House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Feb 1990

Mr. Hughes : Perhaps I can deal first with the question asked by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) about the cost of the scheme. My hon. Friends and I are committed--I have given the figures elsewhere, but I shall repeat them--to reinstating the benefits that the Government propose to abolish--although they have not yet done so, as the hon. Gentleman knows --and to reinstating grants at the present level. According to our calculations, the increase in taxation that that would cost on the basis of present figures is 1p in the pound for higher rate taxpayers only. I am prepared to live with that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman or the Labour party would be, although I hope that both would.

Mr. Stewart rose--

Mr. Hughes : Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but please may I finish this point?

One crucial reason for having a body that can advise the Government on the scheme is to ensure that costings can be given regularly, not only to those of us who are spokespeople for education and who are involved in the House, but to the rest of hon. Members. The amount that our education system costs is a matter of public accounts. I give way now to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).

Column 426

Mr. Stewart : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not criticising what he is saying about his party's position, but he may have misinterpreted what the Opposition said in Committee. Does he agree that in Committee the Labour party's pledge to reinstate grants and to increase them in line with inflation was unqualified? That unqualified pledge must now be withdrawn in the light of what the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We must get back to the subject of advisory committees and consultation.

5.15 pm

Mr. Hughes : The record speaks for itself. The key point is that the Government have made it clear that they are proposing loans instead of increasing grants.

I hope that the debate will not be as partisan as some. The hon. Member for Eastwood was an active member of the Committee and I hope that he and other hon. Members will realise that we are in a somewhat unusual position because a Government who are committed to reducing public expenditure have come to the House with a scheme which will increase public expenditure in the foreseeable future and which only after at least 10 years, and probably after a minimum of 13, but possibly after 20 years or more, will produce a net reduction in public expenditure. I repeat that that has come from a Conservative Government. We must be sceptical of a scheme that comes with such enormous frontloading on the public accounts.

There is a danger in so arranging the financing of higher education that one is doing two things at the same time. First, the Government have produced a scheme that costs the taxpayer more, but simultaneously gives the student less. That is an extraordinary paradox. The student is given less and must make up the rest by loans. That is why we need to be committed to looking at the workings of the scheme from the beginning.

In general, the amendments and new clauses seek to do two things, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will be well aware. First, they seek specifically to set up an advisory committee that will report regularly on the matters that have been of substantial concern, not just to Opposition politicians, and to students and parents, but to vice-chancellors, principals and people concerned with the academic well-being of our country. The most substantial concern is whether we shall increase or decrease the numbers of people going into higher education. That is an important question because unless we significantly increase those numbers, we as a country will not succeed. That is the crude reality. I accept the difficulty of projecting far ahead, but I know that we need to do everything in our power to increase the numbers entering higher education, and nothing that deters those people should be part of the policy of any Government.

Like other Opposition Members and even some Conservative Members, I feel sincere scepticism about whether replacing a grants scheme with a scheme that will be half-loan and half-grant will do anything other than reduce the prospect of increasing the take-up of higher education, especially among those who do not use it at the moment.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : Does my hon. Friend agree that two groups will suffer most as a result of the student loans proposals? They include people

Column 427

who come from more deprived backgrounds and who will not wish to have an albatross of debt around their neck, which, in many cases, they will never be able to repay. The advisory committee would also need to consider the position of special groups, such as medical students, who will have incredible debts attached to their courses which, again, they will never be able to repay. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will be a deterrent to people from poorer backgrounds?

Mr. Hughes : My hon. Friend has made a general point, with which I agree and should like to support. However, I shall amplify it in this respect. We need to be seriously concerned about three categories of people. The first group is more often found in constituencies such as those that my hon. Friend and I represent. I refer to young people from working- class backgrounds who face enormous peer group pressure at 16, 17 or 18 to take up a job rather than to go on to college. At the moment, they are in our colleges, polytechnics and universities in only small numbers.

