your Lordships. It is certainly a worry across Scotland. Had the noble Earl, Lord Perth, been here he would have made that point.

This Labour Government are insisting on sending out the same SNP-type message: English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students must pay more just because they do not live in Scotland. The matter is no less frightening because it happened, as several noble Lords have said, as a result of a mistaken, snap decision by Scottish Office Ministers. Indeed, it is widely known—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—that Mr. Brian Wilson wanted to put the matter right by producing the necessary £2 million from the Scottish Office budget. Presumably he had the money set aside to do so, but that was blocked, I understand, by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment himself. I am not sure what the Minister's part in this was, but the noble Baroness certainly knew the feelings in this House, and I am sure responded to them.

Second chambers have their uses. It may well be that this example indicates that the Scots parliament may need a second chamber. In the meantime, this is the second Chamber of the Parliament of the whole of the UK. The Government have made a damaging mistake. The other place should have the courage, even now, to recognise that, to stand up to the Government and to put it right. This House should give it that opportunity by voting for one or other of these Motions.

For the sake of many students of the Scots universities, of the universities themselves, and, above all, for the future of the Union, I hope that your Lordships will express a sensible opinion.

Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

My Lords, Perhaps I may reinforce some of the thinking behind what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has just said. First, I declare a non-financial interest as Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out, it will not be unknown to the Minister, who was a distinguished and effective member of staff.

This is not an issue of fees, as has already been said. Fees are tough on many students, but they are justifiable as a way of financing our universities. I do not believe that it is even a question of numbers. As regards the University of Aberdeen, up to now the effect on numbers of good students applying does not seem to be great.

I suggest that the real issue is different: it is more subtle; it is more important. It is the psychology of what we are in danger of putting in place if we are discriminatory. That is particularly important at this moment in the history of Scotland. It is surely a time when we should want our universities in Scotland to have the maximum number of young people from elsewhere in the United Kingdom enjoying a shared experience. It is surely not a time when people who come from outwith Scotland to Scottish universities should feel that they are being discriminated against. Whether or not they can afford it, the psychology of that discrimination is wrong, and in particular at this moment in the history of Scotland.

I imagine that at this stage it is impossible to guess what will happen at the end of this yo-yoing on amendments between your Lordships' House and another place. However, at the end of the day when the dust has settled and the guns are silent, perhaps I may appeal to the Government and Ministers to look for ways in which the universities in Scotland can be inclusive and including and not exclusive and excluding.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney is not alone. He beat me on to his feet. I am glad that he did so because he spoke with the enormous experience and authority of a long reign as Secretary of State and from holding many posts in the Labour Party. He was absolutely right. From my conversations, many people on this side of the House are most unhappy about this matter. Indeed, I can assure the House that many on this side of the Chamber are unhappy that we are charging tuition fees. Many people joined this party because they believed in equality of education. It is part of the classless society about which New Labour is talking; that there should be no discrimination in education; and it has brought us to this point. Had we not decided that we should charge tuition fees, we should not be arriving at this absurd point in time where the Government are insisting that people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be charged more for being educated in Scottish universities than people from almost anywhere in the world.

It is nonsense. The danger to the Labour Party is that this sort of nonsense will undermine its position. It will not be the great affairs of state but the little things that people cannot understand. Ordinary working folk, the people in factories and offices, will not understand why English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students have to pay £4,000 for a course in Scotland, while Italians, Southern Irish and Scots have to pay only £3,000. They will laugh their sides off. They will ask, "What sort of people can do this? Who is advising them? Why do they take the advice that they are receiving if that sort of nonsense is being handed out to them?" I appeal to my noble friend to understand what damage it will do to the new Government out in the country among the ordinary people, who are commonsensical and will not understand the discrimination being imposed on many of our countrymen by the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Finally, we in this House not only have the power, we have the duty, if we feel we are right, to insist on amendments. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 are specific. They give this House limited power; and that limited power is to delay legislation. It is perfectly right, proper and reasonable for this House—it is the only second Chamber and revising Chamber that we have—to use its powers to the full. If the House were restricted in any way because expenditure were involved—expenditure is involved in any Bill we discuss—the Speaker of the House of Commons would have certified it as a money Bill and that would have restricted us completely.

So we have the power. We have the desire. If my noble friend will not accept the amendment, let us hope we have the will to insist once again that we will not vote for nonsense and absurdity.

3.45 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is overwhelming. It is based on principle. The principle has been made entirely clear by the two noble Lords and others who have spoken: that those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be discriminated against in relation to Scots for the fees that they pay at Scottish universities.

Against that, no decision of principle is placed as a counterweight. It is a matter of expediency. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, put a figure on that expediency. It is not a large figure: it is £2 million. When principle is opposed to expediency, there can be only one way forward. Some noble Lords will have noted the exhibition in Westminster Hall on the life of William Ewart Gladstone and will have seen at the heart of that exhibition the sentence that his parliamentary life was based upon the supremacy of principle over expediency. I believe that to be entirely right. That is the issue at stake in this matter. This House should say to the other House that it is a matter of principle and we believe that the principle should triumph.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I speak as someone who moved from the English system to the Scottish system. My parents were in the income bracket at which I would have been expected to pay fees. While not receiving full funding support under the new arrangement, there would not have been sufficient income to make the matter irrelevant. Under such circumstances, no English student will go into the Scottish system where he is required to pay more money. It would place an extra burden on parental support.

One is not best prepared to enter such a system by A-levels. One needs the extra year. Four years' work are required for an honours degree. Therefore one effectively asks people to go into a new system for which they are not prepared through their current examinations. It is universally accepted that the A-level system is not the perfect way to encourage people into higher education. It is exclusive. Could anyone construct a system which is better designed to put off students from within the same sovereign state? I suggest that you would have to try pretty damned hard to come up with something as good.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the court of Napier University in Edinburgh. The court of Napier is not impressed by the Government's arguments on this issue. It had hoped that the recent sizeable vote in your Lordships' House would have persuaded the Government to think again.

It is not a question of money, although that is certainly part of the issue we are debating today. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said, what is important is that it is positive discrimination and that cannot be tolerated. That is why, if the Government are not going to weaken on this issue, I advise your Lordships to resist.

Viscount Waverley

My Lords, is any Labour Back Bench Peer going to be supporting the Government on this point?

Lord Dearing

My Lords, while the Back Bench Labour Peers make up their minds, perhaps I may offer myself once again as the villain of the occasion. I have listened with respect and admiration to the speeches. I confess that when I left your Lordships' Chamber after the last debate I wondered whether the solution to the dilemma might be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to find the £2 million to enable the one year's charge to be forgone for students of Wales, Northern Ireland and England. I found that an attractive solution.

I then read the speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place on 1st July when he explained that he was not persuaded that it was a good policy to do that. If I recall the essence of his argument, it was that there are 33,000 applicants for places at Scottish universities from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If I remember rightly, there are about 4,000 to 5,000 places normally taken. The Secretary of State's conclusion was that out of the 33,000, there will surely be enough to fill 4,000 to 5,000 places. He did not think that Scottish universities would be short of entrants in consequence. Therefore, it seemed to him, as I read his argument, that Scotland would not gain from spending that £2 million which I had envisaged as being the answer.

I would describe what we are discussing as a bizarre anomaly. The second element in the equation is whether a concession of £2 million by the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he were so minded, could be offered without making a similar concession to all those students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who also take a fourth year. On what grounds could that be done? If, as a matter of principle—and the principle is being debated—there should be equality for all our young people, that would mean an additional cost of £27 million.

Looking at the three political parties which gave evidence to my committee, I asked myself whether money is plentiful. The resounding answer is that it is very scarce. Is it therefore in the interests of the Secretaries of State responsible for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to allocate £27 million for that purpose rather than for other needs which exist?

In education, there is real devolution, and rightly so. Countries have their distinctive traditions. Scotland has a very great and proud one. In my reports I have often advocated adoption of Scottish practice. However, to turn to those other countries, what is Northern Ireland's greatest need? Do your Lordships know that, not through choice but through lack of places, 40 per cent. of students have to leave Northern Ireland to find a place in a university. The pressing need there is for the capital to greatly enlarge its university establishment. It also needs money for research.

I turn next to Wales. In that country, the level of funding per student is lower than in England and 10 per cent. lower than in Scotland. One is concerned about that. Is the level of funding adequate for the students we have? And then there is the need for research to support the Welsh economy.

