Previous Section Home Page

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A very serious situation has been brought to my notice. Earlier this afternoon, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition was due to address a meeting of the National Union of Teachers--some 500 people. I believe that, after a short while, 450 people left to attend an alternative meeting in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. What has all this to do with me?

Mr. King : I should like to explain, if I may, that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was conducting that meeting in the House, with 450 members of the NUT present, according to the reports that I have in front of me. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the Serjeant at Arms what room in this building is able to take such a large number of people.

Column 482

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not see that press reports are a matter on which I can be expected to be an authority. It was not a point of order.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : This is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, people are not supposed to mislead the House by repeating Press Association reports which are completely and utterly inaccurate. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) can find any room in this House, particularly Room 16, that can seat 450 people --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It would be generally wise if hon. Members were to take precautions before quoting anything from newspapers.

Clause 1

Loans for students

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

Column 483

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

Column 484

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

Column 485

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

Column 486

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

Column 487

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.

Column 488

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

Column 489

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

Column 490

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

Column 491

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.

Column 492

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,

Column 493

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

Column 494

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.

Next Section

  Home Page