|
Column Number: 205
Standing Committee H
Tuesday 24 February 2004
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]
Clause 23
Condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 82, in
clause 23, page 9, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).—[Mrs. Anne Campbell.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following a amendments:
No. 3, in
No. 144, in
No. 223, in
No. 239, in
clause 23, page 9, line 11, at end insert
'and that there is provision to students, as directed by the Secretary of State, of a bursary equivalent to at least 10 per cent. of the fee, or £300, whichever is the greater sum'.
No. 83, in
clause 23, page 9, line 13, leave out from 'period' to 'institution' in line 15.
No. 84, in
clause 23, page 9, line 26, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 85, in
clause 23, page 10, leave out lines 30 and 31.
No. 120, in
No. 110, in
No. 86, in
clause 24, page 10, line 44, leave out 'and the higher amount'.
No. 87, in
clause 24, page 10, line 48, leave out 'and the higher amount'.
No. 88, in
Column Number: 206
clause 24, page 11, line 1, leave out 'either of those amounts' and insert 'that amount'.
No. 89, in
clause 26, page 11, line 26, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 225, in
No. 240, in
clause 26, page 11, line 30, at end insert
'and that there is provision to students, as directed by the Secretary of State, of a bursary equivalent to at least 10 per cent. of the fee, or £300, whichever is the greater sum'.
No. 252, in
No. 90, in
clause 26, page 11, line 32, leave out from 'period' to 'institution' in line 34.
No. 91, in
clause 26, page 12, leave out lines 33 and 34.
No. 121, in
No. 92, in
clause 31, page 14, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
No. 93, in
clause 31, page 14, line 10, leave out 'also'.
No. 94, in
clause 31, page 14, leave out lines 39 to 43.
No. 95, in
clause 35, page 16, line 4, leave out '(a) or'.
No. 96, in
clause 36, page 16, line 23, leave out '(a) or'.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): It is nice to be back under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. We got a little soft this morning and colleagues were interrupting me for all sorts of spurious reasons as I was trying to speak to the amendments.
I should like to start the proceedings by apologising to the Conservative Front Bench spokesman. I mistakenly said that his party's policies would cause 410,000 students not to go to university. However, I have looked at my source again: Professor Crewe of Universities UK referred to a study of the Higher Education Policy Institute, in which he said that 214,000 student places would be lost due to the loss of income to universities. Additionally, 180,000 to 250,000 places would be lost due to demographic changes. I apologise—the figure was not 410,000. It was up to 464,000, and I am glad to correct the record.
We were discussing markets and my amendment No. 144. I should make it clear that in moving the amendment, I am not, as one colleague suggested earlier, espousing a market, but recognising it. I am recognising the reality of what we must deal with and how we should change it. We could all hold our breath and pass a resolution to wish away the market, and wish that we lived in a sort of nirvana, but that would
Column Number: 207
not make a blind bit of difference. We must intervene and regulate, as I am proposing in amendment No. 144, to ensure that what we currently have—a massively imperfect market—is improved, and works for people whom we are here to safeguard.
Dr. Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab): Would my hon. Friend agree that we should not be using the word ''market'' at all to describe the present situation? It is more like a cartel.
Mr. Allen: There are many ways to describe it, and perhaps cartel is the right word, but I shall not stray too far into market theory. It is important that Committee colleagues from all parties understand that we are dealing with a grossly imperfect market. My proposals and the Government package are designed to make that market work better, particularly for those whom Members of all parties represent. We should get as many youngsters as are qualified into the university place that they deserve.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): We can explore the market later, but I should like to press the hon. Gentleman. Taking the example of Nottingham university, which is close to him, can he say what improvements will result from the Bill? How will the current system, which he sees as deeply flawed, be rectified to allow greater access to Nottingham university for students from his constituency?
Mr. Allen: I am pleased to have a straight man this afternoon. If we were to do what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) suggested this morning, we could gear our constituents up to qualify properly. It will take time—there is no magic wand. We could put something in the Liberal Democrats' manifesto that would probably solve the situation immediately, but to be realistic, we need to get people qualified so that they can get A-levels. It is no good the hon. Gentleman tutting: we live with this every day. We are trying to raise standards in primary and secondary schools and in further education.
I was born and bred in my constituency, and I know that my constituents look at the wall around Nottingham university but rarely venture into its nice campus. However, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, instead of having to climb the two mountains of fighting their educational culture and of then having to find their own money to go to university, they will be given a grant of £3,000 or more a year to go the university of their choice if they are qualified.
There is a lot more that we can do, and I have tabled amendments to improve access and get the universities into their local communities not merely to recruit students, but to help education at a lower level. There is a great deal that can happen.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): I am little confused. When I first read amendment No. 144, I assumed that it proposed that the fees could increase by a maximum of 0.5 per cent. above the rate of the retail prices index, but it actually proposes a minimum
Column Number: 208
increase of at least 0.5 per cent. above that rate. In any case, an increase can, rather than must, happen, so it would be either zero or at least 0.5 per cent. above the rate of the retail prices index.
Mr. Allen: If I reach amendment No. 144, I will be pleased to deal with that.
There was debate about intervening in the market, but we are clearly intervening in it by creating a £3,000 a year grant and abolishing up-front fees. Some of us want to go further. I would prefer to replace the current loan rate with a Government rate of interest, which would create another £600 million that could be spent on additional grants. That would also interfere with the market. I want the Select Committee on Education and Skills to consider annually how the new system develops, so it can also make suggestions to change and improve the market.
My right hon. Friend the Minister knows about the situation in Australia. If it is true that £13 out of £14 will be paid for by the state, why do we not let students know that fact in the most obvious way by giving them a cheque cashable only at their university? That will mean that they pay that money to the university, as well as their one 14th contribution.
Finally, on additions to the market, there is a raft of later amendments about sponsoring individual students and public services helping students through university, in the same way as the Army scheme and others do. There are many ways in which we all want to and will intervene in the market, so let us not have any more nonsense about how we are creating a market where there has not been one before.
Amendment No. 144 addresses that point directly. It refers directly to cap on fees, and I make no bones about saying that the best way to cap fee income and levels is to have a tough regulator. That is why I have tabled amendments to strengthen the office for fair access and make it more like Ofsted. It should have teeth and ensure that instead of being merely reactive when a university proposes an increase, it gets stuck in and starts to regulate early on.
Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East) (Lab): I am sorry that I missed an early part of my hon. Friend's contribution, as I enjoyed it this morning. Will he explain how the Bill will help Nottingham's poorest youngsters? As I understand it, Nottingham's poorest youngsters do not pay tuition fees. Under the Bill, such youngsters will receive an increased maintenance grant, but that grant plus the bursary total the £3,000 that the youngsters would have to pay if they were not poor. There is no additional help in the Bill, so I am wondering how it will help the poorest youngsters in our constituencies.
|