In England there is a crisis over funding for research. World-class quality research is in peril because, over the years, the funding has not been provided. In addition, the participation rate, as in Wales, is now only just over 30 per cent. In my view, it is very much in the national interest to follow Scotland's example and push that figure up to 45 per cent. I agree again that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been very wise because I believe that 40 per cent. of those places are at sub-degree level to meet the need for high-level technicians in our economy.

Therefore, there is an issue of principle. Can one do this for Scotland without doing the same for England? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland, had he been so minded, might have differentiated but he was not willing to do so. Therefore, there is an issue of principle for your Lordships to consider; namely, equity. Is what I would describe as a bizarre anomaly under which 354 students from other parts of the European Union have a free fourth year sufficient cause for spending £27 million? My position would be that if a Secretary of State for Scotland had been prepared to find the £2 million and the students' union had recognised that in equity that should not be offered to students going to institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should vote for the amendment. But, as a matter of equity, were that not so, I should find it very difficult to do so.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on rising in place of Labour Back Benchers. But before I turn my attention to him, I should like first to take up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to whom I listened with great care, attention and, as always on Treasury matters, with respect.

I understand that privilege is now being claimed by another place for the first time because it is the first time that it is sending the matter back to us. I agree with the noble Lord that where privilege is claimed, that is normally taken as sufficient. But it is worth continuing to the second half of the sentence in the Companion which states: But they", that is, this House, may offer amendments in lieu of amendments which have been disagreed to by the Commons on the ground of privilege". Those words are perfectly clear and unambiguous. It says that we are well within our rights in doing what we are doing now. Those words in the Companion echo exactly the words on page 803 of Erskine May. If another place wants once again to insist on privilege, it may do so. But it has not yet done so.

The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, addressed his argument very largely to an assumption of a cost of £27 million. As my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said, that was not our intention and never was. It is not the effect of the present amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, asks how we should address that distinction. Between England and Scotland, there is a clear distinction on ground on nationality. If you are going to condemn discrimination at all, discrimination on the ground of nationality is one of the clearest ones to condemn.

I do not intend to defend discrimination between subjects, which is what we have with the English fourth year. But where there is a discrimination in terms of subject, it is at least a discrimination in terms of what people are actually doing. People doing different things are treated in different ways. While I do not like that, I do not see in it the clear iniquity which I see in discrimination on the ground of nationality.

The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said also that the Scots would continue to be able to fill their places. That may well be true. But it is a vital principle of academic selection that you should select on academic merit. Why should we be discouraged from doing that?

For the third and, I hope, the last time, I wish to raise the question of whether what the Government are doing is contrary to European law. I accept fully that it is not contrary to European law to discriminate between your own subjects. Discrimination between English and Scots is not contrary to European law. But discrimination between the English on the one hand and people from Rotterdam, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Umbria, or wherever, bears an appearance of being contrary to Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome. The Minister told me in Committee that he was confident that that was not so. I still await an explanation of his confidence. If I do not receive it, I shall conclude that either the Government are not confident, as they allege, or they do not give a tinker's cuss whether or not what they do is contrary to European law.

I would regret either of those conclusions. It is not often in this House that amendments are carried by a majority of 123. It is not often that we move to send amendments back to another place a second time. However, the argument in this case is so clear and the content so small that this seems to me to be one issue on which this House may well press another place to think again. It is small enough for us to pass. As I was told when I arrived in this House, we are the Mrs. Mops of the legislative process. This is the dust behind the door which, in puckish mood, I wish to sweep away, and I see no reason why I should not.

If noble Lords were not allowed to change something as small as this, then I wonder whether the Government really want a revising chamber because it is no good having a revising chamber which only revises when you want it to.

I remember in 1990 my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley introduced an amendment to bring in dog registration. The then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, formed the opinion that dog registration is socialism. This House knows a good deal about dogs. It was not persuaded. My noble kinsman set out to ask the House to think again, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was so disturbed by this that she made a Minister who had just got off an aeroplane in Tokyo for an important international meeting come straight back to London in order to vote my noble kinsman down. That, I am told, is one of the moments which led people to decide that the noble Baroness's time had come, as six weeks later it had. It took the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, 10 years to get to that point; the present Prime Minister has done it in one.

4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)

My Lords, the amendments are being debated in one group so it will be helpful for me to indicate now that the Government assume that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, intends the amendments to be taken as a package and that, accordingly, if Amendment No. 64G is passed, the Government will take that as a decision also in favour of Amendment No. 123G.

The substance of today's debate is a product of the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a single, uniform education system, and long may that be the case.

There is diversity, and the Government rightly rejoice in that diversity. But diversity has the potential to create anomalies, and that is essentially what we are debating today.

The English school system articulates primarily with the English higher education system. The Scottish school system articulates with the Scottish higher education system. In England, transfer from school to university takes place after the two-year 'A' level course. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, listens carefully to my next words. In Scotland, transfer from school to university takes place after Highers, which are single year courses. Of course, many Scottish students, my own children included, stay on for a sixth year, but in doing so either add additional Highers to the batch they took in the fifth year or follow the single year Certificate of Sixth Year Studies. They do not follow an integrated two-year progressive course. That is a fundamental difference between the two systems.

It is because of these differences that the two education systems produce two lengths of honours degrees: in England the traditional honours degree, following a two-year A-level course has been a three-year course, while the honours degree in Scotland, after Highers, has been obtained over four years. That was recognised by the Garrick Committee, the Scottish committee serving the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Its report stated:

The two frameworks are different, most notably at the level of, and articulation with, school-level qualifications. This has a concomitant effect upon the rest of the higher education system in Scotland". Clearly a difficulty arises with the introduction of charging for tuition fees. Prior to that it was not, I accept, a great concern. If nothing had been done to recognise that disarticulation between the two systems, then the English student attending an English university would have been charged £3,000, while the Scottish student attending a Scottish university would have been charged £4,000 for the same final qualification, an undergraduate honours degree. That situation would have been iniquitous: there is total agreement across the House on that point. That was the anomaly that both Dearing and Garrick recognised.

The Garrick Report, in recommendation 29, stated:

We recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that, if a graduate contribution is introduced, the Secretary of State should ensure that the contribution from Scottish graduates for qualifications gained in Scotland is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK". Dearing supported that position. Garrick and Dearing recognised the anomaly; they proposed an equitable solution, and that is precisely what the Government have sought to include in the Bill.

Our proposal, as we have heard this afternoon, has the support and endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I ask noble Lords to reflect upon the highly analytical and persuasive contribution that the noble Lord has made to the debate.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, of whose pronouncements I have long experience, and I was totally unconvinced. He suggested that somehow or other the concession would spill over from Scottish four-year courses to English four-year courses and therefore that the amount could rise from £2 million to £27 million. He might as well have said that we can spend a lot more money on aircraft carriers. You can always drown any case for expenditure if you make the reference wide enough.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I shall reply directly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because it is actually bound up with the proposals that the House is being invited to support by the two Opposition parties. Indeed, rather than removing an anomaly, the proposal before us this afternoon would actually create a greater anomaly.

I ask the House quite simply to consider the example of a family living in England in, say, Berwick. On the basis of the amendment before us, let us say that the son decides to follow a four-year degree course at the University of Edinburgh reading engineering. He would pay £3,000. However, the daughter following a similar four-year degree in engineering at, say, the University of Durham, would pay £4,000. That would be the precise effect of the amendments that your Lordships' House is being asked to vote for today. I believe that that is a gross and intolerable anomaly.

The Opposition have actually sought to fight on the ground of equity, but they have actually sunk into the very ground upon which they have chosen to fight. However, let us look briefly at the other arguments which have been advanced. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Is not the defect in that argument the fact that one should look at the university and ask whether a particular student of English origins is being treated less favourably than a student of Scottish origins in relation to that university? If that is the right approach, how can the noble Lord square it with the European Convention on Human Rights, which expressly says that there should be no discrimination in relation to the right to education on grounds of anything, including nationality?

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I can reply to that and I shall, at the same time, reply to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the advice that the Government have received as regards whether this action, our proposals or our policy are compatible with European law. Members of your Lordships' House know well that the detail of legal advice that the Government receive is not revealed to this House.

However, the noble Earl laid down a challenge. He said that I responded in Committee that I was confident we could stand a challenge and asked whether I could go one better than that today. The answer is yes: on the basis of the advice that we have received, I am very confident that we can withstand the challenge.

Earl Russell

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why he is "very confident"?

Lord Sewel

My Lords, it is because I know what the advice is.

Let us move on and look briefly at some of the other arguments which have been advanced—

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister clear up the question of whether this issue is about nationality? Am I not right in thinking that if I were born in Scotland, but educated in the English system and wished to apply to a Scottish higher education system, I would be treated as an English student because I am in an English educational institution and that it is nothing to do with my nationality?

