| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 516
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)Tracey, Richard
Trippier, David
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian
Walden, George
Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Waller, Gary
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Watts, John
Wells, Bowen
Wheeler, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann
Wilshire, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann
Winterton, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy
Yeo, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)
Younger, Rt Hon George
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. David Lightbown and
Mr. Irvine Patnick.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 2
Northern Ireland
Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan) : I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert--
No Order in Council purporting to bring into force a scheme of student loans for Northern Ireland shall be made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.'.
Madam Deputy Speaker : With this we shall take amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out except for section 2'.
Mr. Stott : We now move to the part of the Bill which deals with the provisions for Northern Ireland. It is becoming a habit to do so at such a late hour. I would that it were different, but it seems to be an established pattern.
As we are dealing with Northern Ireland, may I, on behalf of my colleagues in the Northern Ireland team and my right hon. and hon. Friends, offer our deepest condolences to the wife and family of Harold McCusker, the late hon. Member for Upper Bann, who died on Monday and was buried yesterday? He will be sorely missed by those of us who knew him and respected his integrity.
This clause is extremely controversial, for two reasons. First, it deals with a constitutional issue, which I will touch on in a moment. Secondly, it will have an adverse effect on students in Northern Ireland, a Province that is quite different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The constitutional arguments were forcefully brought out in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I have read the Hansard transcript of that debate and the Minister's response to my hon. Friends' points and--if I could have the Minister's attention for one moment--I have to say that the procedure by which this scheme is being introduced in Northern Ireland is wholly unacceptable.
It is unacceptable because, only recently, we had before the House the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which changed the system of education in Northern Ireland very dramatically. It was almost a mirror image of the Education Reform Act 1988 in the rest of the United Kingdom. But all that Northern Ireland's representatives had was a three-hour debate in the Chamber, at this time of night, which ended at 2 o'clock in the morning. There were no amendments and we could not interrogate the Minister on his proposals. The order was put forward wholly undemocratically.
Provisions for Northern Ireland are difficult. There is no devolved Assembly. Once again, from the Dispatch Box, on behalf of the Opposition I make the plea to the
Column 517
elected representatives of Northern Ireland to find a way, with the Secretary of State, to achieve agreement so that these and related matters can be dealt with properly, not by the House of Commons, but by a properly constituted, devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. That might be asking a little too much, but at least in my innocence I ask that, so that we do not have to repeat these arguments time and time again.I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his place this evening as we discuss this important matter. 11.30 pm
Mr. Mallon : I take it that the hon. Gentleman is implying that, if there were a devolved administration in the North of Ireland and if this matter were being considered there, the North of Ireland would have arrangements with regard to its education budget that would not be tied by legislation here. I assume that that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If so, it should be put on the record, especially when we anticipate what may happen after the next election.
Mr. Stott : My hon. Friend has asked me to respond to that question. I hope that he will allow me to develop my comments about our view of the present procedure and how we believe it should be dealt with. I do not want to delay the House on a pedantic point.
Mr. Mallon : I certainly do not want to delay the House. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot ask Northern Ireland representatives to create an administration in the North of Ireland to deal with this ourselves, but not put it on record that, if we create such an administration, we shall be given the power to deal with it ourselves. I want to see that on record from the Government and the Opposition.
Mr. Stott : I have no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will try to catch your eye a little later. As I understand it, under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, there were provisions for certain matters to be determined by the Northern Ireland Assembly, of which education was one. As the Assembly does not exist, the Secretary of State can make Orders in Council to do what he wishes on education. Had the Northern Ireland Assembly still been in existence, I should have thought that this matter could have been referred to it and could have been dealt with there. I shall expand on that point a little later if my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed.
Even listening to previous debates, I have realised that there is a consensus that the Order in Council procedure leaves much to be desired. The Bill makes it worse. The 1974 Act is the basis for government in Northern Ireland. Transferred matters are defined as issues that are within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State can exercise the powers of the Assembly. The logic of the 1974 Act is that transferred issues, of which education is one, should be handled in such a way as to take local conditions in Northern Ireland into account. I stress the words "local conditions" because they are very important in the Northern Ireland context. They should not be subsumed into United Kingdom law. Mr. Mallon rose --
Column 518
Mr. Stott : I will not give way again.
Clause 2 not only makes the already unsatisfactory Order in Council procedure worse, but undermines the concept of transferred matters. I understand the arguments about devolution in Northern Ireland, but in regard to the principle, the 1974 Act should not be tampered with until agreement is reached on a new system of government for Northern Ireland. Clause 2 seeks to put the nonsense in the Bill into operation by the use of the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure.
Mr. Mallon : We must be precise about this. I take it that the import of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that, in matters pertaining to Northern Ireland, any future Northern Ireland Assembly would have power to legislate on reserved matters. Would that apply not just to education but to social security, health and agriculture? We have to be consistent, or the hon. Gentleman's case falls very quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Interesting points have been raised by the hon. Gentleman, but they go beyond the amendment.
Mr. Stott : I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman raising the issue when the debate is confined to education. Education was a transferred power. I do not know why the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is giving me such a hard time, because I am on his side on this. I share his view that the procedure being adopted in the Bill is unacceptable. I have outlined for the record what should have happened.
Rev. Ian Paisley : I am on the side of the hon. Gentleman on the negative resolution procedure, as he knows, but the point that is being put to him is that more than education was transferred to the Assembly. He must go through all the matters that were transferred and say exactly the same about them as he is saying about education. I am not on the side of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on that, but we are dealing with the facts of the 1974 legislation.
Mr. Stott : Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would not allow me to go down that road.
Madam Deputy Speaker : I have already made that point.
Mr. Stott : I have outlined the position on this measure, and I think that I have done that forcefully.
I have already acknowledged the presence of the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland has read in Hansard the debates in Committee. He wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about the points that were made. I want to read out one paragraph. This is the nub of the issue :
"Orders in Council by negative resolution are used sparingly. We only proceed by this route when, first, the matter concerned is transferred and should, therefore, be on Northern Ireland's own statute book ; second, the Government wants parity throughout the United Kingdom (the provisions of the Order have to correspond to the provisions of the Bill) ; and third, when it is necessary for the provisions to apply in Northern Ireland soon after the GB Act comes into effect. Affirmative Orders, on the other hand, tend to take about two years to complete."
He goes on to make several other points. By using the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure,
Column 519
the Government are attempting to avoid constitutional scrutiny of a measure that has no support in Northern Ireland.We were wholly justified in raising the matter because of the special circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley : The fact that it is left to negative resolution means that it does not come before the House at all. Therefore, discussion in the House is abandoned.
Mr. Stott : The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that was the point that I was making. He has simply reinforced the point for the record. When we discuss Northern Ireland matters, which are difficult and complex, Northern Ireland elected Members on both sides of the House genuinely feel that this is an unsatisfactory way of passing legislation that has a profound effect on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. That was the point that I sought to make. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is not present. That is regrettable, but I recognise that he has been there for a long time. In Committee, in response to points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hillsborough and for Derbyshire, North-East, he said :
"I must tell the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that I found his remarks bordering on the offensive when he implied that the Government are introducing discriminatory legislation in Northern Ireland. That is not so. The hon. Gentleman constructed the argument that women and Roman Catholics will be discriminated against by the operation of student loans. I do not accept that argument ; it is speculative, and does not support the accusation of discrimination. Neither do I accept the premise on which it is based."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 January 1990, c. 365-66.]
My hon. Friend was commenting on statements and written articles by people in academic circles in Northern Ireland who have studied the potential impact of this legislation on students in Northern Ireland.
The Minister should understand that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are wholly different from those anywhere else. The proposals will impact adversely on the entrance into higher education of women and Roman Catholic students and the already significantly under-represented Protestant working -class groups.
The Minister should be careful about his language when he deals with Northern Ireland matters. He should not accuse my hon. Friend of basing his arguments on a flawed premise. If he does, he will show his complete ignorance of the complexities that are special to Northern Ireland.
My colleagues gave many examples in Committee of the way in which the legislation will have serious and long-term implications for Northern Ireland students. I do not intend to rehearse those arguments tonight, although I have no doubt that others may wish to do so.
