---

 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 455
 

House of Commons

Thursday 24 February 2005

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Nursery Education

1. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): What percentage of children aged (a) three and (b) four years are receiving nursery education in (i) Nottinghamshire and (ii) England. [217626]

The Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Margaret Hodge): All three and four-year-olds in England are entitled to a free nursery education. This Government have replaced the unfair postcode lottery, which existed under the previous Government, with a universal guarantee for every three and four-year-old in every part of England, giving every child the very best start in life. In January 2004, 93 per cent. of three-year-olds and virtually all four-year-olds benefited from free places.

In Nottinghamshire local education authority area, 6,800 free places were taken up by three-year-olds, and a further 8,100 free places were taken up by four-year-olds.

Paddy Tipping: The record is excellent, and I congratulate both Nottinghamshire county council and the Government on that investment. We must invest even more in families and children. Does the Minister agree that we must examine flexible patterns of parental care and leave, the provision of nursery centres in every community and wrap-around care in schools to provide help in mornings, evenings and during holidays? That would be a real investment for hard-working families.

Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his question, the answer to which is contained in our 10-year strategy for early years education, child care and support for parents. That strategy will give parents the flexibility to balance their time between their responsibilities at work and their responsibilities to their children. It is about providing high quality care for all children and providing flexibility for parents, so that parents can put the
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 456
 
interests of their children at the heart of everything they do. I look forward to being part of the Government who implement that strategy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that we are going to have short questions and concise answers, which will help us to make progress through the Order Paper.

Student Visa Charges

2. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): What discussions she has had with Home Department Ministers about the impact on universities of higher student visa charges. [217627]

3. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding visa charges for international students. [217628]

The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had productive discussions with Home Office Ministers about leave to remain visa extension charges. Those discussions resulted in an agreement to set a discounted rate for students of £250 for postal applications, compared with the new £335 standard rate for everyone else.

Dr. Cable: If there was proper consultation, why was the Home Office not made aware of the Prime Minister's initiative to attract international students and of the passionate concern of university vice-chancellors, who have written to us about the damaging consequences of those charges? If a new Labour Government are elected, is it not inevitable that one of their first acts will be an increase in the limit on top-up fees in order to compensate universities for the loss of income from overseas students?

Dr. Howells: No, that will not be the first act of a new Labour Government—I hope that the Liberal Democrats will be around to witness a new Labour Government. There has been a lot of talk from Tory Members, and a lot of talk of a different sort from Liberal Members, about this or that attitude to immigration. Some say that we must be tougher and some say that we must be more liberal, but none of them has got a clue how to enforce the rules on who comes in and who stays and how to discern between genuine students and those who are not.

Mr. Rendel: Given that both Universities UK and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service report that applications from international students are well down this year, does the Minister recognise that his policy, which he has agreed with the Home Office, will have a significant effect on the financial health of our universities and on our place in the international market for education? His policy runs counter to his Department's previous comment that education in the UK has a crucial international dimension.

Dr. Howells: I would be concerned, if I thought that the policy would have a significant effect. The hon.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 457
 
Gentleman is asking me to explain the effect of the existing charges on students. If he is saying that we should do away with the existing charges for leave to remain applications and for applications for visas to study in this country in the first place, then he should say it. The new charges have not come in yet.

The fact that the number of applications has dropped is significant, but after 9/11 the Americans closed up shop on students going to study in the United States, and we were the major beneficiary of that decision. The world market is currently righting itself. I was lucky enough to go to China, where I met the Chinese Education Minister and Vice-Minister, who did not state that visa charges were significant.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not only of the fee but of having the right to appeal withdrawn? Sheffield university tells me that 90 per cent. of those who were initially refused on appeal were subsequently able to come to this country to study. The real problem of people coming here fraudulently as students is not in universities but in language schools and other colleges. My hon. Friend should consider that energetically, but he should not penalise the university sector, where overseas students do so much good for our country.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Short-term students coming to study for less than six months, or those who have not been accepted for a course of study, are already prevented from appealing on that basis. In discussions with the Home Office last year, we became aware that it was considering removing the right of appeal against visa refusals for some students—for instance, those who had applied to study at an institution that is not on the DFES register of learning providers.

I take my hon. Friend's point, however. In further discussions with the sector, we shall try to ensure that such institutions are not penalised. I know that the most difficult issue arises when students come in for short courses and decide, because of the very high quality of the education that they receive, that they want to continue with a longer course.

Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): What is the point of the Chancellor saying out in the far east that higher education is one of our great strengths, the Home Office driving up fees and driving students away from our universities, and Education Ministers just sitting there wondering what is going on? Why do they not join it all up?

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman will not know this, but I returned from China last night. Having spoken with the Chinese education Minister and Vice-Minister at great length about this, I am well aware of how the Chinese feel about it. We take 185,000 non-EU students a year from abroad. That figure is not plummeting and is a huge source of income generation. People come to this country because we offer the best higher education in the world and it is very good value for money. We will continue to do so in order to ensure that people are not put off from studying in this country.

Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op): I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the excellent work
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 458
 
at Loughborough university, where the number of international students has increased in recent years. However, there is some concern about the charges. Has my hon. Friend assessed the overall cost to students of the charge of £250, or in some cases up to £500—not only to Chinese students but those from other, poorer, countries, particularly developing countries?

Dr. Howells: Yes, I have some figures on the percentage increase in costs for a typical student of undertaking a year's study in the United Kingdom resulting from the new charges. In higher education, there will be 0.8 per cent. additional cost on a postal application and 2.1 per cent. if the student takes the premium service. It is a relatively small increase, although I am not trying to belittle it because it is nevertheless significant.

Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): Has the Minister seen research by the University of Brighton showing that 88 per cent. of its students from abroad would not continue their courses if these increases in fees and visa charges went through? Does he accept the suggestion by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills that the increase is a consequence of the Government's failure to tackle illegal immigration through language schools and that, as a result, higher enforcement costs are being passed on to bona fide students? Will he agree to carry out a detailed assessment of the impact of the increases on British universities before taking further action?

Dr. Howells: I do not accept that for one minute. Our aim must be to strike a balance between ensuring that we continue to enhance the United Kingdom's reputation as a world-class education provider to international students and generating sufficient income to enable us to operate the effective immigration control that helps to facilitate that. I know that the hon. Gentleman cares a great deal about higher and further education, but it does no good for him to make such criticisms based on grossly inflated figures. The idea that 80 per cent. of students will not come to this country because of a very small incremental increase is clearly absurd. Whoever carried out that research should go back to university to do a fundamental degree.

---