| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I do not wish to prolong matters. However, can she answer the point obliquely alluded to by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who I think was talking about the position of Scottish students in Scotland? I know that the Minister's response to that will be that that is a matter for the Scottish Executive. But can she explain to the House the difference between what is proposed and what I understand the Government are doing now? Currently, students from England go to Scotland for a four-year honours degree—in Scotland, the honours degree lasts for four years, whereas in England it lasts for three years. The Government—the Minister's department—pay the Scottish Executive for the fourth year completed by the English student in Scotland. I am finding it difficult to understand where the problem lies with regard to the amendment, given that that precedent has already been established.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the precedent is set under the Quigley arrangements, and I know that there is a recommendation before the Scottish Executive to continue with that. The answer to the noble Lord is very simple: the norm in Scotland is that it takes four years to complete what we, in England, would regard as a traditional undergraduate course. That arrangement—I cannot answer if the noble Lord is bantering with me; it is very difficult to hear what he is saying—was put in place because the two courses are comparable. A three-year
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1184
undergraduate course in England equates to a four-year undergraduate course in Scotland. I do not mean that that is the case in terms of quality, and so on—I do not wish to raise issues concerning the wonderful Scottish higher education system. I am simply saying that that is the logic behind the arrangement and the Scottish Executive makes the necessary funds available. A four-year-plus course in England—whether it is a sandwich course, a modern languages course, including time spent abroad, or a course in architecture, veterinary surgery, and so on—is different.
It is not a case of saying that the Treasury has told me to say certain things—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, therefore, is my noble friend saying that the first year at a Scottish university in no way equates with a foundation year in a four-year English university course?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am saying precisely what I have just said. The norm within Scotland is that an undergraduate degree is completed within four years. The norm within England is that an undergraduate degree is completed in three years. The reason that the fourth year is paid for is that the two courses are comparable. My contention is that it is quite different from a situation where a degree course lasts for four years either because that course needs to be longer—that is, it is a course in medicine or architecture and so on—or because the nature of the course is different, such as a modern foreign language course which includes a year abroad. That is all that I am saying in this context.
The figure that I have been given for the amount of money that that equates to is between £130 million and £180 million. It is hard to be precise, but that is what I understand the cost to be. I am clear that there is one pot of government money, and we can all agree on that. It is not a question of whether it is for higher education, but that there is an amount of money available to the Exchequer from its entire works across government. The noble Lord will know well that decisions about funding are made within that.
The Department for Education and Skills recognises that we have had very generous settlements from government and that this matter will fall to the next settlement. However, it is my responsibility on the department's behalf to make clear, as I did through my noble friend Lord Triesman on Report, the consequences we foresee of the generosity we have already had from the Exchequer. We contend that although we expect further generosity, none the less there will be implications for higher education of this change, not only in additional fees but in the fees that universities charge today. It will be of that order. I think that I must put that responsibility before the House.
I consistently have said throughout the passage of the Bill that the two things I seek to avoid on behalf of universities are top slicing and taking away their freedoms. The difficulty I have with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, sought to do in his previous amendments, which your Lordships accepted, and with this amendment, is that I believe we run into both items.
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1185
The amendment provides for top slicing because it requires the funds to be paid by the funding council, so there will automatically be a top-slicing operation. Because that takes away the private contribution universities would lose out. I also believe that we would have to create bureaucracy in order to take money out of higher education and then put it back in a slightly different place.
So I contend—and as I have said already, it is up to another place to determine what it wishes to do about the amendments already passed by your Lordships—that the implication is that the sector may well find itself losing resources, not only because of the additional moneys we hope to raise through fees, but also because of the fees currently made available to universities.
I do not believe that it would be right to say other than that. That is the position I want to put before your Lordships' House. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I do not believe it adds to what I understand the noble Lord wishes to achieve. It has serious implications for universities and the impacts would be as I have said.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It may well be that we would not wish to be where we are. But where we are is that the amendment was passed on Report. I see the merits of it and I agree with the résumé by my noble friend Lord Forsyth that students in the fourth year and above of a first degree course are absolved from the burden of paying fees after the third year.
So the question is: who pays? The noble Baroness was very clear on her cause and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was almost clearer. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was less clear. She saw the problems but did not clarify exactly where she would vote or where indeed she will vote. Perhaps that will be very interesting to observe.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that he was not the only person to see the potential consequences of the amendment on Report. In Hansard of 8 June, col. 180, he will see that I mentioned that I had tabled Amendment No. 14 but did not move it, which would have had consequences similar to those that I propose now. That was why I did not go through the Lobbies in support of my noble friend's amendment. So the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was not the only one who foresaw the problem.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has a view of the Treasury which is almost as sacrosanct, though less understandably perhaps, as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. He points out to us with prescience, that there is nothing to stop the Chancellor—he did not use the word—"fiddling" the books; in other words, meeting this and taking the resources from elsewhere in the higher education sector. So I take the point.
The noble Lord went on to say—and I think I quote him accurately—that, "There just isn't the money and the money is not available". That is the same point as
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1186
the noble Baroness made. But that is a matter for decision by the Government. It is exactly what we are debating; and it is the purpose of the amendment. If carried, I hope the amendment will strengthen the hand of the noble Baroness when she goes to the Treasury and says, as she would have to, "Look, we have a problem here".
Also I have taken some advice. The amendment contains the negative clause,
I do not believe that the amendment is defective, although I accept that the reference to Section 27(1)(d) is no longer necessary. I think that the amendment is intelligible and not defective, although that phrase could certainly be dropped, as I hope it would be, in a tidying up procedure.
Your Lordships have heard the arguments. I still find it an arrogance—I must be careful; I must not say that word looking at the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, because I used another disagreeable word and had to withdraw it at an earlier stage of our proceedings—to say that the money is not there. The money is not there because the Government are not putting it there. That is the central problem with the Bill. That is why many of us in this House are distinctly dissatisfied and why I feel it is necessary to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 125.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |