|
Column Number: 599
Standing Committee H
Tuesday 9 March 2004
(Afternoon)
[Part II]
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
[Continuation from column 598]
The Chairman: Before we move on, I inform the Committee that there is a desire to reach clause 41. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, but if we are to make that sort of progress, speeches will have to be shorter and interventions—some of which seem to have taken on a life of their own—will have to be appreciably shorter.
Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 237, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Educational subsidy—
Mr. Allen: I have tabled a number of amendments to the clause. Even if I move amendment No. 276 and new clause 9 briefly, I hope that the Minister will none the less take them seriously as they reflect a great deal of concern expressed by colleagues outside the Committee.
I mentioned the latest Ofsted report on one of my primary schools, Highwood Player nursery and junior school. I think I said that it had been awarded ones and twos, which are the highest points that Ofsted can give, on everything apart from attainment, which received a five, one of the lowest scores. In other words, it is a great school with a superb head teacher, committed staff, great involvement of governors and a super environment, but it underachieves. It does so because a lot of the kids are in child protection measures. In many cases, they arrive at school unable to string a sentence together and there is no parental support.
Admissions policy can urgently address that problem by getting youngsters into school in the September of the year when they attain the age of five so that they do a full year in reception. My local education authority does not do that; it cannot because of cost. It is a very effective, hard-working and dedicated authority with good people throughout, but a lack of money stops it doing the very thing that would be benefit those kids most throughout their lives.
Column Number: 600
When we talk about the situation of graduates or students, we should put that into perspective by reflecting on the amount of money that we put into the education of those people relative to the under-fives—reception classes, Sure Start and so forth. We can all regale each other with figures, but in essence a middle-class welfare system operates. More and more money gets poured down the throats of people who are able to go to university, whereas people from tough working-class areas cannot get their kids into a reception class.
A reception class is one fifth of that child's life because they are only five. To be in a reception class for that one year allows them to receive an education for one fifth of their life prior to school. We should consider the impact that addressing that might have on some of the problems that we have all talked about. We need to gain that perspective because the amount of money spent is important. One of the best ways that we as taxpayers can get an idea about that is to have transparency and clarity on education spending.
My right hon. Friend the Minister often says that even with the new fee regime, £13 out of £14 will be provided by the taxpayer rather than by the graduate through repayments. I do not know whether that figure still stands or whether it has moved or been finessed a little. However, bearing in mind the order of the expenditure involved, a massive amount of money goes to those individuals, even under the new fee payment regime.
I have tabled a probing amendment to bring some clarity to the matter. I do not contend that it deals with things in absolutely the right way, but its purpose is to get my right hon. Friend to examine a system similar to that which operates in Australia, where the Government, as the agent for the taxpayer, issue a cheque to the student that is only cashable at the university that they are going to attend. There is a symbolism in doing that; it shows the student that many thousands of pounds are rightly being paid towards their course and that they have to make an additional contribution.
I hesitate to say that the matter should be kicked into a commission or any other body, and I do not expect to get an answer on from my right hon. Friend on the hoof, but transparency should be introduced to show the generosity with which the taxpayer treats undergraduates relative to those in further education, secondary schools and primary schools, and children under five. That would be a great benefit to both the taxpayer and the student, who is the main beneficiary.
4.30 pm
Mr. Collins: As you rightly said in your earlier ruling, Mr. Gale, there is a general wish on both sides of the Committee that we should reach clause 41 rapidly, so I shall be brief.
I want to place on the record the fact that although I do not support every word of the amendment, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on its technical qualities or otherwise, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has made an important point. Clarity about how taxpayers' money is used is highly desirable. For that reason, my party advanced the
Column Number: 601
proposition at a recent general election that all households should receive an independently verified statement on how all Government spending is allocated.
In the context of the Bill, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman should have lighted on the concept and phraseology of the voucher as a means of explaining the system to people. I waited with bated breath for him to go a tiny step further and indicate his full support for the Conservative proposal of pupil passports, which is merely half a step away from his new clause 7.
Whether one calls it a voucher or something else, the idea of bringing to the forefront of the student's mind exactly how much taxpayers' money is being made available for his education, and making it clear to the institution that it is receiving funding because that student has chosen to go there instead of somewhere else, is highly desirable and deeply commendable. It is one of the more elevating moments in our deliberations when the hon. Member for Nottingham, North so admirably embraces and expounds Conservative philosophy. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Alan Johnson: I shall try to be quick.
Amendment No. 237 asks us to prescribe
''the information to be provided to an eligible student about the financial value of any grant''.
It is another amendment on which there is no problem in principle. My argument is that it is unnecessary.
The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2002 require us to inform eligible students about the financial value of the statutory support that they are entitled to receive under the regulations. Under the student finance delivery arrangements, applicants are sent a detailed notification letter, setting out their entitlement to all types of support provided under the regulations, including for those starting in 2004, when the £1,000 grant will be reintroduced, before it increases to £2,700 in 2006. Under the application timetable, those who apply by the prescribed deadlines will receive the letter in August, in advance of them beginning the course.
Even before the application process begins, we inform potential students through our websites, talks at local schools and promotional leaflets about the type and amount of support available for the forthcoming academic year. It is also worth mentioning that access plans, which must be approved by the director of fair access before institutions can charge higher variable fees, must show how the institution will make information on financial assistance available to students and prospective students. As we are already legally required to provide the information to applicants, and we have systems in place to do that, we see no reason to adopt the amendment. It is superfluous.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale took new clause 7 as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North proposing a voucher system, but it
Column Number: 602
is the opposite. We noted from Harrogate at the weekend that Her Majesty's official Opposition are developing a system that involves spending £3,500 to encourage people to leave the public sector and go into the private sector. In essence, that is not too different from top-up fees for six to 18-year-olds. However, my hon. Friend was right that we need to invest in state education, not in allowing people to opt out of state education and into the private sector.
My hon. Friend was talking about a voucher, but not in the way interpreted by the Opposition. I spoke about the matter at length with the Australian Education Minister, Brendan Nelson. I know that the amendment is a probing amendment, but the system that my hon. Friend proposed will not come about if we accept it. There will merely be lots of bureaucracy. In Australia, they ensure that every student going to university knows the proportion of money provided by the taxpayer and the proportion that they must provide through deferred fees. That is an important principle.
Brendan Nelson is not of our political persuasion; he is more a mix of Conservative and Liberal. However, he made the point that people welcome the system in Australia as putting into context the issue of a graduate contribution, with the lion's share provided by the taxpayer, as it will be in the UK. I will reflect on how we can do that, subject to Royal Assent, when we introduce the measures. Instead of legislating, there is probably a simple method that allows universities to do that, which is how it works in Australia. I will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind, but I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
| 
