§ 1. Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when a parental contribution was last required towards a student's tuition fees.
§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)Contributions towards a student's tuition fees were last required in the academic year 1976–77.
§ Sir William van StraubenzeeDoes my right hon. Friend recall that when the change was made by Mr. Mulley in 1977 it followed a painstaking inquiry by the University Grants Committee and the vice-chancellors, and considerable consultation? Does he realise that what is placing great strain on the loyalty on many Conservative Members is the discovery, in an essentially financial regulation of a change which many believe will have fundamental consequences for entry into higher education?
§ Sir Keith JosephWith respect, I do not accept my hon. Friend's use of the word "fundamental". It is the Government's duty continuously to review the balance between the taxpayer's contribution and that of the family and student to the costs of higher education. That is what the Government have done. I accept that it involves a change, but I do not believe that it is a fundamental change.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonWas the matter discussed by either the "star chamber" or the Cabinet?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe right hon. Gentleman would certainly have refused to answer that question if it had been put to him when he was in office.
§ Mr. Mark CarlisleDoes my right hon. Friend remember that in 1979 we said officially that our first priority for student grants as money became available 156 would be to reduce the parental contribution? Will he tell the House what has changed since then to make such an apparent dramatic change in our proposal?
§ Sir Keith JosephA change in circumstances has made it right for the Government to pursue above all the constraint of public spending in relation to the nation's revenue as a whole. We have had to bear that constantly in mind.
§ Mr. WilsonWhile I express the strongest possible opposition to all the proposed changes in grants because of the hardship that they will cause, does the Secretary of State not realise that the decision to place a greater burden on parents will have repercussions, especially at Scottish universities, which run four-year graduation courses? The Government do not appear to have taken that into account.
§ Sir Keith JosephWhether the courses are three or four years — I cannot tell which is the more advantageous in the circumstances—the subsidy paid by taxpayers to students' higher education is large.
§ Mr. Ralph HowellIs my right hon. Friend aware that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends fully support him in the action that he has taken? Is he further aware that quite a few of those who have signed the motion against the proposals wish that they had not done so?
§ Sir Keith JosephI am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that the House will bear in mind that taxpayers at all income levels are contributing heavily to the higher education of a minority, whose education, it is true, will benefit society, but also themselves.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesIs the Secretary of State aware that I agree with him about what happened in 1976–77 when university fees were raised? Is he further aware that there was a great argument in the Cabinet, out of which came the principle that whatever else happened there should not be a charge on fees to the universities of this country, and the basis was accordingly changed the following year?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe right hon. Gentleman takes his own responsibility for revealing Cabinet discussions, but I assume that the discussions in question focused on the desire not to deny access to those whose household circumstances might otherwise prevent it. We, too, have studiously tried to do that.
§ Mr. Charles MorrisonDoes my right hon. Friend accept that students, although they are a minority, have received assistance both as a matter of principle and as a matter of national investment? In view of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), will my right hon. Friend explain why a proper inquiry was not held before the proposals were brought forward?
§ Sir Keith JosephHon. Members may not have taken into account the Government's view of the urgent need for extra money for the science research base of this country. It is true that to some extent higher education can be an investment for the country. Nevertheless, there are more students in higher education than ever before, both as a proportion of the age cohort and in absolute numbers, despite what are constantly described as discouraging economic circumstances, and I believe that that will continue.
§ Mr. RadicePerhaps I may come to the assistance of the Secretary of State. In view of the opposition so 157 forcefully expressed both within and outside the House in recent weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his proposals are unacceptable, first, because they break a principle by introducing charges for tuition; secondly, because they fail to recognise the 14 per cent. decline in real value of the student grant since 1979; and, thirdly, because they make students and their parents pay for scientific research which the whole country needs? Will he therefore abandon the proposals immediately, establish a review of support for all those in further and higher education and go back to the Treasury for the extra money needed for research?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe hon. Gentleman seems still to be living in the never-never land of absence of any economic constraints. As I failed to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) about expectations, I should say now that I accept that one of the severest aspects of the policy is that it defeats deeply entrenched expectations. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), however, must accept that the Labour Government made charges towards tuition fees for seven years before they made changes. He says that the value of the student maintenance grant has fallen, but that has coincided with a record level of applications and of accepted entries into higher education in this country.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Long questions lead to long answers.