| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Student Debt
13. Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): What estimate he has made of the average debt of students leaving higher education in (a) Wales and (b) England in the last three years. [121707]
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): My Department's last survey of student income and expenditure covered the academic year 1998–99. Results from the 2002–03 survey, including estimates of the debt of students in England and Wales who graduate in summer 2003, will be available later this year. According to the UNITE/MORI student living reports, the average debt anticipated by students at UK universities was £7,026 in 2000–01, £8,133 in 2001–02, and £8,816 in 2002–03. They did not give comparative figures for England and Wales, however.
Mr. Thomas : I thank the Minister for that useful reply. Has he had an opportunity to read the report published yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which examined the White Paper's models on top-up fees and student debt? At a conservative estimate, graduates will be burdened with debt for 10 years as a result of the White Paper's proposals. What can the Minister say today about the rising debt burden on students, and about the indisputable fact that that will not help access to higher education for those from poorer backgrounds?
Alan Johnson: I have had a chance to read the headline figures: that same report said that the Conservatives' policy would be to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Debt is a very important issue. On the White Paper's proposals, it has been said that we are adding another £9,000 to student debt by increasing the current level from £12,000—three student loans of £4,000—to £21,000. However, in terms of the poorest students—the main topic of the question—one must take account of the fact that we will be introducing a £1,000 non-repayable maintenance grant. So provided that a student takes that grant instead of £1,000 worth of loan, the overall figure will be reduced by £3,000. We will also be providing fee remission of up to £1,100 on the same basis as applies to tuition fees, so a further £3,300 can be deducted from the overall figure. So we are comparing £12,000 with £14,700. As to the time it takes to repay—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should write to the hon. Member.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Is it not true that the Government have introduced income-contingent loans rather than mortgage-style loans, which led to an
enormous burden, particularly for women? The problem with mortgage-style loans was that, once someone had started to pay back the student loan, payments had to continue at the same rate no matter what the student's earnings, even if there were no earnings at all. Is not income-contingent repayment a much more sensible and fairer way of paying back?
Alan Johnson: I apologise for getting bogged down in figures earlier, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are suggesting a progressive policy. The old system, which still applies to some students paying back their debt, meant that once someone paid a penny over a certain threshold, the whole lot had to be paid back—divided by five or by seven. A woman on maternity leave, for example, would build up more debt. Our proposals are much fairer: unless someone reaches the threshold of £15,000, no money is paid back whatever. Dipping below it in the future will not mean building up debt, because no real rate of interest is attached. Our proposals are therefore much better. Chris Patten, the former chairman of the party, described Conservative proposals as "the worst sort—
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): The Minister has given two very long answers, and you have rightly called him to order, Mr. Speaker. However, I have a very simple question for him. Is there any evidence that students from poorer backgrounds are put off going to university because of the fear of building up debt?
Alan Johnson: There is obviously a question about debt, as the White Paper clearly states. It is, of course, an issue, but we also say that the main problem of getting youngsters into higher education revolves around the question of aspiration, attainment, application and then admission. [Interruption.] It is not just about whether there is debt or no debt. Debt existed under the previous Government's policies; there has always been student debt. The question is how best to deal with it and ensure that it is not too much of a burden on future aspirations.
School Funding
15. Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham): If he will make a statement on school funding in 2003–04. [121709]
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): We have invested a record £2.7 billion more in education funding this year, and we have introduced a new funding system which is widely recognised as being fairer than the old one. However, as we have discussed today and on many other occasions, some schools have faced difficulties this year. We are committed to ensuring that every school receives a reasonable per pupil increase for next year and the year after that.
Mr. Hoban : I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, despite Hampshire county council exceeding the Government's passporting targets,
schools in my constituency have to balance the books this year, and if they are to avoid making redundancies, they have to use their reserves. If schools in Fareham do not receive a fair deal for the funding that they need, redundancies will hit next year rather than this.
Mr. Miliband: I take seriously the views of the head teachers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who are writing to explain the position. However, if he is interested in a fair deal, he should try to persuade his Front Benchers to support the current levels of spending—we have not yet heard whether they do. Until he persuades them, we cannot take him seriously.
Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth): I am someone who is interested in a fair deal, so will the Minister remind us and explain to the House again why a school in a deprived area in a county such as Hertfordshire should receive more Government funding than a school in Tamworth with the same level of deprivation, facing the same cost profile? Will he tell us?
Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be reassured to know that the pupils in the two schools to which he referred receive the same amount of money from the Government. The difference is in how the local education authority in each case decides to spend that money.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): Not true.
Mr. Miliband: The Government provide the same money per pupil across the country where the circumstances of the pupil are the same. The local education authority then has a choice about whether to fund similar pupils in the same way at school level. That is a choice that local authorities have to make.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster): What would the Minister say to the London borough of Havering, which received an increase of only 3.5 per cent. in its central Government grant this year? It has passported well in excess of 100 per cent. of its education grant to its schools, yet the very small grant that it received means that schools are still suffering extreme financial hardship as they try to balance their budgets. No matter how much the authority passports to schools, it is still not enough.
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Lady will know that the amount of money available for distribution to schools depends partly on how much money comes from central Government and partly on how much is raised locally. The distribution to individual schools depends on the number of pupils in each school. I do not know whether the schools to which she refers are losing pupils, but that is a significant problem in a number of primary schools. There are 50,000 fewer primary school pupils this year than there were last year. I am afraid that there will be 50,000 fewer again next year, and another 50,000 fewer the year after that. That is a problem across the country, and we have to take it seriously.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Crown Prosecution Service
20. Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): What plans she has to train more Crown Prosecution Service staff to become qualified lawyers. [121686]
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): This week, the CPS law scholarship programme was launched. This will give full financial sponsorship to CPS administrative and clerical staff to qualify as lawyers. The importance of the scheme is that it will extend opportunities, broaden the legal profession and give the CPS a supply of home-grown lawyers.
Mr. Kidney : My right hon. and learned Friend deserves much credit for the law scholarship scheme, whose launch I attended with her on Tuesday. I congratulate her on that achievement. I am pleased for the CPS staff who will benefit from the self-improvement that the scheme offers, but does she agree that the real praise should go to the CPS for taking up the scheme? It represents the most efficient use of resources and it is bound to help with recruitment and retention in the years to come.
The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I shall pass on his warm words of welcome to where they belong—that is, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the human resource team in the CPS and the chief Crown prosecutors. The previous discussion in the House was about improving access to education and training, but the point of the programme is that it can be very expensive to qualify as a lawyer. The fees alone can amount to £13,500. It also costs a lot—up to £20,000—for the CPS to recruit a lawyer. Instead of spending money recruiting lawyers from outside, the aim is to recruit administrative and clerical people who have ability, commitment and intelligence but who have never had the opportunity. The scheme will also strengthen the legal profession, which will be more diverse and therefore have more legitimacy.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I welcome what the Solicitor-General has said about currently employed CPS staff training as lawyers. However, will she ensure that during training they are also given specific and detailed guidance on the use of expert witnesses? That is especially important in light of the answer given yesterday in another place by the Attorney-General in connection with the tragic cases of Sally Clarke and Trupti Patel. Does she agree that it is crucial that all parts of the CPS are very careful in the use of expert witnesses, especially in tragic cases such as that?
The Solicitor-General: Indeed, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I shall go further. He has asked before about matters arising from the Sally Clarke case, and I undertook to tell the House, after the Court of Appeal's written judgment was handed down, about the action that the CPS intended to take. In relation to current and existing cases involving either
Dr. Williams or Professor Meadows as expert witnesses, guidance has been issued to the CPS about full disclosure of the Court of Appeal judgment on the defence. There will also be scrutiny and review of past cases in which convictions may have been secured on the evidence of Dr. Williams, to ensure that lessons are learned. I remind the House that, although serious issues were involved, neither the Court of Appeal in the Sally Clarke case nor the court of first instance in the Trupti Patel case made any criticism of the CPS.
Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough): While it is important to improve the quality and training of CPS staff, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary that they make the right decisions? In Leicestershire and in my constituency of Loughborough in particular, a number of cases against local drug dealers have been lost. Everybody on the estate knew who they were, the police put enormous cases together and we were all confident that we could get a prosecution, but the local CPS plea-bargained and got those people off with only a light fine.
It is necessary to improve the quality of the service that is provided. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that that will be done to ensure that local people benefit from decent prosecution and that people who deserve to be put away are put away?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend's question raises a number of important points, which are being addressed by the CPS. The CPS needs to work closely with the police and to focus on the effect of its decisions on victims and witnesses. That is certainly happening. I remind the House, however, that the CPS must be sure that there is enough evidence, that the jury or the magistrates are more likely than not to convict, and that prosecution is in the public interest. That is the basis on which the CPS reviews cases.
I take the points made by my hon. Friend. It might be a good idea for him to raise them in discussion with the chief Crown prosecutor in his area, who would, I am sure, look forward to working with him.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |