|
Mr. Luke: I have already made clear some of the reasons why I am unhappy about funding for higher education, and especially for research. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one result of the Higher Education Act 2004 was that the Scottish Executive took steps to boost research funding for the Scottish institutions to ensure that they would not be disadvantaged by the increase in top-up fees in England? Should not a Northern Ireland Administration, dealing responsibly with education, have that option when the Assembly is working?
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, based on his knowledge of the Scottish experience.
The Government propose unnecessary and undesirable legislation in respect of access. The records on participation and access for Queen's university and the university of Ulster show that they are at the top of the United Kingdom university league. From memory, they rank first and fourth in terms of participation by undergraduates from all social backgrounds. For many years, they have been doing the work that the Government want universities to do, so I cannot see why an additional superstructure should be imposed on both universities. Their time and money will be spent on ticking boxes and filling in forms merely to demonstrate that they are continuing to do what they have been doing for many years.
The Government's approach to the matter is also undesirable. The difference between the Northern Irish proposal and the English proposal is that, instead of having a supposedly independent regulator, the Department for Employment and Learning will act as the access regulator for the two Northern Ireland universities. I do not for one moment level personal criticism at the Minister and his colleagues, let alone at professional civil servants, but I have to say that it is profoundly unhealthy for the Department that is the source of funding and that has the power to drive through legislation also to be in a position in which it can vet access schemes and decide whether they match legal requirements. In practice, it would be difficult to convince the public that political influence would not come into play.
Column Number: 25
Mr. Trimble: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but is not there also a huge problem regarding the opacity of the arrangements? The access arrangements as they operate in Great Britain have the stated purpose—whether one agrees with it or not—of increasing the proportion of people going into higher education from state schools as opposed to independent schools. How on earth would that operate in Northern Ireland, where independent schools admit people purely on the basis of merit rather than on the payment of fees? That is the case at the moment, but if the Minister has his way, that will end.
Mr. Lidington: I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. We need to see far more detail of the Government's proposals for access. As well as opening the door to political interference, the proposals will be expensive—a figure of £30.5 million is quoted in the Government's documents. That is money that, if it were not being spent on the implementation of those arrangements, could be used on the front line of higher education. That would be a better way in which to spend taxpayers' scarce resources.
The draft order is profoundly unsatisfactory and unwanted. It rests on a change of heart by the Government that I can only describe as an unscrupulous and unprincipled betrayal of a promise given to the electorate in good faith.
3.52 pm
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the legislative method employed on this important issue—namely, the Order in Council system. Undoubtedly, it would be much better if the Northern Ireland Assembly debated these matters. I hope that the Government look seriously at devolving powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the near future to enable us to deal with these issues and to amend legislation with which we are unhappy. It would also be good if the Committee, from time to time, met in Northern Ireland to debate the issues. People have to take the trouble to travel from Belfast to sit in the Gallery for this Committee; we too should travel from time to time.
Mr. Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with SDLP Members to see whether they will agree to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee sitting in Northern Ireland? In exchange, can arrangements be made during those discussions for the two Ulster Unionist parties to take up membership of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body? That would be of advantage to all.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes an interesting link, but he will know that the relationship between the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of the Irish Republic is a matter for the political discussions. I do not see the link between the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which is a Committee of the House, and a body that has a relationship with another country. I do, however, echo his sentiments that it would be profitable for us all if the SDLP withdrew the effective
Column Number: 26
veto that the Government have given it on this Committee meeting in Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will report those comments to his colleagues, as this would highlight the difference between the approach of his party to Parliament and that of Sinn Fein, which refuses to participate in any of the House's Committees. That would enable the SDLP to have a platform in Northern Ireland that might be to its benefit. I hope that we will have that opportunity in the future.
My party is well aware that university education is considerably underfunded. Nevertheless, we oppose the draft order because we do not believe that it adequately addresses that shortfall. We are also concerned that, in particular, the introduction of variable top-up fees might deter potential university students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The draft order does not examine any source of funding other than the variable top-up fee. I remind the Minister that, in my party's response to the Government consultation, we expressed our opposition to the proposals for variable top-up fees. We also said that the proposals do not appear to reflect the benefits that society derives from graduates, although he did mention those benefits earlier.
I accept that the draft order deals with specific aspects of variable top-up fees, but I have not heard the Government commit to enhancing their investment in higher education. Those in Northern Ireland who are involved in higher education fear that, as the student contribution is increased, the Government's contribution to funding higher education will decrease. They must address that.
My party has also stated that there are other means of raising funds for research and other key elements of university life in Northern Ireland. One proposal is to offer tax incentives to companies in Northern Ireland that wish to invest in our universities' research work. That method has been very successful in other countries and I am at a loss to understand why we in the United Kingdom cannot introduce some form of tax incentive to encourage companies that are prepared to offer bursaries and to contribute financially to university research work.
Northern Ireland has a proud record of innovation, yet the lack of funding for research and development has stymied it in recent years. Such a tax incentive is one way to increase funding for research in our universities without burdening either the taxpayer or, as the Government propose, students. I encourage the Minister to consider that proposal, although I accept that the decision may have to be taken nationally. However, I note the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on direct taxation, which relate to a long-held Liberal Democrat policy. In addition to direct taxation, there is the possibility of offering tax incentives to the private sector to invest in higher education.
In my party's opinion, the introduction of variable top-up fees at a maximum of approximately £3,000 represents the thin end of the wedge. There will be inevitable upward pressure on fees, with a clamour for
Column Number: 27
further rises. After all, it has taken only seven years since the publication of the Dearing report for top-up fees to be introduced and, as has already been pointed out to the Committee, the Government have done a U-turn on the matter in a much shorter time. Therefore, there is no guarantee that there will not be significant increases in top-up and variable fees.
It also concerns me that spiralling student fees will act as a major disincentive to potential university students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Queen's university and the university of Ulster have worked hard to become universities that are open to all. They are recognised as being among the top universities to attract students who are less well off. Nothing in the draft order encourages me to believe that those hard-earned reputations will not be lost.
Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about his party's attitude to the impact of the proposed order on potential students from the middle classes?
Mr. Donaldson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I had intended to touch on the issue later in my remarks, but I will deal with it now. There is evidence that students from middle-income families suffer the most, because they are ineligible for means-tested bursaries. A vast number have their student loan entitlement restricted, yet are still expected to pay the full fees. She is correct to draw the Committee's attention to that difficulty.
Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the impact of Government policy—in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—will be to exaggerate the class divide that already exists in higher and further education? That will make matters much worse rather than better.
| 