There are also two other groups, who are not particularly found in Liverpool, Mossley Hill, or in Southwark and Bermondsey, but who can be found in any constituency. I refer to people with disabilities, for whom education costs considerably more. At the moment, there is an enormous discrepancy between the amount that they receive for their aids and for the additional costs of meeting their needs, and what those needs actually cost. Under the Government's scheme, they will have to finance that difference by loan. I am talking about students who may be blind, deaf or physically handicapped, who are now often deterred by cost and who will be even more deterred. Thirdly, there are also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, those who decide to do the jobs which, it has been decided, need four, five or six-year courses. That group will include medical students, architects, vets and, most unfortunate of the lot, anyone who happens to be brought up in Scotland and who wants to stay there to go to university, or anybody who, for good reason, decides that the course that he wants to follow is in Scotland. Such students will have to borrow more and repay more. That is why one of the new clauses is related specifically to Scotland and I expect that colleagues from Scotland will speak to it.

I hope that the hon. Member for Eastwood and others will appreciate that there is severe concern that in a country such as Scotland, with only 10 university institutions, it is predicted that one, at least, could be lost because of the transfer of students elsewhere, who currently go to Scottish universities and colleges. I am unwilling to countenance, without a fight, the loss of one of our premier institutions of higher education. Certainly, colleagues from north of the border, of whichever party, should fight hard to retain all the institutions in Scotland, none of which, to my knowledge, has anything but the highest reputation.

There is a clear need for any loans scheme to be monitored. The only way to do so is to have a body of experts who will advise the Secretary of State. If the Under-Secretary of State was right in his predictions in Committee that the scheme will be a great success, he has nothing to fear. Therefore, I hope that he will respond to and welcome the new clause. To his credit, the Under-Secretary made one concession in Committee. The

Column 428

Government have yielded one inch--or perhaps a centimetre. They will have to yield a bit more if the Bill is to get through the other place. They have conceded that there will be an annual report by the Students Loans Company. That is kind and generous.

Mr. Straw : The hon. Gentleman is very easily pleased because the Students Loans Company is required to do that anyway under the Companies Act 1985.

Mr. Hughes : The Government conceded on their original position. However, the hon. Gentleman is right--at the end of the day the Government would have had to agree to that once they had sorted out the type of company that was to administer the scheme.

I hope that the Secretary of State will concede that we need an annual statement on the performance of the scheme. I hope that he will also accept that the people who should have a chance to look at that are hon. Members and Parliament. The way to do so is for an advisory body to produce regular reports, starting soon.

The Government always argue that we must be efficient, make good use of our economic resources and provide good value for money. If the Government believe in that, as I believe they do, I hope that they will accept that a system must be put in place to ensure that the scheme is run efficiently, provides value for money and uses the resources properly. If the scheme does not work and the disadvantaged are not going on to college, the advisory body should advise the Government to drop it. It is no good having an organisation to advise on the scheme if it is unable to say that it is a bad scheme. The cost of a student loans advisory committee would be minuscule in relation to many of the costs that the Government have already incurred in developing the scheme's variants.

Another important point is that the Government must take consultations seriously. The Secretary of State has been in office for about seven months. He does not yet have a reputation for listening to those with an interest in the subject.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge) : Nonsense.

Mr. Hughes : No, it is not nonsense. The Secretary of State tried to coerce the banks. Lloyds originally said no and the others were unhappy. He desperately hoped that they would deliver, but they said no. He is now trying to persuade the vice-chancellors and principals that they are unhappy. They are clearly unhappy--corespondence is evidence of that, whether in The Times or direct mail to Elizabeth house. The students and teachers are unhappy. We must consult to find out what would be acceptable to the academic community.

This is why my hon. Friends and I tabled new clause 14. We believe that there should be consultation about certification. Schedule 2(2) to the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, which we shall no doubt see if the Bill becomes an Act, require governing bodies of institutions relevant to the scheme to issue certificates stating who is and who is not an eligible student. However, the mechanism has not been agreed.

As I understand it, only last week--I shall be grateful for confirmation--a letter was sent to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals inviting narrow discussion on that specific point. It had wanted to discuss it before.

Column 429

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) : This is interminable.

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Gentleman says that this is interminable. If the Bill had had some detail in it, we should not have to push for these matters at this stage.

We do not yet know whether agreement has yet been reached over certification. It would be helpful to know whether the universities and polytechnics have agreed to a scheme proposed by the Secretary of State, whether, and how much, they will be paid, and whether they are happy with the way that the Government are proceeding.

The Scottish debate, in substance, will come later. However, I hope that in this debate, given that there is a new clause that relates specifically to Scotland, there will be a sign that the Government intend to look after Scotland's interests by taking proper advice. None of the new clauses or amendments is wrecking and there is no reason why they should not all be entirely acceptable. I hope that the Government will be less confrontational and more open to reasonable arguments put by the Opposition on behalf of all those who are still grossly unhappy with the scheme.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), because when I saw the new clause on the Notice Paper I thought that I could, in principle, support it. However, the preamble was so long and the amble so short that I was not sure what he was on about. Notwithstanding the inadequate speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, it seems that the Government would be well advised to look seriously at what I assume is behind this group of amendments. I was unable to take part in the debate on 5 December, and I did not vote for the Bill. I will not vote for it tonight unless I get some assurance that something will be done along the lines of the new clause. I shall not be so fatuous as to suggest that the new clause in itself is necessarily acceptable. However, I was deeply disturbed when I read that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals had not been consulted in detail. They circulated a paper to hon. Members, dated this week, which says :

"The CVCP wrote to DES a year ago, offering to discuss alternatives. That offer has not been taken up."

Either that is a direct untruth or it is not. If it is true, it is regrettable. When embarking on a change in the structure of student finance, it is important to discuss in detail the mechanism of that new structure with those who will have a key role in its administration.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak) : I agree.

Mr. Cormack : I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees, and I hope that the Secretary of State agrees, too.

I have always had a high regard for the Secretary of State. I thought that he was an extremely distinguished Minister of Agriculture, who had a well deserved reputation as a man who listened, thought deeply and talked with those who would be affected by the policies over which he was presiding. I hope that, at this late stage, we shall have some real discussions about the scheme. After all, one need not have followed the matter in minute detail to realise that there have been a few problems along the way. The fact that the clearing banks decided that they could not go along with the scheme, and that the

Column 430

Government, who have a justifiably splendid reputation for privatisation, are having to set up a nationalised bank to administer it, is slightly bizarre.

5.30 pm

In the principle behind new clause 2--I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will readily and immediately call me to order if I stray too far--there is the germ of an idea. There is nothing to be lost by having a consultative body of some sort to help with the administration of the scheme. Indeed, there is everything to be gained from it.

I have never been opposed in principle to a loan ingredient, but there are many obvious disadvantages that have to be dealt with. I am bound to say that, in this short and extremely permissive Bill, I am not sure whether those have been adequately dealt with. I am not opposed in principle to such a scheme now, but I want to feel confident that those who aspire to enter higher education will not be deterred. I want to be confident that those who have enjoyed the fruits of higher education will not be penalised in those crucial years of their lives when they marry and settle down and become formative members of society.

I could be the better assured on those points if we had some such committee, perhaps composed of two or three distinguished vice-chancellors and principals, perhaps two or three representatives of the National Students Union, perhaps even the immediate past president, and people who know about higher education. That would be consistent with the spirit of the new clause. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) stop getting excited? She is always excited, but this is the day after Valentine's day. There is the germ of a good idea in new clause 2. I am not tying myself to precise details or numbers, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn is not either.

We could move forward in a sensible way. Many hon. Members are generalists. We do not have time to acquire detailed knowledge. We are sometimes far too arrogant about the way in which legislation that we pass will affect the lives of people with whom it deals. We should recognise that vice- chancellors and principals, and even those who hold high office in student unions, may know a little more about this matter than some of us do.

To have a body on which such people would sit in order to advise would lend credibility to the scheme. It would make it a much fairer scheme and people would have confidence in it. At the end of the day the Government would get their way because there would be a loan ingredient, a restructuring of finance and proper and continuous consultation with, I hope, regular reports, not just on an annual actuarial basis but detailed reports on how the scheme is working.

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : My hon. Friend makes his point with his customary good humour. He is rightly concerned about any scheme that might deter access to higher education. But if he is, as I am sure he is, prepared to go beyond the rather obvious statement that most of us would prefer to be given something for free rather than lent it--that is so obvious it is not worth debating--is it not interesting to look at all the European countries where loans form a much larger proportion of the financing of education than is proposed in this mild measure but where access rates to higher education are significantly greater? Does my hon. Friend not agree that,

Column 431

if he is seeking, as I am sure we all are, to improve access rates to higher education, the one place that we need not bother to look is at the balance between loans and grants?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that, in responding to that, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) will speak within the confines of the new clauses and the amendments.

