Examination of Witness (Questions 100-119)
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2003
MARGARET HODGE
MBE, MP
Chairman
100. Minister, I think Paul has a very strong
point here. It is obvious from the White Paper and it is obvious
what everyone in the education sector knows, there must have been
almighty number-crunching in your Department in order to persuade
the Treasury of the viability of the proposals you came up with.
We know that is the case and Paul is quite right to say we would
like to know more of what sort of case you made to the Treasury.
Why should we not know? This Committee represents Parliament and
should be able to follow that track from your Department to the
Treasury. Why should those figures not be made available?
(Margaret Hodge) I am trying to share with you, Chairman,
as much of the information as I feel I can.
101. That is good for us?
(Margaret Hodge) In fact what Paul did was stop me
in mid-flow in trying to explain why a proposition which I think
has been the one most highly contested against the one we ended
up with was not considered appropriate. Again, the specific figures
depend on the various assessments which can be made and vary,
they vary depending—
Paul Holmes
102. So publish all the various assessments
and research so we can all see them.
(Margaret Hodge) Undoubtedly you will, as you have
done over the issue of interest rates, undertake your own research.
I am unclear as to what figures you are missing at the moment.
103. We do not have quite the same facilities
as the Government does and this Select Committee does have a responsibility
to oversee the spending of funds on education by the Government,
and to do that you need to look at the assumptions as to how you
raise that money and why you need to know what the gaps are, and
you are refusing to share that information.
(Margaret Hodge) No, I think I have been pretty open
with the information we used in coming to our decisions. The only
thing I have refused to state to the Committee this afternoon
is a finite figure on the funding gap, and I have explained to
you why we do not think that is an appropriate figure, although
it is pretty clear to everybody there is a huge lack of funding.
104. You are effectively saying, `Trust us,
we are not telling you how we got to that figure'—
(Margaret Hodge) No, I am not saying `Trust us'. Perhaps
you can give me a specific area where you feel you have not got
the information you require.
105. I have already given you four specifics—
(Margaret Hodge) No, the only specific you gave me
was the funding gap.
106. I gave you three others, as the record
will show when we read it tomorrow.
(Margaret Hodge) What three others?
107. If you have looked at the alternative of
the graduate tax, you must have looked at, for example, how long
would it take before graduates repaid it. How many years gap?
(Margaret Hodge) I can tell you—
108. Secondly, what is the cost of filling that
gap by, for example, issuing student bonds, like the transport
bonds which financed the public transport systems in American
cities but not unfortunately in London? Those are two specific
questions I asked you, I cannot remember the third offhand but
the record will show it tomorrow.
(Margaret Hodge) The issue of bonds is a much more
complicated one and I can certainly let the Committee have a note
on why we felt that was not an option. On the issue of the funding
gap it depends a little, as you would imagine, on the assumption
you make around the level of fees. But if we were to assume there
was no change in the level of fees—and it also makes an
assumption around the level of tax we charge, are we going to
charge a 3p, 2p, 4p tax—if you assume a 3p tax, which was
one of the assumptions we looked at, and we assume the current
level of fees, it takes about 17 years before it starts to—
109. So if you have all these costings, why
can you not publish them?
(Margaret Hodge) Clearly there are a whole range of—
Chairman: Clearly this argument is going
to go on and we have a few scarce minutes left to ask you two
or three other very important things.
Mr Chaytor
110. Minister, would you not agree that the
quickest and most efficient way by which a Member can obtain that
information would be to submit a Parliamentary Question?
(Margaret Hodge) You could do that too.
111. Could we ask you about the access regulator.
The new system comes in in 2006, universities will need to decide
whether they are going to raise their level of fees at least 12
months before then.
(Margaret Hodge) Fifteen months probably.
112. The Office of the access regulator will
need primary legislation which is due some time between now and
2005, so how much time will the access regulator have to do their
job? When it says, as it does in the White Paper, that only institutions
making satisfactory progress on access will be able to participate
in a graduate contribution scheme, how are you going to define
`satisfactory progress'?
(Margaret Hodge) I am just trying to work the timetable
back. We certainly intend to publish as soon as we can our proposals
for consultation on how the access regulator would work, and that
is one of the first areas of policy we will define in detail.
Although you are right to say it will require primary legislation
to establish it, we want to get on with it and do that as quickly
as we can.
113. Will that be in this session of Parliament?
(Margaret Hodge) No, it will be in the next session.
114. So the earliest date for the establishment
of the Office will be—?
(Margaret Hodge) You are tying me down a little and
I do not want to mislead the Committee. We now, having published
the White Paper, await the consultation responses but we will
then be drafting as quickly as we can legislation. Given the changes
we have made in the parliamentary processes, we may be able to
publish slightly earlier than `next session'; the beginning of
next session. But we will have to wait and see, we will move as
fast as we can. You are right that institutions will have to put
it into their prospectuses in 2005, which come out early 2005.
We want to have the access regulator up and running—and
the legislation will be the end of 2003, beginning of 2004—as
quickly as we can towards the beginning of 2004 to give it time.
How will it measure progress? The access regulator will not work
once and then go away from an institution, it will not make its
judgment once and then move away from monitoring an institution,
it will have to make judgments and then monitor progress that
the institution makes. What will it judge? Again you will have
to wait for the consultation paper and the details to come, but
it will judge admissions procedures to make sure they are fair
and ensure fair access. It will judge the institution against
its own ambitions for ensuring a more inclusive cohort of students.
It will look at the arrangements around bursaries and it will
look at perhaps things like how the institution works with local
schools and colleges. Those are the sort of things we will be
looking at.
115. Is it conceivable therefore that the most
research-intensive universities, which frequently fall short in
meeting their ambitions in terms of access, could be denied the
opportunity to levy top-up fees, because they are less likely
to fulfil the criteria?
(Margaret Hodge) We made it absolutely clear that
universities will only be given permission to levy variable fees
if they sign a satisfactory access agreement with the access regulator
and then stick to it and then deliver against it.
116. Is the permission to levy top-up fees based
on the signing of an agreement or track record, because the phrase
in the White Paper is `satisfactory progress'.
(Margaret Hodge) Yes.
117. Is that progress towards signing an agreement
or progress on improving access to—
(Margaret Hodge) No, that is why I said this is not
a one-off exercise. There will be continuing monitoring by the
regulator of progress by the institution against its ambitions.
I think probably what you are getting at is that it would be unfair
to assess an institution in the first instance against its past
performance, but we would expect it to make progress against the
ambitions it sets itself, and the regulator will monitor the institution's
performance.
118. So it is possible therefore that the access
regulator may withdraw the permission to levy top-up fees?
(Margaret Hodge) Yes.
Ms Munn
119. Jumping back to foundation fees—sorry
degrees, I have got fees on the brain. Foundation fees, a new
idea!
(Margaret Hodge) There is a proposition they may not
charge fees on foundation degrees, but go on.
| 