4.15 p.m.

Lord Sewel

Absolutely, my Lords. I thank my noble friend for that point. It has nothing at all to do with nationality, but it has everything to do with domicile. Indeed, domicile goes together with the school system that one passes through. My noble friend is absolutely right.

There has been scaremongering. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, because he did not indulge in that this afternoon, although he got very close to it on an earlier occasion. There has been scaremongering about a disproportionate drop in the number of other UK applications to Scottish universities. I have used these figures before. I hope that that is why the noble Lord has modified his argument. The drop in English applicants is less than the overall drop in applications to Scottish universities—a figure of 4.1 per cent. compared to one of 4.5 per cent.

I should like to deal with the argument about the European Union. I realise that this excites a great deal of interest on the part of my noble friend Lord Shore and other noble Lords. Having been a university teacher for some 30 years, I have been sitting here on the Front Bench trying to think how many students from European countries I taught who went through the full four years of a Scottish honours degree. Over the course of the debate, which lasted for about 45 minutes, I have managed to think of four. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned, the total number of European Union students in Scotland who would benefit from this anomaly—if one terms it as such—would be 354.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how long ago he did his teaching? Indeed, in the past 10 years I think he might have found that the figures would be rather different.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's question is that I stopped teaching on, I believe, 30th April of last year.

It is also right to ask the question: who would actually benefit most from the proposals standing in the name of Opposition Peers? The answer is simple; namely, those in least need of assistance. The reason being—and, again, I put it simply—that it was calculated that one-third of students going from England to Scotland would pay no fee at all. Indeed, one-third would pay part of the fee and one-third would pay the full fee. That would be the impact on the students. That is a message that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will take back to his friends in the National Union of Students in Scotland, who also happen to be my former students.

We should also remember that the full £1,000 fee would represent only about 5 per cent. of the additional cost that an English domiciled student would choose to accept in deciding to take a four-year Scottish honours degree. The additional maintenance costs and the income forgone during that extra year are much more significant than any additional fee. If we are looking for some kind of cost deterrence, it is much greater in terms of income forgone than any additional fee of £1,000. As I pointed out, the full fee of £1,000 would be paid by only one-third of the students coming across the Border from England.

It is necessary to take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, did not want us to discuss but which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, did in fact raise: namely, the role and function of this House. We must recognise that this is the third time that we have debated the issue. The history of this disagreement is that the House put its proposition to the House of Commons. The Commons replied and this House asked it to think again. The House of Commons has now done so. In sending back their reasons to us today, those in the other place have asserted their absolute right to authorise the expenditure of public funds. I trust that no one in this House would question that right of the elected Chamber. Again, I believe that noble Lords should consider carefully the points made by my noble friend Lord Barnett in an earlier intervention.

I accept—and no one is arguing against this—that it is quite proper, although I might not always like it or find it comfortable, for this House as an unelected Second Chamber to give the opportunity to the elected House to think again. But that has been achieved; indeed, it has already been done. The other place has thought again and has decided, clearly decided, to support the Government's view. I simply ask the question: what in these circumstances is the proper response of your Lordships' House? Is it to stand in the way of the clear and deliberate will of the other place?

On a radio programme broadcast yesterday morning the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made some interesting but incomplete statements. In that interview he said: We're perfectly within our rights to ask the other House to think again". There is nothing between us on that. The other House has thought again. The noble Viscount continued, referring to my noble friend Lord Richard: He knows as well as I do that in the end the elected chamber will win. I mean quite right too". I invite the noble Viscount, if he wishes, to clarify not just the meaning of those words but the actions that flow from them. What should your Lordships' House take from those words today? As I said, the Government rejoice in the diversity—

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving my poor choice of words additional réclame. I can answer his challenge by saying that I hope my words mean exactly what I thought they meant, and the meaning that he intended to convey when he issued his challenge just now.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I take it from what the noble Viscount has said that he has no intention of revisiting this issue at a later date.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Sewel

My Lords, that tells us everything! I quote the noble Viscount's words again: He knows as well as I do that in the end the elected chamber will win, I mean quite right too". We are getting some weasel words about wait and see now. We shall wait to see what happens, and noble Lords opposite can wait to see what happens too. This is democracy. It is the House at the other end of the building that is democratically elected and that has considered this issue, has thought again and has sent it back to your Lordships' House. That House will most likely think again, but how many times is it right and proper for an unelected Chamber to reach the stage of defying the will of the elected Chamber?

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, would it not be more proper—

Earl Russell

My Lords—

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I shall answer the two, but I prefer them one at a time.

Earl Russell

My Lords, it is perfectly clear that Members of another place the first time misunderstood the question we intended to ask. They believed that we were asking a question involving £27 million; we were asking a question involving £2 million. We now wish to ask another place to think about the question we really wish to ask.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, is that the end of it?

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I merely wish the Minister to use the proper words about the other place. They do not think about it; they respond.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I shall make sure that my colleagues in another place are aware of that comment. As I said, the Government rejoice in the diversity of education provision in the United Kingdom. We recognise that in some circumstances diversity of itself can, and does, produce anomalies. We have tackled those anomalies. We have followed the advice of Garrick and Dearing and dealt with the anomaly of the fourth year for Scottish students. Far from removing an anomaly the proposition we are faced with today would create an even greater anomaly. On grounds of policy and on grounds of the proper role and function of your Lordships' House, I invite noble Lords to reject these amendments.

Baroness Ludford

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope I may ask him a question on a matter which he did not deal with in the debate. There has been reference to the unfortunate political timing of the discrimination as regards fees between Northern Irish and Irish students and between English and other European students. The Minister did not cover that. If the House does not feel there is time to do so, I accept that, but I should have liked the Minister to cover that point.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, it is important that on any matter relating to Northern Ireland at this time we weigh our words carefully. I shall try to do that. It is clear that there is a major difference as regards the way students coming from the Irish Republic will be treated. There is not a great number of those students. As I said, the total number in Scottish universities from the whole of the European Union is 354. There are clearly many more students from Northern Ireland. They will be covered in the same way as students from England and Wales. I think that is fair and equitable.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I must start by saying that I have some sympathy with the predicament that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, finds himself in as I can recall a number of occasions when I spoke from that Dispatch Box in the teeth of opposition from the main Opposition party, the Liberal Democrats, the Cross Benches, the Bishops' Bench and from my own Back Benches. My only advice to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—which I have to say I did not always take myself—is to give in gracefully because otherwise he will have to give in slowly and probably before the courts.

However, I was not in the least convinced by the argument despite the noble Lord's best endeavours. I noticed that he had changed the argument about the one year and two years in secondary education. He had changed it from the position in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who at least came to his defence, which stated that Scottish students have had only one year's education after statutory schooling. Clearly, as we have not heard that this afternoon I have knocked that particular little untruth on the head. However, there is the subtle change that the Highers are only a single year course. Many students take a little longer than a year to obtain their Higher. Therefore, that is not entirely a good argument.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, thought he had delivered the killer punch, as it were, when he discussed the family in Berwick with a son who goes to Edinburgh University and pays £3,000 and a daughter who goes to Durham University and pays £4,000. However, the son who goes to Edinburgh and who, under our amendments, would pay £3,000 would be in the same queue, paying the same £3,000, as students from everywhere else in the UK and everywhere else in the European Union. The daughter going to Durham and paying £4,000 would pay the same £4,000 as students coming from every part of the UK and every part of the European Union. The noble Lord destroyed his own argument by that example.

This is the third time we have debated this matter but it is only the second time we have asked the Commons to think again. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, the Speaker has not certified this as a money Bill. We have changed the amendments quite considerably. I thought I had laid aside the argument about the £27 million. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, decided to home in on that again. I have laid it aside and I shall indicate in a second or two that I am prepared to lay it even further aside.

Your Lordships have spoken. I have invited the Government, when in a hole, to stop digging. Frankly, when I am winning I think I should stop and just let the Division occur. But before I do I wish to help the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I am content to rely on the position in England and Wales that there will be no discrimination between Scottish and Northern Irish students at English and Welsh universities as regards fees. Therefore I shall withdraw my Motion to enable us to concentrate entirely on the other two amendments, in particular that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. If, as I fully expect, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, calls a Division, I shall invite my noble friends and other noble Lords, who have listened to this argument and realise the strength of all the speeches they have heard, to join the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and myself in the Lobby to ask the Commons to think again. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 64D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 64E, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.

On Question, Motion agreed to.