11.45 pm
One group that will be disadvantaged by the legislation are mature students. The introduction of loans will restrict educational opportunities for older students. According to the White Paper, students over 50 will have no facilities to borrow finance and they will be expected to find the top-up portion from their own resources. Although the 1990s will witness a declining population of 18 to 20-year-olds, and the Government have accepted the need to attract greater numbers of mature students and other non-traditional
Column 520
entrants, mature students under 50 will certainly be deterred by the prospects of substantial repayments spread over a shorter working life.It is a gross discrimination to exclude those over 50 from the proposed scheme. It is deplorable that mature students, often with long records of national insurance contributions, will be prevented from claiming social security benefits, including unemployment benefit, while at college. What then is the incentive for mature students to return to college and retrain and re-educate themselves? The other problem that is pertinent to Northern Ireland is that the Northern Ireland institutions suffer a loss of high- quality students through migration to institutions throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Furthermore, the salaries in the south of England are probably better than those in the Province, graduates will be able to pay back their loans more easily if they take work outside Northern Ireland rather than return to Northern Ireland to put their time, effort and skills into the economy there. I am conscious that it is late and that many other hon. Members may want to speak, but I advise the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland--I would say this to the Under- Secretary of State for Education and Science if he were present--that evidence relating directly to Northern Ireland tends to reinforce the view that the proposed loans scheme will increase public expenditure, provide a disincentive to potential entrants to higher education and force students into further debt.
At the very least, the Government should postpone the implementation of the scheme in Northern Ireland until its impact has been adequately researched and considered. If they do not, I genuinely fear that they will be doing a singular disservice to students in Northern Ireland, and the long-term consequences could be disastrous.
Rev. Ian Paisley : This is a big and serious issue. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is on the Treasury Bench to hear the debate and, we believe, to answer it. We from Northern Ireland welcome that, because this matter goes right down into the depths of our society.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that I regret that religious discrimination has been brought into this matter, because I believe that the provisions affect the Protestant working classes just as much as the Roman Catholic working classes. I am also afraid that some Republican elements are trying to drive this issue as a wedge between both working classes and to put certain people off supporting the grants. I made that point perfectly clear to the students when I met them.
I also made it perfectly clear that at our party conference we unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the legislation, because we felt that the students of Northern Ireland needed all the help and encouragement that they could get. I feel strongly about that. My party believes that this issue goes right across the board and that it will have equally detrimental effects upon womenfolk and on the Protestant and Roman Catholic working classes. It will affect how students make their choices, because they will choose those professions that will bring them more money quickly in order to pay off their loans. That means that arts students and others in similar educational and professional spheres will not be in abundance. That is sad, and it will be detrimental to Northern Ireland.
Column 521
There is a constitutional issue involved in this. I am delighted that the House, after many years, is convinced about the undemocratic nature of the Order in Council procedure. I have been in the House when nearly all the Benches have been vacant, with perhaps two Labour Members, two Conservative Members and the rest Northern Ireland representatives. We always protested as we stood up that once again the Order in Council was being put through the House in an undemocratic manner.The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an eloquent speech tonight. I hope that the issue will be carried on to the Northern Ireland constitutional debate, because we feel strongly that it is entirely unfair to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to have no say about the laws that govern the Province. It seems a great anomaly that I can stand up in the House and move an amendment to the laws that govern England, Wales and Scotland, but cannot move an amendment for the people I represent. The House must come to grips with that anomaly eventually, because we cannot continue to govern Northern Ireland by Orders in Council. Sooner or later, the system will come unstuck. We are now seeing the extent to which the Executive are taking the powers of the House and using them in far-reaching regulations that should be discussable, amendable and debatable in the House.
I have been in the House 20 years and I remember very few prayers coming to it. If there is such opposition from the Government of the day to having them debated, there is little chance of them being accepted, so the procedure is a disgrace to the democratic structures of the House.
These far-reaching regulations will not even be subject to one and a half hours debate. When we talk about one and a half hours or three hours, we have to take out the time that the Government take to present them. They are entitled to present their business, and the Opposition have to do their job and give their view. When that time is taken out, there is not much left for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to discuss the matter, and other Members are also entitled to speak.
Mr. Flannery : I do not want to rehearse all that I said in Committee, but I want to reiterate something that the hon. Gentleman has said. The last time that we debated an Order in Council, I had sat for three months on the Education Reform Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends remember that, after all that time, the Education Reform Act 1988 was applied to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council with 202 pages, 10 schedules covering 36 pages, and 167 clauses. On that occasion we had three hours for debate. Under clause 2 of this Bill, we cannot even do that. That is such a violation of democracy on the sensitive issue of Northern Ireland that it shows a complete lack of any proper feeling among Conservative Members about the problems of Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley : The hon. Gentleman and I are poles apart politically and we have often crossed swords on a Northern Ireland issue, but on this issue we are at one. These matters should be discussed in a proper manner, amendments should be moved and there should be an opportunity to vote on them.
