Top-up Fees (Hansard, 15 January 2004)

§ 6. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con)
What recent representations he has received on top-up fees. [147871]

§ The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson)
My Department has continued to receive correspondence on issues relating to variable fees from a range of organisations and individuals. In addition, I have had meetings with a number of MPs, vice-chancellors and representatives of interested groups to discuss and clarify the proposals set out in the Higher Education Bill. We have listened to 948 concerns and taken account of them in the proposed student support package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 January.

§ Mr. Amess
How will the Minister reply to those people who have written to him to remind him that the Labour party manifesto said that the Government would not introduce top-up fees and had legislated to prevent them? How has he replied to constituents who have reminded him that, according to Barclays bank, under this rotten Government students will face debts of more than £33,000 by 2010?

§ Alan Johnson
On the first question, we will not introduce variable fees until after the next general election. Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman of the days, which are becoming increasingly distant, when his party was in government. Government is about looking at serious problems, which we should address, not duck. I make no apology whatever for realising that the university sector requires additional funding—and extremely soon—for the economic success of this country.
On the second question, I would patiently remind anyone who wrote to me or to any Member of the House saying that the Government's proposals mean a £33,000 debt that the biggest threat to students going on to university is well-meaning people plucking figures out of the air for what student debt will be. I remind those people that the average debt recorded by the student income and expenditure survey, which the National Union of Students has more to do with than we have, is £8,666—not£30,000, not £3,000, not£25,000.

§ David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op)
Why cannot we be frank about what the debate before us involves? The current fees produce £450 million out of a £9 billion budget—about 5 per cent. The debate is not about the small amounts of extra finance, which would be rather slow to come, or the expansion of opportunities for working-class students; it is about marketisation. Why cannot we be frank about that?

§ Alan Johnson
Because it is not about marketisation—it is about getting rid of up-front fees, reintroducing a maintenance grant of £1,500 and making it easier for graduates to repay not just any fee, but their loans. The amount that they will pay back goes down substantially under our proposals. [Interruption.] It goes down £18,000 a year—from £13.85 a week to £5.90. That is the reality of our proposals.
In relation to marketisation, we are bringing in an extra £1 billion on top of £800 million from fees and a £3 billion investment from the taxpayer—a 34 per cent. increase since 1997. We are doing that because we read very closely the report of the Dearing national committee of inquiry, which said that if we do not go down this route we will never properly fund our university sector.

§ Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I do not think that any of us, on this side of the House at least, is surprised that the Government are breaking their promise. What we would like explained is why they made the promise in the first place.

§ Alan Johnson
That is a change of tack. The hon. Gentleman is a respected member of the Education and 949 Skills Committee, which to a large extent goes along with our proposals and certainly supports graduate contributions. There was an interesting article in The Sunday Times by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—

§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con)
Answer!

§ Alan Johnson
This is the answer, if the hon. Lady cares to wait.
My right hon. Friend wrote an article, as well as the manifesto commitment, and he pointed out the terms of the debate in 1997 and 1998, following the Dearing report. Top-up fees meant that the Government set a fee and universities were allowed to top them up to whatever level they liked. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend reminded us of the true terminology that we were debating, and we will not allow that to happen. We did not allow it in 1998 and we will not allow it now. If anything, the proposal that £3,000 or less can be charged is top down rather than top up.

§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of the up-front element in the proposal before us will have a significant impact to the benefit of the students coming from poorer families?

§ Alan Johnson
That is a crucial point. Even though 40 per cent. of students did not have to pay that fee, there was the impression in youngsters' minds that if they want to go to university it will cost them or their parents money up front. The other interesting point is that from the student income and expenditure survey we now know that 26 per cent. of students are themselves paying an average of £700 towards that up-front fee. In fact, abolition and a move to an income-contingent repayment system after they have graduated is not only more helpful for those applying to university, but will help students to manage the cost of being at university.

§ Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con)
The Minister referred in his opening answer to meetings with Members of the House. How many of those meetings were held at the suggestion of Lords Commissioners to the Treasury—in other words, Government Whips?

§ Alan Johnson
Quite a few would be the answer to that. That in no way suggests, however, that those individual Members whom I met were not delighted and happy to meet me.