|
Column Number: 165
Standing Committee H
Tuesday 24 February 2004
(Morning)
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
9.10 am
The Chairman: Before we commence, I have a couple of housekeeping announcements to make.
Hon. Members will notice that there is a rope across the Room. I am sorry that it is not bullet-proof glass, but it is the best that we can do at short notice. As I said at the Committee's first sitting, it is my intention to allow members of the public to occupy the seats beyond the rope if the Public Gallery becomes full. That being so, hon. Members bar one will already have worked out that until the rope becomes unnecessary, the centre Door will be for use by Members only. It will not be locked during Divisions because we have only two Badge Messengers to man the entrances. The Chairmen—Mr. Hood and me—will therefore deem the centre Door to be locked at any time that we choose to do so, and thereafter, no Member will be allowed to enter through it.
One other matter that requires the Committee's attention concerns the debate on clause 22. Members will not be surprised to know that I have read the Hansard report with great care. At the start of our debate on the current group of amendments, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said that he expected to have the opportunity to discuss the principles behind clause 22 on a stand part debate. He then went on to discuss the principles of the clause, as did several other hon. Members. Having read Hansard at length, I have concluded that most of the matters arising from the clause, save those that are about to be discussed, have already been debated. I propose therefore not to permit a stand part debate on clause 22. I give hon. Members warning of that now in case there are other matters on which they seek to prevail on the Chairman's leniency to raise. That does not mean that they may cover matters that have already been discussed.
Clause 22
Power of Secretary of State to impose condition as to student fees, etc.
Amendment proposed [12 February]: No. 258, in
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 259, in
clause 22, page 8, line 42, at end insert
'or
Column Number: 166
No. 245, in
clause 22, page 9, line 2, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 3.
No. 246, in
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (Con): I merely record the Opposition's hope that you, Mr. Gale, and all Committee members have had a splendid break, and say that, as we are keen to make progress this morning, I look forward to the Minister's response to the points made in our last sitting.
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): That was the debate on amendments Nos. 258, 259 and 245? The Committee will see that I had a splendid break.
The Chairman: Order. The debate is in fact on amendments Nos. 258, 259, 245 and 246.
Alan Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I add my sentiments to those expressed by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins).
I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 258 and 259, which are well intentioned. They would introduce an additional provision in clause 22(2) to cover
''any other higher education funding body designated by the Secretary of State''.
That is unnecessary. There are only two funding bodies in England—the Teacher Training Agency and the Higher Education Funding Council—and although there is a funding body for Wales, it is covered by clause 25. The creation of a new funding body, for example through a merger, would require primary legislation, so the amendments are unnecessary.
On a technical matter, because there is no amendment to clause 22(1), which refers to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and the Education Act 1994, the amendments are irrelevant because only those two funding bodies are mentioned in those Acts.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): In the last sitting before the break, we debated the potential for penalties to be levied through the research funding stream as well as the teaching funding stream. Will the Minister clarify the situation surrounding the Government's intention to provide research funding through regional development agencies? In theory at least, if universities receive such funding, the measures in the clause could be applied to that funding.
Alan Johnson: That simply goes back to the point that I made during the previous sitting. If the funding provided through regional development agencies is HEFCE funding—quality related money for research—it is subject to the conditions under the clause. If the funding comes from the research councils, it is not. There is a clear division. In fact, if we follow the proposals in the Lambert report, funding from RDAs is more likely to come from QR money than research council money.
Column Number: 167
The second pair of amendments relates to the phrase
''an institution of a class''
and would exclude further education colleges from the definition of a ''relevant institution''. The reason for including the phrase ''institution of a class'' is so that the Secretary of State, in the grant letter to HEFCE, does not have to list every individual university. We have published the proposed grant letter to be used in three years' time, which contains an example of an institution of a class because paragraph 3 refers to ''every relevant institution''. A relevant institution is a class. For example, Birkbeck would not be in that class because it is not a relevant institution—all of its courses are part-time. The Open university might be in the same position, but there may be complexities in that case. That is what we mean by a class of institution. An institution may belong to one class or another according to whether it has an access plan, because a different set of conditions will apply. It is simply a measure to avoid the Secretary of State having to list onerously every individual institution, and I hope that hon. Members will accept that there is nothing more to that. Every class would have to be defined by objective criteria so the phrasing is not as open-ended as hon. Members might have initially thought.
I counsel the Committee to reject the amendment on further education colleges, because it would completely deregulate fees. We are dealing with the power of the Secretary of State to apply conditions. If the Secretary of State cannot apply conditions in FE colleges, those undertaking higher education courses could charge whatever they like. The amendment would have that unintended consequence. However, I believe that it is a probing amendment, which allows me to clarify the situation in FE colleges. For those that have higher education courses franchised to them from a university, the onus for access plans and so on falls on the university not the FE college. For those FE college courses funded directly from HEFCE, which is a minority, the onus is on the FE college to ensure that their access plans are in place.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I am following the Minister's argument with care, interest and sympathy. I think that he is saying that, notwithstanding the fact that the institution may be a further education college governed by a further education corporation, if it has, or is in receipt of, public funds from a higher education funding council directly, HEFCE, as it would usually be—or the TTA in theory—could impose such a condition of grant. In other words, it does not confine itself only to institutions that are described as higher education institutions in the 1992 Act.
Alan Johnson: Given that 27 per cent. of those studying in further education colleges come from the 15 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in the country, there is hardly a problem with access and widening participation in FE colleges. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. Where the funding comes direct
Column Number: 168
from HEFCE, we cannot allow there to be a loophole whereby the college can charge whatever it likes and not be subject to the office for fair access. Where the college is franchised out from a higher education institution or university, which is the usual situation, the onus will be on the university.
Mr. Boswell: In cases in which there is direct funding from HEFCE or another body, is it incumbent on a further education corporation that offers a degree of higher education activity to produce a full-blown access plan? If so, is that an onerous task or can it be scaled down for an FE corporation?
Alan Johnson: The college has to provide an access plan, but I do not imagine that that would be an onerous task. In almost all cases, it would simply state what it was doing already. The letter on the draft guidance from the Secretary of State to OFFA states quite explicitly that where there is a very good mix of social classes, OFFA's main aim is to ensure that if there is a £3,000 course, the extra £300 is provided so that the student support package is £3,000 rather than £2,700. That is the main issue. I do not think that it would be onerous to deal with other issues. I certainly have not heard many FE colleges suggesting that that would be the case, but the hon. Gentleman is right. If an FE college is funded directly by HEFCE, the onus is on the college to provide the plan.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): May I take the Minister back to amendment No. 259? With regard to the comments that he has rightly made about the FE sector and its widening participation agenda, particularly in relation to the higher education qualifications or courses that it already delivers, has the Secretary of State already ruled out totally the principle that the Learning and Skills Council could directly fund foundation degrees in particular within the FE sector without having to go to a higher education institution to get its permission to deliver that in the sector? Would not the amendment preclude that as an option?
|
