| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Higher Education Funding
15. Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): When he proposes to publish details of the principal alternative models for student finance and university funding. [135246]
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills wrote a letter to my hon. Friend on 3 June 2003, in which he discussed the principal alternative options for student finance and university funding—namely, an increase in flat-rate fees, a graduate tax and real rates of interest on student loans. A copy of the letter is in the Library. The Department illustrated the effects of charging real rates of interest in a memorandum sent to the Education and Skills Committee on 27 May 2002, which is available in the Committee's report, "Post 16 Student Support", published on 4 July 2002.
Paul Farrelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. On several occasions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised Labour Back Benchers that he would make available full details of the main alternative funding models for higher education that he had considered. He still has not done that, so when he will make good that promise? There are alternatives to variable fees that we have not debated properly with the benefit of the promised information. Is not that because the architects of the policy—and I use the word carefully, as my right hon. Friend the Minister is not one of them—are so obsessed with variable fees that they will not give an inch on them, come what may?
Alan Johnson: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. As I pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the alternatives in a letter. The Dearing report set out all the options, including a graduate tax and variability. Dearing had something to say on variability, as it was a national committee of inquiry into higher education. Following devolution, we had the Cubie report in Scotland and the Rees commission in Wales, both of which looked specifically at fees and set out the alternatives. In addition, the Education and Skills Committee has published four reports, all of which have alluded to various options.
I might not have been an architect of the policy, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be pleased to know that I support it thoroughly. This is an important debate—it excludes the Conservatives but includes the Liberal Democrats—about how we fund expansion through putting extra investment into higher education. However, I think that all the options are available for perusal, and I believe passionately that our proposals strike the right balance.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given the enormous pressure on the research base of UK higher education, the requirement to recruit and retain the best possible academics and the need to compete with international institutions of the highest quality, what consideration
has the Minister given to methods of encouraging far greater commercial sponsorship of higher education in the future than it has enjoyed in the past?
Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The Dearing committee was commissioned by the previous Conservative Government and had all-party support. It said that funding for higher education should come from three sources—society, graduates and employers. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and two pieces or work are under way. The Lambert committee is looking at the relationship between business and universities, and another working party under the chairmanship of the vice-chancellor of Bristol university is looking at what must be the long-term solution—to secure more endowments and employer investment, as has happened in the US. The White Paper points out that a longer-term cultural change is required, but that is something that we need to work towards.
Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): If it is wrong for the taxpayer to foot the entire bill for the cost of educating undergraduates, but right for undergraduates to make a contribution towards the benefits that they will accrue, why is it also right that, when they graduate, undergraduates should make a contribution to the costs of postgraduate research?
Alan Johnson: I think that two different issues are involved in that question, but I point out to my hon. Friend that we have increased the stipends available to postgraduates, which now range from £9,000 to as much as £13,000. The stipend does not count as income, so it will not affect the repayment of fees.
It is crucial to make the point that we are not saying that the taxpayer should not make the lion's share contribution to higher education funding, but we agree, like Dearing, that we cannot say that higher education, with 40 to 50 per cent. participation, can be funded in the same way as when it was the preserve of a tiny elite back in the 1960s. The other point is that there are other priorities in education for extra taxpayers' money, were it available.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Greater Manchester Police
20. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): How many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has undertaken against (a) serving and (b) former members of the Greater Manchester police force since 1997. [135224]
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): In 2001, 19 serving police officers in Greater Manchester were convicted of criminal offences. Nationally, in the year ending April 2002, 188 serving police officers were convicted of criminal offences. Those are the conviction figures. I am afraid that I do not have the figures for the number of prosecutions, but any file of evidence against
a serving police officer will be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors, which requires them to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and a sufficient public interest in favour of a prosecution.
Tony Lloyd : I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. May I draw her attention to the recent documentary, "The Secret Policeman"? The journalist who made the programme was employed as a trainee and, in fact, eventually passed out and was employed as a serving police officer. My right hon. and learned Friend mentions the public interest test in prosecutions. May I put it to her very strongly that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute a journalist whose exposure of racism in the police force did the nation a service? It would be far better for the senior police to be involved in ensuring that we drive the racists out of the police force.
The Solicitor-General: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but perhaps I may remind him that the decision is made independently by the CPS. The Attorney-General and I superintend the CPS, and we account to the House for its decisions. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the decision about whether to prosecute any individual must be taken independently by the CPS, but it is right that he should have the opportunity, as the local Member of Parliament, to say what he believes is in the public interest. There is a lot of concern that racism should be rooted out of the police, and Greater Manchester police and my colleagues in the Home Office are very concerned about that, too.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Although I agree with a number of the points that the Solicitor-General has just made, she will recognise the great concern about this matter among Members on both sides of the House, and not just about the issues raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). Will she give an undertaking that there will be full all-party consultations with the Director of Public Prosecutions, herself and the Attorney-General as this matter progresses? I entirely agree that decisions about prosecuting individuals must be taken by the CPS and the DPP. Although we have expressed reservations about the choice of the new DPP, about whom I have recently been in correspondence with the Attorney-General, we would nevertheless wish to have all-party meetings. Does she recognise that that would very much be a way to take into account the public interest and the views of all parties?
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. In response to his question, perhaps I can take the opportunity to place on record how grateful we are to the DPP, David Calvert-Smith, for his work—he finishes his work this week and has seen the service make tremendous strides forward—and to say that the Attorney-General and I have complete and total confidence in the new DPP, who I am sure will carry on his good work.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether we will carry on cross-party discussions on issues of concern. That is very much what the Attorney-General and I seek to do at all
times. In essence, the Law Officers' posts are not party political—the prosecution service should be independent—so we always seek to hold discussions with Front-Bench and Back-Bench Opposition Members, as well as our own Back Benchers, on the most open basis.If, however, the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether it would be a good idea for him to meet me and the Attorney-General to discuss the case so that we can make representations to the DPP, I am afraid that the answer has to be no for the reasons that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). The way is open for him to seek a meeting with the DPP or with the prosecutors concerned. We have to be absolutely clear about the constitutional position and protect the independence of our prosecutors, which I know he sees as important.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |