HC Deb 04 December 1984 vol 69 cc158-60
3. Mr. Andrew MacKay

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received about his proposals to amend parental contributions to the cost of further education.

4. Mr. Teddy Taylor

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the alteration in the criteria for awarding student grants.

7. Mr. Madden

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received concerning the abolition of the minimum student grant and the charging of higher education fees to parents.

Sir Keith Joseph

I have received some 1,800 such representations.

Mr. Mackay

As my right hon. Friend must be aware from that massive number of representations, in many cases there will be real and sudden hardship. Would it not be prudent now to withdraw these ill-conceived proposals —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and instead to announce a full inquiry into the financing of further education, which would include a close look at the merits of a loan scheme?

Sir Keith Joseph

I hear what my hon. Friend says, and note the support that he has received, and I accept that the proposals are a shock to the expectations of many, if not all, the households involved. I can say no more than that.

Mr. Taylor

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while he has advanced a powerful and sincere case for a greater financial commitment by students and parents, there is cause for genuine complaint about the speed with which the decision has been made and the suddenness of the change, which is disrupting carefully planned family budgeting? Will my right hon. Friend look again at the phasing of his proposals, and will he also consider whether, in any such review, he sees any place for a loans system?

Sir Keith Joseph

I have certainly accepted from the start of this announcement that 11 months' notice is by no means ideal. However, my hon. Friend's gentle words hide the fact that any phasing must cost money and that the money is, in my judgment, needed as a national priority to prevent the science research base from suffering, perhaps in some very grave way. Nevertheless, I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Madden

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that his proposals are fundamentally misconceived and unduly severe? Will he further accept that this move represents a further attack on the standard of living of many students, and the parents of many students, including those from ethnic minorities? Lastly, in view of the widespread opposition to the proposals in the House—and particularly from the Government Back Benches —will the right hon. Gentleman not now scrap the proposals and establish a comprehensive review into the grant structure for our university students?

Sir Keith Joseph

Even after the proposals have had their effect, students will remain very heavily subsidised by the general body of taxpayers, many of whom are much less well off than most students will be.

Mr. Robert Hughes

Does the Secretary of State recall the saying: Whom God would destroy He first sends mad."? Is that not appropriate, as this proposal is the height of madness and will damage the educational future of many children and, in the process, deprive them of national educational standards?

Sir Keith Joseph

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to accept that. I do not accept any part of his case.

Mr. Madel

In view of the need to strengthen the links between higher education and industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that changes in tax laws that would encourage industry to donate more equipment and finance to higher education is now appropriate?

Sir Keith Joseph

I agree enthusiastically with my hon. Friend, but that does not mean that it would make sense for the national economy. The tax changes that he postulates would have to be considered in the light of the overall tax situation. Therefore, once again, I note what he says but cannot promise that the Government will be able to deliver it.

Mr. Bruce

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread anxiety that the parental contribution to fees is the thin end of a very large wedge which might result in students being unable on economic grounds to choose the course that they want to take, and the Government losing as a result? Does he agree that courses should be pursued on their merits and that financial considerations should be different for four-year courses, as in Scotland?

Sir Keith Joseph

I am not concealing any decision to carry the charge into tuition costs any further. No such decision has been made.

Mr. Greenway

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most serious aspect of his current proposals is that they damage the vital principle of equal opportunity of access to higher education for all sections of the community? Will he take that into account and modify his proposals?

Sir Keith Joseph

For once, I am not sure that I am prepared to accept what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps he will reason with me or write to me to explain the reasoning behind his view.

Mr. James Lamond

When the Secretary of State hears the attacks behind him from hon. Members who have sat silent through attack after attack on our social services, does he recall that old Scots saying, Touch ma pooch and friendship ceases"?

Sir Keith Joseph

I have to accept that my hon. Friends have a strong case only, in my view, about the shock to expectations at relatively short notice. I do not think that I can offer any firm prospect on this, but I accept that that lies behind many of the complaints that are reaching me.

Dr. Hampson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more than just the short notice, and that there are some things that really matter? Does he agree that when fees were last charged they were charged very much at the top end of the scale—at present prices, at above £36,000? I understand that we are now to charge fees when there is a residual income of about £19,000, and it seems likely that home-based students will be charged fees at a considerably lower level of family income than that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real case for reconsideration, at least on the fees front?

Sir Keith Joseph

I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend has got his analogy right. I should like to examine it. I fear that he might have misled himself again.

Mr. Wigley

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those who are assessed to have a parental contribution do not receive it, certainly in full, and that the National Union of Students assessed that number to be as much as 43 per cent. of all students last year? In those circumstances, is there not an argument for doing away with the parental contribution so that people aged over 18 can stand on their own feet?

Sir Keith Joseph

No Government have found it possible to replace that money with funds from the taxpayer. Although I realise that some students—it is certainly not 43 per cent. of all students—do not receive all that they might expect, I must observe that there are record numbers of students in our universities and polytechnics and record numbers of applications.

Mr. Budgen

Why was it not possible for my right hon. Friend to take an opportunity long before this decision both to inform and to persuade those who are likely to be affected by this decision?

Sir Keith Joseph

The problem of preparing for public expenditure discussions, which are inevitably in confidence, present some difficulties. I can accept that a long intellectual approach march to what the Government have decided would have had certain advantages. However, I ask my hon. Friend to face the problems of public expenditure discussions.

Mr. Fatchett

Given the fears that exist among students and parents about the future funding of university and polytechnic courses, will the Secretary of State give a clear commitment that it is not his intention, during the lifetime of this Government, to introduce a loan scheme for students?

Sir Keith Joseph

The Government have already put on record that loan schemes are not at the moment on the agenda, and that if the Government wish to bring them back onto the agenda an announcement will be made and consultations will be embarked upon.

Mr. Cormack

Does my right hon. Friend recall coming before the Select Committee in the last Parliament and endorsing the policy put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South, (Mr. Carlisle) on parental contributions? Furthermore, what is the point in devoting extra resources if the students will not be able to afford to take advantage of them?

Sir Keith Joseph

I do not accept my hon. Friend's second question. It does not follow from the Government's announcement that there will be fewer applications for the science, technology and engineering places, the number of which we are deliberately increasing.