Higher Education Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in her remarks. She will know that I was not one of her supporters.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady must address the Chair.

Kali Mountford: I am so sorry, Mr. Gale.

I was not one of those who signed the early-day motion, but I should like to ask my hon. Friend what she makes of the reports of people not studying maths at A-level and degree stage. Is there not a case for examining not only people's ability to pay for their education but their desire to go into education if it is not discounted in some way?

Mrs. Campbell: As a maths graduate myself, I read the reports this morning with interest. I would be rather alarmed if there was a flood of entrants into maths courses who were not properly qualified. There are good reasons for applying to study mathematics,

Column Number: 173

not least that it can increase one's earnings capacity considerably more than many other courses. The fact that a course is cheaper should not necessarily encourage people to study a subject that is acknowledged to be difficult. The answer to the lack of mathematics graduates, which my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, is not cheaper fees but better teaching in schools. Higher salaries for school mathematics teachers would get the right quality of graduates teaching mathematics. It is one of the most interesting and rewarding subjects.

It is worth spelling out why so many Labour Members are opposed to variable fees and why I expect support for the amendment on Report. If the proposals are accepted as drafted, the choice of university and the courses that students take will increasingly be based on affordability and not on academic ability. Highly priced universities may put people off, and prevent them from reaching their true potential, as they will try to find a cheaper course elsewhere.

It would be churlish of me, however, not to say that the Government are offering students from poorer backgrounds student support that is second to none. Maintenance grants and easier debt repayment, especially if it is well publicised, will do much to encourage people from low-income backgrounds to go into higher education. There is a great deal of ignorance among potential students and schoolteachers about the fee structure. I hope that the Government will run a big publicity campaign to emphasise that if the proposals for student support come about, it would be easier for students from low-income backgrounds to go to university.

Mr. Clappison: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's important remarks. Has she considered the point that, according to the Government's consultation paper, some students from what I regard as lower-income families—those in receipt of family incomes between £15,970 and £22,000—will make a contribution towards tuition fees for the first time?

Mrs. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is not the student or the family who would pay but the graduate. That is an important distinction between what would happen under the Government's new proposals for student support and what happens at present.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): My hon. Friend makes a very important point in correcting the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). She talked about low-income families, and, as she rightly pointed out, youngsters from those families are put off by the initial charges currently levied before they go to university. Will she underline the other side of the equation, which is that no rich or poor student, or rich or poor parent, will pay fees? The student will pay when they have qualified, after graduation when their income reaches a certain level. At that point, they are no longer either rich or poor; they are a graduate repaying on an income-contingent basis. That is one of the great breakthroughs in the package we are discussing.

Column Number: 174

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, of course, my hon. Friend is correct. A consultation exercise that I conducted with Cambridge university students showed that the majority were opposed to the move from up-front fees to fees paid after graduation. At present, if students come from reasonably well-off backgrounds, their parents pay the fees. The difference with the Government's proposals is that students would pay the fees after they graduate. Unexpectedly, that was not terribly popular with many Cambridge students.

Mr. Clappison: It is, of course, the case that the measure is based on students paying after graduation. However, the fees of the students whom the hon. Lady described and whose family income is less than £20,970 are currently remitted in full; they do not pay towards the cost of their education at any stage. Under the Government's proposals, if their family income were above £15,970, they would, for the first time, pay for their tuition after graduation.

The Chairman: Order. I shall allow the hon. Lady to answer if she wishes to do so, but a greater proximity to the amendments before the Committee would be helpful.

Mrs. Campbell: I shall continue to talk about variability, rather than student support, as I have made the points that I wished to make.

I should like to touch generally on the points made by the Government on loan repayment, because that will affect people's perceptions of what they can afford. My right hon. Friend the Minister has carefully spelt out the small amount that graduates would have to pay on a weekly basis, although he has avoided saying for how long it would have to be repaid. I have done some calculations—that was where my mathematics degree was useful. A graduate who attended the most expensive course of £3,000 and earns an average of £18,000—admittedly, quite a low salary—would take 33 years to repay the fee part of the loan. The debt will be written off after 25 years, of course, and we should be grateful for that. However, for a low-paid graduate attending a course charging the basic rate of £1,200, the fee will be repaid in just over 13 years. People will make such calculations when considering which university courses to choose.

Alan Johnson: I accept my hon. Friend's point to a certain degree, but in her opening remarks, she pointed out that she would allow the Government to set the level of fixed fee. If the fixed fee were simply £3,000, would not the same situation apply?

Mrs. Campbell: The great difference is that students would not then have to make the choice. The difficulty for students applying to universities under the new proposals is that they would be initially making a choice on the basis of the university that suits their aptitudes and abilities, but then making a further decision as to whether they could afford to go on paying the fees of their preferred university for a long time. That is what I, and many of my constituents, find difficult to stomach.

Column Number: 175

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend not also accept that in making such a choice, students will increasingly make a judgment—quite rightly—about the benefits of the degree for which they are applying? That judgment will include the financial benefits of careers that are opened up by particular degrees. That is the context in which we must consider the fairness of the repayment mechanism and the impact of variability.

Mrs. Campbell: If it were the case that the fee would be set according to students' future earning power, my hon. Friend would have a valid argument. However, that is not backed up by what we have seen so far about the proposed level of fees. The two courses that we have heard about, where there may be no fee at all, are physics at Oxford and mathematics everywhere. Those two courses provide the highest earners in society. It may well be that the more popular courses, such as media studies—after which it may be more difficult to earn a higher salary—would charge the higher fee. In a market system, there is no guarantee that the fee would reflect future earnings, which is one of the problems with the Government's proposals. If there were a graduate tax, for example, graduates would pay back in proportion to their earnings.

Mr. Willis: Is it not true that one of the great premises of the proposals is future earning potential? That is a huge break with our view of what higher education has traditionally been about. Does the hon. Lady not agree that if we consider the university degrees taken by the hon. Members in this Room, we will find that it would have been impossible for any of them to predict that they would be earning £56,000—or £200,000 in the case of the Minister? It is nonsense to say that it is possible to predict at 18 what someone's future earnings will be 10 to 15 years later. We do not know where our degrees will take us or where our careers will end up.

9.45 am

Mrs. Campbell: I am not sure how to answer that. I know that the Liberal Democrats' policy is to make everyone pay for higher education through higher taxation.

Mr. Willis: That is nonsense.

Mrs. Campbell: Those of my constituents who have not been to university would find such a proposal impossible to take.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Willis rose—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.

Mrs. Campbell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get the opportunity to make the points that he wishes to make.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady should not tell lies.

Column Number: 176

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Willis: It was a terminological inexactitude, which I will correct later.

The Chairman: Order. That defence no longer cuts any ice, either.

Mr. Willis: I withdraw the remark.

Mrs. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his apology.

I am concerned, not just about poorer students, but about students with family incomes higher than around £31,000 to £32,000. Such families in my constituency, and in many other constituencies in the south-east and in London, do not consider themselves to be wealthy, because of the very high housing costs. In a further amendment, which I hope we will discuss later, we seek to examine possible regional or area weighting of the grant threshold for high-cost housing areas.

 

---

Prepared 24 February 2004