HC Deb 29 January 1998 vol 305 cc485-6
3. Mr. Garnier

How much his Department has spent on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. [24181]

Dr. Howells

The Department has spent some £534,000 on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. That covers our response to the report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education under Sir Ron Dearing—Lord Dearing—and the new arrangements for financial support for students in higher education.

Mr. Garnier

How does the Under-Secretary justify a reform that will cost the poorest students £2,000 a year more than better-off students during an academic year?

Dr. Howells

We undertook to inform everybody who needed the information about the details and the truth of the new funding arrangements that we intend to put in place. We think that that is a proper expenditure of money. The evidence of the success of our approach is seen in the rising number of applications for undergraduate places for next year.

Mr. Bradshaw

Does my hon. Friend agree that some students are labouring under the misinformation and scaremongering spread, in part, from those on the Opposition Benches? Does he agree that that small sum spent to tell the truth, so that students are not put off doing courses, is money well spent?

Dr. Howells

It is interesting that the nature of that scaremongering and misinformation that has come so often from some quarters is changing rapidly. I understand that the shadow Secretary of State for Education last night informed the audience at a debate on the future of higher education that he thought that our proposals for student loans would be much fairer than the arrangements put in place by the previous Government.

Mr. Don Foster

Is not the only reason why the Minister has had to spend so much money on advertising details of his proposals to students, the Government's hasty and ill-conceived response to the Dearing commission report? Does he agree that the proposals will do nothing to improve the funding crisis left by the previous Government because of the failure to passport the additional money from student fees to higher education, and that we shall end up with a higher education system that has two tiers—ivy league universities and bargain basement universities?

Dr. Howells

No, I do not agree. I am proud that this Government had the guts to make a decision—something that is not a characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mrs. Anne Campbell

Has not the publicity served its purpose well, and have not potential students responded? The applications to Anglia polytechnic university in my constituency are up on this time last year, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that.

Dr. Howells

My hon. Friend is right. Applications are rising quickly. The Jeremiahs and doom-predictors have been proved wrong. Students know that a degree brings them great opportunities in life and enables them to earn more when they are working. That is what we intend higher education to do. We shall see that the money is in place so that every student with the qualifications to take up those places can do so.

Mr. Welsh

What plans does the Department have to pay the fourth-year tuition fees of students undertaking an honours course at a Scottish university, thus ending the present discrimination against English and Welsh students? Is the Minister aware of the harmful effect of his policy on university policy?

Dr. Howells

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have told him so on several occasions, we are urging Scottish universities to recognise the great worth of two-year A-level courses in England and Wales, and allow students with good grades into the second year of four-year degree courses at Scottish universities. That is a perfectly good arrangement, and we shall try to ensure that it works properly.

Mr. Dorrell

Is not the truth that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was seeking that the student from a high-income background will pay an extra £3,000 for a three-year degree course under the Government's proposals, while a student from a low-income background will pay an extra £5,265 for the same three-year degree course? Will the Minister now answer the question posed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier): why do the Government believe that low-income students should face a steeper increase in the cost of their degrees than their contemporaries from more privileged backgrounds?

Dr. Howells

The shadow Secretary of State does not understand that students from low-income families will not be required to pay tuition fees. He adds up the sums in an incredibly idiosyncratic way. That is why he keeps jumping up and down in his seat. The money will be there for every student who wishes to take up a place at university and who requires it. The payback arrangements for such loans are good. People will take up such loans, and the proof of that is in the present application rates.