| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Apr 2003 : Column 394—continued
Higher Education White Paper
9. Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): What representations he has received from students on the White Paper "The Future of Higher Education". [108250]
The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): Our consultation on the White Paper has so far received 57 responses directly from students. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had numerous meetings with students during our visits to the universities, and as part of our regional consultations. We will publish a full report of the White Paper consultation later this summer.
Mrs. Anne Campbell : Has my hon. Friend had time to look at early-day motion 994, which has now been signed by 49 hon. and right hon. Members? It is also supported by Cambridge university students' union, in my constituency. Will she consider the view that the early-day motion expresses, which is that, if extra money is required for universities, a measured increase across the board in tuition fees would be preferable to a system of top-up fees?
Margaret Hodge: I have seen the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have considered the views that it expresses. Indeed, we considered that option when we put together the proposals in the White Paper. A number of arguments counter my hon.
Friend's view of the matter, perhaps the most important being that we know that there are different returns for individuals who attend different institutions and take different subjects. At its most extreme, there is a 44 per cent. difference in average returns between graduates from institutions at the two extremes of the graduate pay scale. I put this to my hon. Friend: is it really fair to ask for an even contribution from students when graduates get an uneven return from their attendance?
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Does the Minister accept that most students take the view that the replacement of grants with loans and the introduction of fees have had a devastating effect on low-income families? Would not a much better way forward be to reintroduce grants, rather that constantly expanding the number of universities? That would mean that children from poor homes had a better and more equal opportunity in education.
Margaret Hodge: It is entirely because we accept that people from low-income backgrounds may be deterred from attending universities that we are proposing the changes in the White Paper. They include the reintroduction of grants for a third of the student cohort; the continuation of fee remission on the first £1,100 for students with low-income backgrounds; the abolition of the upfront fee, so that students have to repay only after they become graduates and start earning; and the continuation of no real interest being charged on the loans. That is a package of proposals that will counter the feelings of some students, particularly those with low-income backgrounds, that may deter them from attending university.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): Has the Minister seen the Open university's submission on behalf of mature students? It makes the point that 50 per cent. of students are mature students and expresses concern about the White Paper's lack of emphasis on such students and, indeed, on part-time students. How does the Minister intend to respond to that?
Margaret Hodge: We regularly meet the Open university—indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met its vice-chancellor only last week. I do not accept that the White Paper fails to address issues affecting mature students, and I would put two points to my hon. Friend. First, the Government's targeted support in the existing regime has been increased, which particularly helps mature students. Secondly, the White Paper contains proposals to support part-time students, introducing grants to such students for the first time ever.
School Budgets (Norfolk)
10. Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): What assessment he has made of the impact of (a) the increase in national insurance contributions and (b) the new formula spending share on school budgets in Norfolk. [108251]
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke) : My Department is analysing in detail the impact of the changes in Norfolk and other local education authorities on the basis of the LEA returns
now being submitted as a result of financial decisions. On Norfolk, I have discussed these matters closely with the director of education and the chief executive of the county and I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the county council's decision this week to add £500,000 to the extra £1.6 million that the Government were able to allocate recently to help schools in Norfolk.
Norman Lamb : I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the extra money allocated to Norfolk county council, but will he meet head teachers in my constituency, perhaps with me, so that he could hear directly from them the scale of the problem with this year's budget? I received a letter from a head teacher on behalf of the North Walsham cluster, which set out the position of all the schools in that cluster and pointed out how many schools were facing cuts in staff and teaching support assistance. The situation is pretty bleak, so will the right hon. Gentleman meet those teachers?
Mr. Clarke: I have already met people from schools in my own constituency and my neighbouring constituency of Norwich, North. I understand that Norfolk representatives of the National Association of Head Teachers are seeking a meeting with me and I am prepared to meet them. I have also had substantial e-mail and letter exchanges with schools, including some in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The questions that I am putting to Norfolk county council include the following. Why is 41 per cent. of the standards fund—a total of £6.3 million—being held back from schools? Why is 1 per cent. of the individual school budget—£2.84 million received during the year—also being held back from schools? Why was the non-individual school budget increased by 29.5 per cent., which is a substantial amount, much higher than that received by many other authorities?
The hon. Gentleman may join me in considering why the Norfolk formula allocation has such wide variations in budget share per pupil—for primary schools, the lowest is an 18 per cent. decrease, while the highest is an increase of 95 per cent. The upper quartile primary schools have had embedded increases of an average of 16 per cent., with the lowest quartile receiving only 7 per cent. Those are sharp differentials. The county council does not have a system of floors and ceilings, which it should have, as we do in the country as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking the county to explain itself on those matters.
Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): May I express similar concerns to those of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)? I have done a survey of schools in my area and many are in exactly the same position with a shortfall in funding, perhaps requiring redundancies. They also welcome the Government's massive investment in education and the extra £1.6 million, which will go a long way. I also congratulate Norfolk county council on adding the extra £500,000. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Norfolk local education authority to put all that extra money in the schools that are facing difficulties,
redundancies and staff cuts, thereby ensuring that there are no redundancies this year and, I hope, for the foreseeable future?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and, like him and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I acknowledge the concerns of schools. However, the wide variations in the figures between schools are extremely striking. We have to understand why that is, because the budget for each individual school is affected by a combination of the Government's allocation to the LEA, the council tax increase, and the county council's formula for allocating money. We are analysing those factors carefully and I will report back to colleagues in Norfolk.
Individual Learning Accounts
11. Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): If he will make a statement on individual learning accounts. [108252]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We have acknowledged the serious mistakes that were made in the design and delivery of the individual learning accounts scheme. The hard lessons learned will inform the development of a successor scheme.
Mr. Pickthall : Despite the terrible rip-offs that bedevilled the implementation of the individual learning accounts scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept? Does he agree that unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and I declare an interest as a member—instituted remarkably successful partnership schemes that exceeded what the Government had envisaged? What will the Government do to enable unions such as USDAW, and the TUC, to push the programme further and do vital work for many workers who have never been involved in education since leaving school?
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right to say that the principles that underpinned the individual learning accounts scheme were absolutely right; ILAs were successful in getting non-traditional learners back into learning and in giving purchasing power to learners so that they could choose the learning that was most relevant to their needs. Singularly successful in that process was the role of intermediaries such as trade unions and grass-roots community-based voluntary organisations, which were able to influence learners who, in the past, had found education an entirely negative experience. When we announce the details of the successor scheme in June, as part of the skills strategy, we will seek to ensure that we uphold the original principles, which are as true now as they were before.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |