Sixteenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Evans: I would prefer my cheque to go to the Nigerian general than to the Government, as I would trust him more with it. We are trying to get assurances from the Minister that the money gained from the measure will go into higher education and that there will be a ceiling to the figures before us now, but does anyone out there really feel that they can trust the Government when history shows how often they have said one thing and done something else? Can we really trust the Minister if he says that the figures will go no higher? Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government must be thinking that this may be third time lucky for them. First, they say there will be no tuition fees, then they introduce them. Secondly, they say no top-up fees, then they introduce them. Thirdly, they hope that when told that the figure will not go up, the people who have been conned twice will fall for it again. As I said, the Government’s policy is full of contradictions. The Minister told the Grand Committee that the measure was designed to help students, but a few minutes later he said:
He was honestly admitting that the measure is not so much about helping students as it is about penalising them for the degrees that they have worked hard to get. If he believes that people who get higher education qualifications should pay more towards the cost of that provision, the next step for the Government will be to charge a higher rate of tax or some other penalty for those people who go on to get A-levels because that, too, gives them a higher earning potential. The Minister might say that that is not his intention, but the logic is inescapable. Column Number: 12 Nothing has changed fundamentally since Labour’s 2001 manifesto, when they said that these fees would not be needed and would not be introduced. We have heard no convincing argument from any Government Member about what has happened in the intervening four years to move them from a pledge not to introduce top-up fees to a commitment to do so. Should not someone admit that they got it wrong? Should not they admit that they have misled an entire generation of young people, who believed that they would be able to go to university without being penalised by having to pay top-up fees? Recognising that the consequence of their decision will be to double the level of debt for students in this country, should not they do the decent thing and resign from whichever office they happen to hold? This order is not necessary. We have to wait only a few weeks until the general election when Labour can campaign on a manifesto pledge to spread top-up fees across the entire country. They could have waited and kept their pledge to the people of Northern Ireland even if they did not to the rest of the country. The Conservative Government that will come into office in nine weeks’ time are committed to scrapping top-up fees. That is the direction we should be going in—raising funds by increasing the rate of interest on loans to a more realistic level, but where one pays 5 per cent. of £10,000 rather than 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of £20,000. The draft order is not a democratic measure because it is opposed by every party in Northern Ireland and it is being imposed by politicians who have not been elected by people in Northern Ireland and whose constituencies will not be affected by the order. It is a bad measure, and I hope that the Committee will reject it. 4.5 pmMr. Don Foster: I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook, and to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who said many of the things that I wished to say. I shall therefore not need to detain the Committee for long. I was delighted that he did not encourage the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to waste his money on the Nigerian generals—I was somewhat perturbed by his suggestion that he would happily see his money going in that direction. The Minister gave a fascinating speech. He told us that the order gave the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to reap the benefits of the Higher Education Act, which will do so much to destroy higher education in England. In Wales, they are already having second thoughts on what to do about it. In Scotland, they have severe reservations and will follow a different route. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland will not see the introduction of these measures as being of enormous benefit to them. The Minister’s speech was inordinately brief on the subject of the consultation. He told us that the consultation on these measures ended on 21 January and that, in the view of an unspecified body or person, no “viable alternative” was proposed, yet a large number of, in the view of many of us, viable
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman never provokes me. The only alternative that was put forward was not available to the Committee or to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was that taxes should be raised. The Higher Education Act in England is a fact, which this Committee has to grapple with, and we in Northern Ireland have to respond to it with the means available to us. The order is that means, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. Mr. Foster: I am slightly surprised by my understanding of the order. The Act is there, but it has not yet been implemented. Therefore, there is time for alternatives to be put in place and I am surprised that the Minister is not aware of it. The one thing in his speech that pleased me was that in Northern Ireland there will not be the equivalent of “Off Toff”, which bedevils the education system in England. It is worth repeating many times that, as the hon. Member for Wealden rightly said, in Northern Ireland, and in the rest of the United Kingdom, there have been two broken promises. Four days before the 1997 election, the Prime Minister told the country that he had no plans to introduce tuition fees, but following that election the Government introduced them. Many of us warned at the time that tuition fees would lead to many problems, including students being put off going into higher education because of the debt that would be created. The Government did not listen then, but subsequently when they introduced the proposals for top-up fees, they lauded them as being a measure to get rid of tuition fees. It is worth reflecting on how strong the Government’s opposition was to top-up fees, and it is worth recalling their manifesto commitment:
The Committee could read the deliberations of the 20 January Northern Ireland Grand Committee and see how frequently reference was made to comments by Baroness Blackstone in July 2000 and by the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who stated:
That was the Government’s position. Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman needs to put those remarks in context. At that time, the universities were talking about anarchy—a free-for-all. Some of them would have charged fees of £15,000 or more a year while others would not have felt able to do so. That was the anarchic situation that we were addressing. I do not believe that the wholesale programme that the Government introduced—limiting fees to £3,000,
Mr. Foster: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman made those comments, as they give strength to my request to the Minister, via the hon. Member for Wealden, for a clear assurance that £3,000 is absolutely the limit and that there will not be any increase on it. At present, there is the possibility of an increase. We need such an assurance. Otherwise, those earlier concerns about top-up fees will resurface. Mr. Evans: Frankly, I am befuddled by the naivety of the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Gentleman specifically. He said at the beginning of his speech that people were told one thing about tuition fees, which were then introduced. They were told something completely different about top-up fees and then they were introduced. What credence can he place on any assurances that he is given today that £3,000 will be the limit? Mr. Foster: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman began by accusing me of naivety in remotely believing a word that any Labour Minister says. One must have some hope that the world of politics will improve and that we can start to trust politicians. None the less, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would at least agree that getting the Minister to say something, whether or not we believe that he will ultimately deliver on it, would be better than his not saying it. That is what I hope may happen. Mr. Evans: I wonder whether the Minister’s saying nothing would not be a step towards honesty, rather than his saying one thing and then doing something completely different. Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman might say that. As has been said before, I could not possibly comment. Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Foster: I will, but I promised to be brief, and you know, Mr. Cook, how keen I am to stick to my promises to be brief. Huw Irranca-Davies: I can honestly tell the hon. Gentleman that I consistently stood through various elections on a platform that included a graduate tax. Does he accept that the great benefit to the students of Northern Ireland of this proposal over a graduate tax is that it has a cut-off date that the graduate tax never had, yet the graduate tax was supported by many of his colleagues? Mr. Foster: I should be interested in evidence from the record that many of my colleagues supported a graduate tax. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this proposal has one merit over such a tax, in that it has a cut-off point—after 25 years. Of course, having studied the figures, he will know that a teacher or a nurse on their current level of pay would need all 25 years to pay off the sort of debts that they would
The hon. Member for Wealden made a crucial point, but I want to take it one stage further. If the Government believe passionately in the devolution—and I join them on that—of decision making and the importance of getting the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running fully as quickly as possible, it will have been more appropriate for them to say that the decision should be made by the Assembly. There is no great urgency for the introduction of the order which could not wait a brief period for the Assembly to get up and running so that it could consider the issue. If that were the case, the Minister would have to bear in mind that there is not a single student body or political organisation in Northern Ireland represented in the Assembly or in this House that supports the measures. Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has said that there is no urgency. Perhaps he will explain to the 7,000 students proposing to go to English universities in September next year and to the 5,000 Northern Ireland-domiciled students who will be going to Scottish universities at the same time how they will meet fees that they will be asked to pay up front—£3,000 in England and approximately £1,900 in Scotland—unless there is some provision made by the order. The provision exists nowhere else, and unless the order goes through he will have to come up with another route to find £21 million for those 7,000 students. Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. Even if that were the case and a solution to the problem could not be found, if he wants to trade popularity points, a far larger number of people who will be attending the two institutions in Northern Ireland and not having to pay top-up fees would be happy with what I propose. They know that the proposals before the Committee mean a significant increase in the burden of debt imposed on students. They know that the proposals will introduce a scheme where students are likely to choose their course based not on the most appropriate one, but on one that they can afford. They know that it does not make much sense to introduce a market-based philosophy in a country that has only two higher education institutions. They know that it does not make sense to introduce a system associated with huge bureaucracy and huge bureaucratic cost estimated by the Higher Education Policy Institute at up to £1.4 billion. They know that it does not make sense and that the decision should be made locally by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Above all, students know that there are other viable options. I do not agree with the allegedly viable option put forward by the Conservatives, because I do not think that it stacks up. We could debate that separately. There are other options, however,
Tom Levitt: I hesitate to point out the hon. Gentleman’s spending of that income tax rise yet again. He noted that there are only two higher education institutions in Northern Ireland to which the order applies. We are discussing the year commencing September 2006, and unless he knows something that the rest of the Committee does not, the Northern Ireland Assembly may not be up and running by then. In any case, those two universities need to know now what their finances will be in September 2006. They should not be forced to wait for the clarification that passing this order today will bring. Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about his deadline for when the Assembly will be up and running. Under the bizarre system in this country, only the Prime Minister can decide the date of a general election, so although we have no way of knowing, most of us assume that there will be an election in seven weeks. There will then be an opportunity for all sorts of things to happen, and for assistance and information to be given to those institutions. I end where I intervened on the hon. Member for Wealden. Clearly, there are different views in the Committee about the rights and wrongs of the order. Whatever our view, I hope that we can go away from the Committee knowing that there is a clear commitment on the part of the Government that, whether we support it or not, this is the maximum level. The hon. Gentleman says institutions need to have some understanding of what their security will be. So, too, do students. They have a right to know whether there is a clear commitment from the Minister and the Government that £3,000 is the top figure. 4.20 pmMr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) (DUP): My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) have recited in detail the arguments against the order. The position of the Democratic Unionist party is precisely what they stated their positions to be. We are wholly opposed to the order and do not believe that it is the right way in which to approach the problem of funding for universities in the Province. In particular, we believe that the introduction of variable top-up fees would have an entirely negative and undesirable effect and would deter students from poorer backgrounds from going to university. We are conscious that student debt, in the Province and elsewhere, is already a deterrent and that the measure can only make the situation worse. I can be selective in my comments because hon. Members have recited the arguments in detail. I emphasise a point made by the hon. Member for Bath. All three of the main constitutional parties of Northern Ireland speak with the same voice on the issue. That is a rarity. There is no significant electoral
I also emphasise another point already made. The DUP is wholly unconvinced by the Government’s argument that there are no alternatives. The issue has been debated at great length, and not only in the House. It has attracted attention outside and given rise to great discussion and consideration. A series of options have come forward. It is unacceptable for the Government to say in a cavalier fashion, “There is no alternative.” Many have been put forward, by the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and others. The DUP shares the concern that the measure about the introduction of variable top-up fees is the thin end of a wedge. What is now £3,000 a year could, in time, become more and more. We listened to and analysed the Government’s rhetoric on the issue and are unconvinced that the Government do not have it in mind to preside over a further increase in top-up fees, if the electorate allow them to preside over anything after May. There is a local point of which the Minister will be aware. Both Queen’s university and the university of Ulster have worked very hard to be open and to expand access. I understand that Queen’s has the best record of all UK universities for admitting students from traditional working-class backgrounds and that the university of Ulster is close behind in fourth place. I understand that 33 per cent. of students in Northern Ireland universities are from lower-income families. All that is being put at risk and jeopardy by the Government’s approach to the issue of university funding. There is another dimension. I think that I am right in saying that Northern Ireland universities have a far higher proportion of European Union students than do universities on the mainland. Many, if not most, of those students come from the Republic of Ireland. Some 30 per cent. of students in Northern Ireland are from outside the United Kingdom. The Government have no means of applying top-up fees to those students. An anomaly has, therefore, been created, whereby a significant proportion of university students in Northern Ireland are exempt from the measure, leading to disadvantage for those who have to find the money for the top-up fees. The DUP believes that the heart of the problem is the Government’s utterly mistaken target of 50 per cent. of school leavers going to university. We regard it as arbitrary, socially and economically unjustified, and, to a degree, irresponsible. Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Government’s aim of 50 per cent. of school leavers going to university and obtaining degrees. My understanding is that the Government’s policy is that 50 per cent. of 30-year-olds should have had the opportunity to have gained their degrees, either by going as school leavers, through their employment, or otherwise. I agree with him that 50 per cent. of school leavers is certainly an unattainable target in the near
Mr. Hunter: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument, although I accept his correction if I misrepresented Government policy. My understanding, from my English constituency, and from the employment situation in Northern Ireland, is that the requirement is not for 50 per cent. of 30-year-olds to have university degrees, but for a great increase in vocational skills. That is where the shortage lies in the labour market, but it would not be satisfied by pursuing that target. Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester) (Lab): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that a qualification such as that given by the Association of Accounting Technicians, which is a vocational-driven qualification, is classed as a higher education experience, and would be included within the 50 per cent. figure. That is exactly the sort of requirement for work that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Mr. Hunter: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says; I do not quarrel with him on that point of detail. However, I do not think that it detracts from the broad theme that I am trying to argue, which is that the Government’s aim is not what is required for the satisfaction of our employment market. Jonathan Shaw: Putting aside the Government’s 50 per cent. target, and whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with it or not, what does he say about the Higher Education Policy Institute’s projection based on demographic changes that up to an additional 250,000 youngsters will want university places by the end of the decade? What would he say to the parents of those students who want to send their youngsters to university? Mr. Hunter: Vote Conservative on the mainland and DUP in Northern Ireland. More seriously, I firmly believe—as does the DUP—in open access to higher education, but, if I may use the expression, market forces are at work. I think that we shall find, over a period of time, that the projection to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not be borne out in reality. The other forces will not direct people into higher education but, in the old-fashioned way, into vocational courses of further education. If I may digress for one moment, it is investment in further education colleges that is most greatly needed. Mr. Michael Foster: On the issue of open access, which the hon. Gentleman said that he was all in favour of, would he support a quota on the achievement of top grades at A-level, or does he believe that if someone gets a grade A at A-level, they should have open access to all the universities that require that entry level? Column Number: 19 Mr. Hunter: We are digressing from the main issue. I am not avoiding the question, but simply saying honestly to the hon. Gentleman that I have not particularly addressed that point. I take note of his intervention and will give it consideration. My last point relates to the threshold at which the repayment of student fees will begin. The DUP is firmly of the opinion that the suggested £15,000 a year is completely wrong. The Province’s Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment reckoned that that is equivalent to the average non-graduate 2003 gross salary. In other words, if implemented, it would mean that graduates would start to repay tuition fees before they had benefited financially from any advantage that their degree courses might bring. That is unacceptable. I understand that the average annual graduate income is £23,000, which is the point at which repayment realistically and reasonably should be expected to start. I have made it clear that the DUP has serious concerns about the order. We urge the Government to reconsider it and return to examining alternative methods of funding our universities. During the past 35 troubled years, education has been one of the Province’s greatest strengths. The Government should not have forced through a policy that is so bereft of support in the Province. I make again the point that all Northern Ireland constitutional political parties oppose the measure. The Government should take note. These are matters that should be decided locally by local politicians elected by the local electorate. 4.32 pmMr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): I have enormously enjoyed this debate so far. It is a great amusement to see soon-to-be-Opposition Members lauding the value of the system imposed on students in England and wishing to apply it to Northern Ireland. To hear them speaking so eloquently of the great advantage of massive debt on the students of Northern Ireland is something that I take rather badly. I would like to ask the Minister a number of specific questions. He talks about the level of fees being consulted on, but there is no clue yet as to what the level will be. Can he confirm that he anticipates the fees being of the same order of magnitude as those in England, or does he have different plans for the Province? How many university students live at home in Ulster as opposed to living away? That is widespread, although less so in England, because of the costs of studies, and it seems to me that increasing the burden of debt on such students could be significant as they currently incur relatively low costs for their studies. So will the Minister say how many students live at home, how many go away to university, and how significant proportionally will the increased burden of debt be on them? I have two specific points on article 4(10). First, can the Minister clarify that provision’s relationship with direct rule and the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2005, which we will debate on Wednesday? Paragraph (10) says that a draft of the regulations for the fees can be laid only after it has been
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, I am concerned about how that part of the order works. Paragraph (10) says:
until a draft has been laid before the Assembly. Where is the regulation-making power in the order? I do not understand it. Can the Minister explain to me in detailed drafting terms how paragraph (8) confers any power to make regulations? The word “regulation” does not appear in that paragraph. There may be an explanation, as I know that parliamentary draftsmen are very clever, but it is not immediately apparent to me how the Minister gains an order-making power from the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about colonial rule, and how right he was. Yet again, the Government are imposing on the people of Northern Ireland things that they do not want. They talk about devolution, yet while there is no devolution—while direct power is exercised—they abolish the grammar schools and impose top-up fees. That is a shameful way to treat the Province. 4.35 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 8 March 2005 |