Scotland: Tuition Fees (Hansard, 12 May 1999)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, the policy on tuition fees announced in July 1997 remains throughout the United Kingdom. It was designed to ensure that only those who could afford to do so would contribute. It is estimated that no more than 30 per cent of students will be required to pay the full amount.
The next part of the Answer will not come as a surprise to the noble Baroness. From 1st July education in Scotland will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

Baroness Young
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the first part of his Answer, which was quite standard and anybody who has followed this matter expected that to be his reply. However, I am sure that the noble Lord values the great fruits that have come from devolution and the second part of his response is more important. It raises a serious issue as to whether or not tuition fees will be introduced at Scottish universities. Will the Minister indicate on behalf of the Government how they view such a situation? Does he recognise that it will have a serious effect on the staff and courses at universities throughout the United Kingdom, quite apart from the effect that it will have on students and their parents? We have a right to expect the Government to have thought through this policy and to tell us who will be paying for it.

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, as I indicated in my initial reply, education—including the whole business of higher education expenditure and student finance—is a devolved matter. It is therefore open to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to develop policies that they believe suitable in all the circumstances.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, perhaps I in turn may thank the Minister for the second part of his initial Answer. Is he aware that after 1st July we will have to consider how far Questions such as this will be in order? Does he know whose responsibility it will be to decide that matter? If not, will he make it his business to find out?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, I have had enough difficulty coming up with an answer to this question, let alone finding an answer to the second supplementary. However, the noble Earl is quite right. There is an issue at hand on how matters relating to Scotland will be addressed in this House. I am sure that other minds are bending to that matter as we speak.

§ Lord Shore of Stepney
My Lords, will my noble friend pass on to those who will be responsible next year for fees and payments in Scottish universities that on several occasions over the past two years this House has expressed its disgust at the odious act of discrimination which is now the practice under which Scottish and European Union students are exempted from certain fees, whereas English, Welsh and Northern Ireland 1199 students have them imposed upon them? Will he ensure that his right honourable friends in the other place have this drawn to their attention?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, it is absolutely right and proper that a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Executive should deal with the issue of tuition fees for Scottish universities and for Scottish domiciled students. That is rightly a matter for that Parliament and I do not intend to interfere.

§ Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, is it part of the new politics of consensus, compromise and coalition that the least popular party in the new Scottish Parliament should make non-negotiable demands on that Parliament and that the major party in the Scottish Parliament should take its orders from Whitehall? What are the implications for England if the Scottish Parliament decides to use the powers given to it by this Government to ignore the instructions of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and abolishes tuition fees in Scotland? Is it part of the new politics that the Parliament of Scotland and the Assembly in Wales, whether in relation to tuition fees or beef on the bone, should dictate policy to Westminster?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, we still have a little to learn about the nature of devolution.

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, perhaps we could organise special needs classes. The point is that, on an issue affecting education and higher education, there is clearly an English and a Scottish interest. When this House was discussing the Scotland Bill there was not a single dissenting voice either in Committee or on Report saying that any aspect of higher education in Scotland should somehow be reserved. We must accept that, having given responsibility for that area of policy to the Scottish Parliament, it will proceed in what it considers to be an appropriate and responsible way. It is not a matter of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly dictating to anybody.

§ Lord Tope
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in my pleasure in the news we have just received that my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood has just been elected as Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament.
The Minister confirmed rightly that the question of who pays the students' tuition fees in Scotland is entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament and I hope he will confirm that his colleagues, like my colleagues, are free to make their own decisions in that Parliament. Does he agree with me that the unfairness that might result from that could be much more easily resolved if this Parliament were to abolish tuition fees in the rest of the United Kingdom?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, no. I ask those who have an interest in tuition fees in Scotland to pay attention to some of the voices that have been heard more recently, particularly from representatives from the Association of 1200 University Teachers in Scotland. Indeed, one of its spokesmen, a former prominent Liberal Democrat, argued against a "quick fix" type of decision in this area.
Similarly, we should all recognise the contribution of Mr. Ian Graham-Bryce, convenor of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, who made clear that the concern of the principals was not with the future of tuition fees as such but with the bigger cause of widening access and ending social exclusion. Those are noble and proper objectives.

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, does the Minister hear, as I do, the sound of chickens coming home to roost here? Further, does he accept that over 60 per cent of the electorate in Scotland, in addition to those who voted for Dennis Canavan (whose overwhelming majority showed the lack of judgment in the Labour Party) voted for parties and people who have pledged to abolish tuition fees in Scotland? Unless a deal has been done to allow the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to become the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament in exchange for the Liberal Democrats backing down on the issue, tuition fees will not be paid in Scotland after 1st July. Can the Minister guarantee that his right honourable friend in Downing Street is not attempting to interfere with what has been devolved to the Scottish people?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, it is about time that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay or Ardbrecknish, took a deep breath, counted very slowly to 10 and then decided whether or not he is in favour of devolution; and, indeed, whether he is in favour of proportional representation. Only yesterday I heard members of his party denouncing proportional representation. Of course, that would have meant that there would have been no Conservative present in the Scottish Parliament—perhaps an outcome devoutly to be wished. The decision on tuition fees in Scotland will be made by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We all know that there are quite understandable discussions taking place between the parties. That would be a feature of the new politics in Scotland.

Noble Lords
Next Question!

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
My Lords, there is obviously great interest in this Question. However, we shall return to Questions on Scotland on many occasions in the future. We have now spent 24 minutes on three Questions, and it is time for the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to ask his Question.