Column 522
No Government, no matter how good they may be, can bring an Order in Council to the House and say, "This is it. You can't amend it. We couldn't improve it. It's so good, it is infallible and you must accept it." Such infallibility is not the democracy that we need. We need discussion on every matter.Even the Secretary of State must admit that the Government now see the weaknesses in the Orders in Council that they have brought to the House, but what can they do about them? If it takes two years to get an Order in Council through the House, would it not be far better to introduce a Bill?
Mr. Harry Barnes : One of the Orders in Council that has been referred to, and which we found particularly obnoxious, was the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) described as a replica of the Education Reform Act 1988. It was not quite a replica, because it contained matters such as education for mutual understanding, matters that were appropriate to Northern Ireland. If it had been a replica, it would have been dealt with under the negative resolution procedure, and we would have been unable to debate that.
According to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), one of the conditions for the negative resolution procedure is that the measure achieves parity throughout the United Kingdom. If a measure is a replica of what has happened elsewhere, there will not be an opportunity to debate it under the affirmative resolution procedure in the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley : These are serious matters, and they need thorough discussion. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we did not get a proper reply from the Minister on the education order. Some of the things that he said could not have stood up if they had been challenged in debate. He misled the House on many things in that debate. That is why representatives from Northern Ireland felt angry and frustrated. That order changed the structure of our schools. Northern Ireland has excellent schools, and before the House pulls something down it should put something better in its place. However, we never had an opportunity to discuss that matter.
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North -East (Mr. Barnes) said that the education order contained arrangements for education for mutual understanding, which was applicable in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that education for mutual understanding is equally, perhaps more, applicable to many areas of Great Britain?
Rev. Ian Paisley : We all need to understand one another mutually. Having sat in the House for 20 years, I know that each and every hon. Member needs educating on that. We cannot say that Northern Ireland needs it and nobody else does. Mutual understanding goes to the heart of a parent's right to say what way his or her child should be educated. Yet a child can be directed by a teacher not to tell his or her parents where he was taken on a particular day. I tried to raise that matter on the Floor of the House in our previous debate. It needs to be discussed.
Column 523
Mr. Mallon : We should agree that there is a problem with the way in which legislation is dealt with here, but that surely should not prevent us from debating legislation when it does come before us. 12 midnightRev. Ian Paisley : People hold differing views on that subject. I believe that such matters should be debated in a proper devolved Assembly. I was interested to hear what was said tonight about the powers that will be given to that Assembly. No doubt the Secretary of State will be reminded of those remarks. As a politician, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, if he is in the kitchen, he must take the heat--and the heat is usually pretty severe when it comes from Northern Ireland and from both sides of the Northern Ireland divide. In no way am I, as a public representative from Northern Ireland--any more than my Northern Ireland colleagues, no matter of what particular hue--in a position to influence the legislation that is being passed tonight. It rests with the infallable pontiff, the Secretary of State, to make his decree--and all must abide by it. That is obnoxious to me religiously, and it is certainly obnoxious to me politically.
Mr. Beggs : I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for his tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), whom we all greatly respected and who will be much missed from the House. I do not believe that the student loans scheme will provide adequately for students generally--and certainly not for those from low-income families in England, Scotland and Wales or Northern Ireland. The scheme will create worries and concerns about debt. Some students struggling to stay outside the debt trap may suffer impaired health because of the sacrifices that they will no doubt make in order to live within the resources available to them without incurring debt through the loans scheme.
The scheme will deny many students from low-income families across all sections of the community the opportunity to enjoy a college or university education. Mature students also will be denied that opportunity, and many young women students will be deterred from entering higher education. In Northern Ireland, we believe that, when an educated young woman becomes a mother, she can be a tremendous influence on the next generation, which she will bring up to respect and appreciate the education opportunities for self and family improvement. All elected representatives from Northern Ireland firmly believe that education represents the best investment that we can make for our young people's future.
A consequence of the scheme will be that students from many families will decide privately not to embark on a course of education that will necessarily require them to enter into debt and perhaps become a greater burden on their families. It is not in the best long-term interests of the United Kingdom as a whole for any of our young people who are capable of successfully completing college and university courses not to realise their full potential.
Northern Ireland has an increasingly aged population, and it is the young who will help to ensure a reasonable standard of living for our pensioners in the years ahead. We must support them adequately during their courses of study, whether they last for three, four or five years--or more. They should not be compelled to accept second-best courses so that they may start earning money sooner.
Column 524
Within Northern Ireland, there are areas where more than 40 per cent. of the male population are unemployed. In the continuing absence of Northern Ireland unemployment figures from the statistics covering only Great Britain parliamentary constituencies that are placed in the Library, I trust that right hon. and hon. Members accept that fact. The loss to students of unemployment and housing benefit will be felt more acutely in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There are fewer opportunities for the young to find employment, and the number of unemployed there is already high. In keeping with our opposition to Northern Ireland business being debated by Order in Council procedure in the House--whether it is by negative or affirmative resolution, my colleagues and I are completely opposed to the business of legislation going through the House by unamendable Order in Council--we shall vote for the amendment.Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : Time is short, so I shall confine myself to a few remarks, but I should like first to pursue the constitutional matter of democracy in Northern Ireland. Autocracy is crumbling in eastern Europe, but we have had confirmation tonight in the Chamber that we do not have full democracy in Northern Ireland, because the Secretary of State rules by decree, and that is not acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.
The Order in Council procedure is unacceptable, and that has been stated time and again in the House on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. The answer has always been that that is the way that Northern Ireland must be governed, since the people there cannot agree.
Tonight in the House, representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, from all political parties, are in total agreement that the scheme is unacceptable and ought to be rejected. Since all the Northern Ireland Members are in agreement on that score, surely the Government should heed our united plea that the scheme should not be pursued there.
I adopt what has already been said about the Order in Council procedure--it denies the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity to debate thoroughly legislation for the Province. That is why I shall welcome the day when we can have a Northern Ireland Assembly once again so that such matters can be put before representatives there. I know that they would decide to reject the scheme. It will cost the United Kingdom more than the existing grants. Whether the Government wish it or not, it will be so costly that grants will be in real danger of being abolished. I think that in due course the Government will impose a means test for loans. One of the criticisms is that the Education (Student Loans) Bill will transfer resources from those who need help the most to those who need it least. I think that many deserving students, who should have access to further and higher education in Northern Ireland, will decide to forgo that training and experience rather than be saddld with a debt that they fear they will not be able to repay within the foreseeable future.
Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the philosophy, "Spend now, pay some time later", is a dangerous one to encourage young people to adopt?
Column 525
Mr. Kilfedder : I agree. The people of Northern Ireland like to pay their bills when they fall due. It goes against the grain for most people there to contemplate a system whereby they accept a loan and it is hanging over their head. They worry about whether they will ever be able to repay it in full. A student whose family is affluent will have no such anxieties, and will be able to accept any burden of debt regardless of potential--although that does not necessarily mean that he will repay the debt. The scheme will penalise the less well- off, and I find such discrimination intolerable and unacceptable.We must invest in our young people by ensuring that they are encouraged to enter further and higher education. Although a small percentage of students may act irresponsibly, the vast majority, at least in Northern Ireland, are eager not only to improve themselves educationally and to secure greater opportunities, but to make a worthwhile contribution to the community in which they live. The scheme will harshly affect many students in Northern Ireland, and in my constituency in particular. Ulster's future depends on its young people : we must encourage them to pursue education opportunities, rather than deter them. At the weekend, one of my constituents--a student--told me that the prospect of incurring a £2, 000 debt was frightening, especially as that was an enormous sum for him and his family. I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) : many young people will leave the Province for the affluent south-east to secure a job that pays enough to help them to pay off the loan.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : Is it not unrealistic to talk of loans as small as £2,000? Many, if not most, students nowadays are having to borrow large sums from banks at commercial rates to complete their education, and the extra loans could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back--particularly in Northern Ireland, where wages are lower.
Mr. Kilfedder : I agree ; I was merely quoting what one student said to me.
I think that all Northern Ireland Members agree that the loans scheme will rob Northern Ireland of its talent. Some people will leave, never to return ; others will be deterred from pursuing further education by the thought of enormous debts hanging over their head. A brain drain would be detrimental to the Province : we need all the talent that we can get to rebuild it and make it into the prosperous place that it ought to be.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that any scheme for student support must be adequate, certain, simple and socially just. The scheme fails all those tests abysmally, and it ought to be rejected.
| Next Section
| Home Page |