Mr. Cormack : I shall seek to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall respond briefly by reiterating that, in principle, I am not against a loan ingredient. I was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Science between 1979 and 1983 which looked into the financing of higher education. We received evidence from many people, including Maureen Woodall and other experts on loans. We looked at the matter dispassionately and we did not rule out loans. But it is obvious to many people--I put it carefully--that there is some disquiet about the present proposal. If we are to engender confidence in these proposals and to carry people along with us, which is what I want to do, the establishment of such a body--I say "such a body" because the new clause has not got it absolutely right--would help in that direction.

That is why, relating my remarks specifically to the new clauses and amendments under discussion, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will earn my support in the Lobby tonight by saying that they are prepared to have wide- ranging consultations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals such as the committee says have not been held to date, and that they would have as the object of those discussions the establishment of a body along the lines described.

Mr. Worthington : I support the proposal for a review committee for Scotland. Such a body is necessary because the voice of Scotland was not heard on the student loans scheme. The scheme was devised in London and transported to Scotland. The Minister was then shot as the carrier of the bad news. There was no input from Scotland. Therefore, a review committee is essential so that Scottish opinion can be taken into account in future.

I hope that the review committee's terms of reference will be broadened, beyond the proposal for it to consider the student loans scheme, to include the present state of student finance. The financial situation of students is becoming dramatically worse. In Scotland they are already paying 20 per cent. poll tax, and that will soon apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. That cannot be shrugged off.

Their housing benefit is to be lost. In Scotland, 65 per cent. of students do not live at home. They receive grants for living elsewhere, but where will they be living in the autumn? No one seems to care about that. Statistics from Edinburgh show that the loss of benefit will be £500 on average per year. Where will that come from ? Students will clearly not be able to stay in their present flats because they will not be able to afford them. Will they have to take out another loan? Who will build new accommodation for them? The Government have made no commitment to updating allowances for mature students. The Government have simply said that they will consider that in the future, if resources allow. Some Conservative

Column 432

Members will recognise that expression. Surely any Government would give such an undertaking to ensure that we have mature students.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Worthington : No, because I have only a short amount of time left, and I am conscious that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : There is no time limit.

Mr. Worthington : Then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : It would have been simpler if the hon. Gentleman had done so to begin with, would it not? At present, mature students have no statutory right to loans, but the Bill will give them one.

Mr. Worthington : I have just checked with my right hon. and hon. Friends, and none of us understands the hon. Lady's point.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Then the hon. Gentleman should have studied the subject in more detail.

Mr. Worthington : I make the point that one group of students who will suffer particularly badly are those who take the gamble of giving up an existing job to return to study, despite the fact that they have families to support and mortgages to pay, and incur a loan. Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am told that there is now a time limit on speeches and that I must finish within the next two and half seconds.

The recommendations of the Page report, of which many right hon. and hon. Members may be unaware, are of particular significance. It examined the manpower requirements in veterinary surgery, and, unlike the Riley report, which concluded there was a glut of vets, revealed a shortage and the need for recruitment. Page recommended public funding of 400 vets per year, but emphasised that the number trained should be greater than that and that we should encourage colleges to recruit as many vets as they wanted--but recommended that that innovation should be funded by a general levy on all veterinary students at a college of, it was suggested, £500.

As the Government have accepted that recommendation, they are already dishonouring the pledge that a contribution by students to student finance would be a measure of last resort. If the Government have accepted the principle of a £500 levy on all the veterinary students in any one college, who is to say that that practice will not spread to pharmacy and the other medical professions, to the law, accountancy, and so on? Those high-demand occupations will eventually be barred to people of meagre means and will progressively become the enclaves of those from privileged backgrounds.

If this deplorable legislation is passed, at least a review committee could examine the whole question of student finance. If we go the way of the Page report, cut off income benefit, and introduce student loans, students will suffer not a single loss but multiple loss--and the impact on higher education participation rates will be colossal.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Halton) : If the Secretary of State does not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) or to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I hope that he

Column 433

will heed the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I concur with almost everything that he said. The amendments would get the Secretary of State and the Government off the hook on which they impaled themselves just before Christmas, when the banks announced that they would not participate in the loan scheme. That cut away the ground beneath the Government and the scheme.

The proposed advisory committee would at least give the Government the opportunity to get it right with a certain amount of dignity. I make it clear that I do not believe in student loans, and that view is shared by many in this country. The students themselves were the subject of a very silly attack by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) who, in a point of order, said that 25,000 students demonstrated in London today. Yes, they hate the scheme--but it does the Government no good to create the impression that students are hated. All right hon. and hon. Members are impeded in their efforts to get here to work every week by London Transport, but if we all raised points of order every time that we were delayed on our travels, we would never get any work done.

5.45 pm

Educational institutions and teachers themselves are also opposed to the scheme. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made sensible proposals in a submission sent to all right hon. and hon. Members. Presumably, it would be represented on the proposed committee. The new clause is exceedingly generous to the Government. The Secretary of State would have the power to appoint all of its members, as there would be no mandatory representatives from outside bodies. The Secretary of State for Scotland would make the appointments for the Scottish committee.

New clause 2 states that half the committee shall be composed of interested parties such as vice-chancellors, principals, students and teachers, and that the other half shall comprise any other persons whom the Secretary of State determines. How can the Secretary of State grumble at that? He would presumably include on the committee representatives of the banks, economists, and other educationists. They would be able honestly to advise the Secretary of State if they felt that the scheme was detrimental to the task of attracting into higher education the people who will be so desperately needed in the 1990s and in the next century. The Secretary of State could then amend the scheme accordingly. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose by accepting the new clause.

I do not like amendment No. 13 of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, because, although the Government may be prepared to enter into consultations, they do not listen. I prefer the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, because it stipulates the type of committee that is to be established. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also supports that proposal.

Mr. Simon Hughes : I do support it. But does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as we have only a shadow Bill with no detail, it would be helpful if we could build in a requirement for consultation with all concerned before the

Column 434

regulations were made? Consultation with universities on the details of the scheme may be all that the Government will accept.

Mr. Oakes : The hon. Gentleman accepts my point, and I accept his. We have not yet heard from the Secretary of State whether or not he accepts the new clause, or accepts the principle and will embody it in the Bill in another place. I am pessimistic, but one never knows. Having once been an Education Minister myself, I would welcome the establishment of such a committee to get me off the hook, and would grab the opportunity with both hands.

Mr. Flannery : I suggest one possible reason for the Government's rejection of the amendment. After all, they reject practically everything. The Government have their own Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions, which has made a number of progressive proposals. The Government are now busy taking not the slightest notice of that committee's recommendations, and fear that another committee might go beyond the remit that they give it.

Mr. Oakes : My hon. Friend is right. The Government do not like the truth, in education or in any other sphere. Nor do they like independent advice. Even though the new clause comes from the Opposition, it is not a wrecking amendment but is helpful to the Government, education, and students.

The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has proposed a scheme of graduate tax, but I am not too keen on it. Nevertheless, it would be better than the Government's damn fool scheme. It would be far simpler to administer than the Government's cumbrous scheme. It would be administered by the universities themselves, and it would mean that a certain sum would be paid back in tax, regardless of the course taken.

Several of my hon. Friends with constituencies in Scotland mentioned on Second Reading that Scottish students take four-year bachelor degree courses.

Mr. Allan Stewart : The four-year course is not compulsory. Some 23 per cent. of Scottish students do not take a four-year course.

Mr. Oakes : If 23 per cent. do not take it, then the majority do. Apart from benefiting Scottish students, a graduate tax as proposed by vice -chancellors and principals would not penalise medical students, whose courses are extremely expensive. Hospital doctors not only have to work 80 or 90 hours a week after they finish their course but get buttons for doing it. The burden of the scheme falls heavily on them, because their course is that much more expensive. If the clause were accepted in detail--if not in principle--the ideas of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which were submitted to the Government more than 12 months ago, could be considered. Vice-chancellors are not opposed to student loans. They are trying to help the Government out, and to administer the scheme properly. Those ideas could be explored in more detail with Ministers, so that education, students and teachers would be better protected from the mish- mash scheme before the House.

Once the banks pulled out--to the astonishment of the Prime Minister and the Government--the White Paper and the Bill as it stood fell. The amendments and new

Column 435

clauses give the Government an opportunity to retrieve the situation, and for that reason I ask the Secretary of State to accept them.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : I shall refer in particular to amendment No. 1. I ask the Under-Secretary, who has been dealing with the issue in Committee, whether he has been able to find out exactly how many students will not get an increase in their resources because of the introduction of student loans and the loss of their housing benefit and other social security payments.

In this leaflet, which has been so kindly sent to us--"Top Up Loans for Students--the Government's Proposals"--question 5 asks : "What will be the total resources available to students?" The answer is :

"All students will be eligible to apply for additional support from the Access Funds".

The only way in which a large number of students, particularly those in the London area, will have any hope of extra resources is by going cap in hand to the administrators of the access funds to get the money that they will badly need if the student loans scheme is inflicted on them.

In Committee, the Minister did not deny that some students would be worse off. We should like to know how many thousands will be worse off because of the introduction of the scheme.

While talking about those students who will be worse off, there is some reference to the predicament of disabled students in amendment No. 1. There are other amendments that we will come to later that also deal with this subject. Disabled students have many additional costs, and the current allowance they can receive does not cover them. Some students have extra costs running into thousands of pounds a year, and disabled students will not usually be able to earn the sort of money, unfortunately, that able- bodied students can earn. Very often, they will be on the fringe of the level that triggers repayment of loans.

In Committee, the Minister intimated that this problem would be considered- -the additional costs that disabled students incur and their disposable income in relation to the level at which repayment of loans is triggered off. We need a commitment from the Minister. Also in Committee, the Minister said that it was difficult to look at individual cases, that that was not usually done under the social security system. I hope that he will be able to tell us this evening about specific arrangements to take account of disabled students. I hope that we will get good news tonight on both the issues that I have mentioned--students who lose heavily because of loss of housing benefit ; and provisions for disabled students--and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : In rising to speak briefly in support of this group of amendments, I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru as well as the Scottish National party. It will come as no surprise to the House that I particularly want to concentrate on new clause 17, because it contains aspects which affect Scotland. Having listened to the debate, and not having had the privilege of other Members who were members of the Standing Committee, I believe that the strength of the argument that is emerging is for genuine consultation, and

Column 436

a facility to monitor how this dreadful legislation will work, assuming that the House does not have the courage to vote down the Government's proposals.

I think that all Opposition Members and many Conservative Members would prefer this legislation to be dropped altogether. Then we could have a sensible debate about alternative student funding.

Mr. Simon Hughes : The hon. Lady has observed that, so far, only one Back-Bench Conservative Member has spoken to support the amendment and apparently no Conservative Member wishes to rise to oppose the amendments. Everyone who has spoken, on both sides of the House, appears to support them.

Mrs. Ewing : I think there is an element of collective embarrassment among Conservative Members about the proposed legislation and that that is why so few of them are here--although I see that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is present. When the first White Paper was debated, no member of the Scottish Conservative party was present.

Mr. Jackson : I want to place it on record that my hon. Friends are absent because they are anxious to assist everybody to make progress on this legislation.

Mrs. Ewing : That is one interpretation, and the hon. Gentleman has put it forward with great grace.

Mr. Allan Stewart : It is true that I was not present at that debate, but I have been a consistent supporter of a grant-loan system for 25 years, and I was a member of the Standing Committee and attended throughout.

Mrs. Ewing : I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender of any Standing Committee to which he is appointed, since I had the pleasure of serving opposite him on the Committee on the Education Reform Bill in the last Session of Parliament.

I return to the substance of my speech and to new clause 17. I believe that the review committee, as it is described, would provide a real mechanism to consider the issues affecting student support, in areas other than merely the pounds and the pence. We have a responsibility to look at how students are surviving, and we have to look at overall trends in society which affect students. Mention has already been made of the high cost of housing, which affects so many students, for example, in Edinburgh. We have a similar problem in Aberdeen--the oil capital of Europe.

Aberdeen university is used mainly by students from the highlands and islands and Grampian region, who have no alternative but to reside near the university. They cannot lead nine-to-five lives as people can at, for instance, Glasgow university, of which I am a graduate. Housing costs have imposed dreadful pressures on them over the past few years, and they now face the removal of housing benefit. It appears that students will be the only section of society to be denied access to the benefits system. Benefits relating to the short vacations have already been chopped, bit by bit ; now other benefits are to be affected as well.

6 pm

A favourite phrase of the Government during debates on student support is "economic costs". They never look at the other side of the coin. Surely we should ensure that our funding for higher education represents a sound investment for the future. It is not merely an "economic

Next Section

Home Page