| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 15:
"QUALIFYING FEES BEYOND FIRST THREE YEARS
In respect of any qualifying course, the Secretary of State shall, through the relevant funding body, pay to the relevant institution any qualifying fees for any academic year which, but for the provisions of sections 24(1)(d) or 27(1)(d), would have been charged to the eligible student."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House earlier, I was able to separate the amendment from Amendment No. 2. In moving Amendment No. 15, I seek to alleviate what would be the unfortunate consequence of an opposition amendment made on Report. It was the amendment that very rightly sought to remove from students at English universities the burden of fees beyond the first three years of a first degree course. That amendment is now in the Bill, in Clause 24(1)(d). The unfortunate effect of that amendment was to make the universities undertake that cost by forgoing the fees, rather than to arrange that the fees should be paid by the Secretary of State.
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1177
I have learnt through the researches of the excellent research department in the Library, with the help of Universities UK, that the cost to English universities of that amendment—unless we rectify it by Amendment No. 15—is likely to be of the order of £180 million per year. That would be an outrageous consequence of our work in this House. The crux of the matter is that our universities are under-funded, and will remain under-funded as a result of the Bill. The fees will go about half-way to meeting the recurrent deficit. It is very important that we seek to remove the additional financial burden that the provision would place on the universities unless it were amended.
The point of my amendment is to provide that:
"In respect of any qualifying course, the Secretary of State shall, through the relevant funding body, pay to the relevant institution any qualifying fees for any academic year",
as specified in Clause 24(1)(d). The reference to Clause 27(1)(d) falls away, I hope, because I did not press the Wales amendment, Amendment No. 2. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the cost to universities of Clause 24(1)(d), unless amended, would be of the order of £180 million per year, and therefore that the cost to the Secretary of State of the amendment would be of the same order.
My amendment is intended to ensure that the fees for the fourth and subsequent years will indeed be waived, as was discussed fully on Report. I particularly hope that that position will be supported by colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, because their stated policy is, as I understand it, that fees in general should be paid by the state, not by individual students. Therefore, it would be a strange anomaly if they encouraged the universities to pick up the burden rather than the Secretary of State. I shall be interested to hear their position. I shall also be very interested to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, what the position of Universities UK is on the amendment. I would find it altogether astonishing if Universities UK were to accept cheerfully the additional burden of £180 million per year to be paid by the universities.
I feel a sense of shame that the only financial provision that your Lordships have implemented in the course of amending the Bill should place an additional financial burden on the universities, rather than on the state. The purpose of my amendment is to rectify that. I could almost write the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her. She will tell us that there is no money, that the amendment would mean top-slicing, and that everything must come from the same pot. I assume that she will say that because she is instructed to do so by the Treasury.
We are, however, talking about legislation in Parliament, which is the sovereign body. I could never accuse the noble Baroness of arrogance—she has been charm itself in our debates—but it seems a rather arrogant statement to say that an amendment should not be passed in this House because it does not suit the Treasury, and essentially that the Treasury will not follow it because everything should come from the
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1178
same pot. I hope that noble Lords will not be tempted to accept that argument. It may have the ring of financial reality, as I am sure that she will remind us, but I would regard it as a discourtesy to this House to advance that argument in such a way.
I invite noble Lords to shift the burden in the matter to where it belongs—to the Government, to the state. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I supported the then Amendment No. 7 on Report and I cannot see how it is possible not to join the noble Lord in the Lobby tonight, in the event that he presses his amendment. Those of us who spoke on the matter on Report have a responsibility for finding where the money will come from. I shall support him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, one of the points on which the least thought has been given in the preparation of the Bill is its differential effect between subjects. I drew attention at Second Reading to its harmful effect on departments of chemistry. The provision multiplies that. I say that on behalf of the late Lady Young, as well as on my behalf; it is a cause on which we often worked together, and were proud to do so.
Chemistry is a four-year course. It needs to be; it is expanding all the time, because new discoveries are made all the time. It is also a subject very vital to our industrial development. It is not the only four-year course, either. Medicine takes much more than four years on occasion. The burden of the Bill to medical students is one about which we have already heard a great deal and will, I hope, hear a great deal more before it is finished. The burden to people doing greats at Oxford, which is in effect two subjects, is also considerable.
The provision will encourage universities to close departments of chemistry and other departments whose courses take more than three years because, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, they simply cannot carry the costs. The universities are in no position to carry extra costs. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, because if we have to buy in all of our chemistry from abroad we will be in for major national expense that is unnecessary, probably undesirable and possibly not as good as what would have been done in this country.
There is much concern in my own college, for example, about the closure of its department of chemistry. I spoke recently to the students' union, which had a great deal to say about it. So the Government have shot themselves in the foot and they might be wise to get the bullet out before any poison from it is taken into the system. If the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, believes otherwise, I would be glad to hear why.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I was opposed to the amendment on Report that imposed a three-year limit precisely for the reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred. This is not new information. Amendment No. 15 could be seen as repairing some of the potential damage to universities that would be caused by the three-year limit, but there
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1179
should be no limit at all. I am opposed to that limit for the obvious reason that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has identified. He is right about the consequences—it would prevent universities from charging any fees at all after the first three years. In addition to the loss that he has already indicated, it would mean a loss of £180 million. That would be disastrous for the universities.
Perhaps I should see the amendment as a relief in that it puts the bill at the door of the Government. However, there is no guarantee at all that that additional resource will be found. The Department for Education and Skills faces a tight spending round, as does the university sector, and there is a limited pot of funding. Therefore, I fear that any money to pay for the imposition of a three-year limit would have to come from elsewhere in the Budget or from elsewhere in the higher education sector. I cannot see that the universities would not suffer in some way if the amendment is carried.
The amendment deals with a symptom, not the cause of these difficulties, which is the three-year funding limit that I will continue to oppose.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the cause of these difficulties is the central core of the Bill. Listening to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and that of my noble friend, Lord Renfrew, I felt that I had received something of a wigging for having proposed an amendment that I thought my noble friend supported, but that the noble Baroness did not. My concern was for those people who decided that they wished to be architects or wished to take a longer degree course such as chemistry—and other groups who would find themselves discriminated against to an enormous extent. That is certainly not reflected in the labour market.
So, although I support my noble friend's amendment, he is looking at this matter from the wrong perspective. He regards it from the point of view of money for the universities, which he says is £180 million. I do not know whether that figure is correct, but I was looking at the matter from the perspective that it was £180 million that those students would have to find to pursue their professions.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |