| Higher Education Bill
|
|
Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is, indeed, trying to tempt me into setting out policy details, but it is not appropriate to do so now, not least because you might rule me out of order, Mr. Gale. We do not accept the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted and when our policy emerges, he will see why not. Furthermore, he started by saying that, without top-up fees, there would be a lot less money for universities. We absolutely do not accept that. Indeed, as we shall explain later, the Government's proposals would cost the taxpayer between £1 billion and £1.2 billion to raise, at best, some £900 million for universities. That is a pretty bad deal. Moreover, that calculation assumes zero clawback from the Treasury, which is a heroic assumption, given the history of the Chancellor's substantial clawbacks through lower grant allocations when new sums are made available. Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC): I do not share the view of the market that the hon. Gentleman and, it seems, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North unfortunately espouse. The hon. Member for Leeds, East, partly on behalf of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, gave the example about the need for more input into the market to give more people from different areas the opportunity to go to university. However, does the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale have anything to say about Universities UK's view on whether the proposals will bring those extra resources or create those opportunities? The way I look at it, Universities UK does not believe that the proposals will have that effect. Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Universities UK points out that even on the most heroic and generous assumptions about the amount to be raised through the proposals, that money will be a very small proportion of what is needed to close the Column Number: 184 funding gap that it has identified—although, in fairness, the hon. Member for Cambridge touched on that. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has noted, it is difficult to see how top-up fee proposals will even pay for the Government's 50 per cent. target. It is impossible to see how they can pay both for increasing participation up to 50 per cent. and the already significant funding gaps that Universities UK has identified that universities face even with the present numbers of students.The hon. Gentleman is right. The point about the Government's proposals is that they do not solve the problem that they are meant to address. However, there may be something behind the measure, which the hon. Member for Cambridge touched on, which is also relevant to other amendments in the group tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, particularly amendment No. 3. I am referring to the issue of whether the £3,000 fee will stay at £3,000 for very long. It is true that we could meet a significant proportion—perhaps even the entire—funding gap addressed by Universities UK if the fee was not £3,000 in cash or real terms, but was set at the level that a number of vice-chancellors have said that they would like to see, which would be about £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000. I understand and accept that the Government have said that that is not their plan, and that they have introduced amendments that supposedly make it very difficult for them to do so before 2010. They have said that they will fight the next election on a pledge not to raise the fees to above £3,000. They have further said that they will make it the case that primary legislation would be needed to break that manifesto pledge. However, the problem is that today we are debating primary legislation to break a manifesto pledge, so I am afraid that that statement does not get us very far. Jonathan Shaw rose—
Mr. Collins: I am pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will explain why he is happy to breach the manifesto pledge on which he stood. Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman said that the vice-chancellors would prefer variable fees of between £10,000 and £15,000. Will he tell the Committee which vice-chancellors said that? Mr. Collins: The vice-chancellor of University college, London has mentioned that figure, as has that of Oxford. Mr. Willis: And Imperial college. Mr. Collins: And Imperial college, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough says. There is a whole list if the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford wants it. The vice-chancellors are not saying that they want to introduce such fees immediately, but they have said that that level of fee would begin to address the financial difficulties that they face. Jonathan Shaw: During the Select Committee inquiry, we heard from several vice-chancellors. None of them referred to £10,000 or £15,000. Sir Richard Column Number: 185 Sykes told the Committee that he was misquoted in the papers, which is something that I am sure no member of this Committee has ever experienced. He said that he did not say that he wanted a fee of £15,000 but that he was referring to charging overseas students £15,000.
Mr. Collins: I am well aware that the gentleman concerned has used figures of that size and, indeed, on some occasions, larger figures. [
Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman also say that the position of the vice-chancellor of Imperial college or of Colin Lucas at Oxford is an honourable one? The reality is that if we go down the variable fee route to secure the future funding of our universities, by 2010 fees of that order plus a great deal more will be necessary to deal with the funding situation in our universities. That principle is at the heart of today's debate.
Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is right. The position taken by several vice-chancellors is not one that we can criticise on the basis that it is unprincipled or dishonest. They are setting out what is, in their view, the logical consequence of going down the route on which the Government have started. If one believes that the only significant way to get additional resources into higher education is through top-up fees, one cannot honestly believe that a cap of £3,000 can long be sustained. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the alternative mechanisms for getting money into higher education, but we agree absolutely that the top-up fee proposal is unacceptable because of the inexorable logic that, perhaps not in the first year or even in the first four or five years, variable fees will before long be at much higher levels.
Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has explained that, 14 months after publication of the White Paper, the Conservative party still has no policy on the matter. As we are discussing fixed fees versus variable fees, can he confirm that the party's policy will never include student fees, either fixed or variable? Can he give that commitment?
Mr. Collins: It is interesting that I should be asked to use the word ''never'' by a Minister who frequently said that manifesto pledges apply only for four or five years.
Alan Johnson: I never said that.
Mr. Collins: The Minister says that he never said that. I can say absolutely that the Conservative alternative will not involve fees, variable or otherwise, and that we will bring forward proposals that will involve not only the removal of top-up fees if we are
Column Number: 186
The Minister is on slightly dodgy ground when he says that other parties have had plenty of time to think about their pledges. I remind him that all four political parties represented in Committee stood at the last general election on clear manifesto pledges not to introduce top-up fees. The three Opposition parties are sticking by their promises to the electorate, but the Government are breaking theirs. It is a little rich for the Government to start demanding promises and pledges from their opponents.
Mr. Chaytor: Following the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell)—he seemed to have some sympathy for my argument about the discrepancy in her opposition to variability for undergraduates but her support for variability for further education students—will he tell the Committee how the Conservative party justify that discrepancy? Furthermore, can he tell the Committee how the Conservative party justifies opposition to variability in fees for undergraduates but complete support for variable fees in the secondary school sector? He will know that the fees for the forthcoming year at Eton, Harrow and Charterhouse are typically in the order of £20,000 to £22,000 a year. How can that be acceptable—I do not say that it is not—in secondary schools but not in universities?
Mr. Collins: I was trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but mentioning Eton and Harrow did not strengthen his case. They are independent schools and thus outside the state sector. I know that new Labour is incredibly dynamic and prepared to shatter all sorts of shibboleths, but is he saying that if the new Labour party were to be elected for a third term, it would introduce fees in state schools? The Conservative party would strongly oppose that, as would all parents.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): It is just a suspicion, but I wonder whether, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Bury, North would like OFFA to have responsibility for who should go to Eton.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 24 February 2004 |
