| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.38 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): I can assure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh)--who is not party to Liberal Democrat deliberations--that it will become clear where we stand on this Bill as I speak for the next hour and a half.
I find it extremely difficult to listen to Government and Conservative Members speaking with one voice. I can understand why the Minister wishes to rush the Bill through. It is increasingly evident that it is not the Government who are pushing through the Bill, but the ghosts of the previous Administration. As the Tory party tears itself apart and gives the appearance of a party in terminal decay, it continues to have an iron grip on education spending in this House.
This sordid little Bill was conceived in Tory central office and born in Walworth road. It was sordid when the present Minister opposed the concept before the election, and it is sordid now. It is going through the House at the speed it is, not because Ministers believe in it, but because the proceeds are essential to the Chancellor's spending plans for this year and next.
Before the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) turned on the Liberal Democrats, he made a good point. No student will benefit as a result of the passing of the Bill, and not a single penny extra will go to our universities. It is important for hon. Members on the Government Benches--and for those on the packed Conservative Benches--to understand that. It does not matter that the proposals are no different from the sales of other public assets that were so derided by the Government when in opposition.
The student loan portfolio that is under the hammer today is a national asset. It is worth £3.1 billion and it is being offered to the City at a knockdown price. Can the Minister tell the House what is different about this sale to the City? What was so wrong about selling the National Grid or Railtrack at knockdown prices to the so-called City fat cats, but not this public asset? What is the difference? How does such a fire sale fit with the Government's proposals rightly to demand the test of best value on the awarding of local government contracts, for instance?
Can the Minister answer those two questions clearly, openly and without prevarication? Does he believe that the sale of those enormous public assets--on the terms you have agreed--represents the best value to taxpayers, yes or no? Secondly, if you say yes--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order.
Mr. Willis:
I am sorry. My apologies to the Minister--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. If I am on my feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. He has now corrected himself. He has already made a number of speeches in the House, and that is a point of procedure that he should have absorbed by now.
Mr. Willis:
My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and to the Minister. If he is prepared to say that this is best value to the taxpayers, will he be prepared to say what is the level of discount being sought by investors in order that the debt can be bought? I do not expect him to give me a precise figure, but the level of subsidy is directly relevant to the cost of selling this portfolio to the taxpayers.
The Minister said, in his former life as Opposition spokesman, that any subsidy above 25 per cent. would be excessive for the sale of the student loan portfolio, when the former Government wanted to attract private sector lenders into the student loan market. Perhaps he will say whether he expects the subsidy to be greater or less than 50 per cent. of the total value of the loan portfolio.
While Liberal Democrats understand the predicament that the Minister has been placed in by the Chancellor's commitment to the previous Government's tax and spend proposals for the next two years, he must understand the outrage felt on our Benches when we see what may be as much as a £1 billion subsidy paid to the private sector when our universities are experiencing the worst cash crisis in their history.
In effect, the £1 billion that the Minister is potentially giving away would stave off for the lifetime of this Parliament the requirement to introduce tuition fees. The sum of money saved would be far more than the total amount of money that will go to our universities because of imposing tuition fees in the lifetime of this Parliament. If the Minister disagrees with that assessment, can he say how much additional money will go to our universities in the lifetime of this Parliament from the imposition of tuition fees?
Another issue is the redefinition of lending proposed by the Secretary of State for the future treatment of student loans. If the Secretary of State is successful in persuading the Chancellor to change the redefinition of lending, we shall support him in his efforts. Could that principle not be applied to the existing loan portfolio? In that case, would the Minister consider not proceeding with the second tranche of the £1.5 billion sale next year?
Finally, I must ask the Minister whether at least one of the institutions that he expected to bid for the portfolio has already dropped out. Can he tell the House how many institutions are still actively bidding for the portfolio?
Mr. Byers:
I shall answer those points, many of which will be more appropriately debated tomorrow during the Conservative Opposition day debate on Dearing and the Government's response to it.
To answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), we shall be publishing the names of those companies that are submitting for the portfolio. It would be inappropriate to give the information that he has requested tonight.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray):
Why?
Mr. Byers:
For the simple reason that we are in the process of running a strong competition to get the best deal for the taxpayer. It is the competition that will ensure that we get the best deal--a fact expressed by Opposition Members. I can give a guarantee that the details of those companies that are interested and are moving to the final stage of the process will be made public, as we made public the names of the 20 companies that entered the first phase of the competition.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talk about the outrage on the Liberal Benches about this measure. It is a pretty recent outrage, because not one of them voted against it on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate we had when the previous Government introduced their attempt at a twin-track approach to student loans--a different approach from the one that we are proposing. It was in that context that we objected to the subsidy that was being offered. We have a strong competition in relation to the student loans book. We shall be receiving a number of substantial offers. It would be inappropriate this evening to reveal details of the discounts that we expect to be offered. Doing so would not get the best possible deal.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), the Prime Minister has committed the Government to extending access to further and higher education by an extra 500,000 places by the end of this Parliament--not rhetoric, but commitment to open up access. This measure will open up access, extend opportunities and ensure that we can continue to provide high-quality provision. On the basis of those three principles, I urge the House to vote for Third Reading.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--
The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 24.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |