§ Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the dual purpose of the Open University will be kept in mind if any proposals are made that would discourage poorer students by raising the fee of £25 per subject for first year studies.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt)My Lords, the proposal under discussion is to increase the tuition fee for a credit course from £25 to £40 from the academic year 1976. The fee of £ 25 has applied since the academic year 1973 and the proposed increase is intended to maintain the value of the University's fee income in relation to grant. My right honourable friend fully appreciates the tremendous contribution which the Open University is making to higher education in this country and he is confident that it will continue to attract large numbers and a very wide range of students.
§ Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is an ironic and totally disgraceful Answer? Is he further aware that the Open University was established in order that poor students as well as better-off students should be able to have education of a graduate and post-graduate character? Does he realise that the Open University students are already paying a higher percentage of the costs of their university than are the students in any other university? Is he aware of the deep resentment that will be caused if 886 the poorer students are now to be excluded?
§ Lord CROWTHER-HUNTMy Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the noble Baroness for her great work in establishing the Open University and assure her that I could not have greater sympathy with the aims of the Open University. As for poorer students, the fact is that there has been a gratifying increase in the proportion of students coming to the Open University from the manual and routine non-manual occupations. The position is that they now make up about one-third of all applicants, and therefore about one-third of all those admitted. I would point out to the noble Baroness that the proposal to increase the fees at the Open University is broadly in line with the increase in wages paid since the fees were last adjusted. I am aware that, on the grants side, there are difficulties and it is true, as the noble Baroness said, that students at the Open University pay perhaps higher fees compared with students at other universities. However, this is a relative matter; they actually have incomes from which those fees are paid, as opposed to the situation in other universities where students are on fulltime courses.
§ Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGEMy Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply is really a contradiction of what he is trying to say? Is he aware that housewives have not had a great increase in their incomes and that the criticism of the Open University in the early days was that it did not attract sufficient people with a lower income level? Is he now saying that, at the very time when people with a lower income level are learning about the Open University and are applying to become students, they are now to be told that this university is not for the likes of them?
§ Lord CROWTHER-HUNTMy Lords, Open University students can apply to local education authorities for discretionary grants. I understand that the great majority of authorities assist with the cost of attending summer schools and that some of them help with tuition fees and other expenses. On 25th March I discussed this matter with, among others, representatives of the Open University. No final decisions have been reached. I believe that there 887 are very real problems about fees and about financial assistance to students at the Open University. There are difficulties about extending the mandatory grant system to them, and I do not think that that would be the right way to go ahead. But I am considering this whole question in discussion with the Open University, because my aims are the same as those of the noble Baroness in this respect; I want to produce a situation in which the increasing number of people from the manual occupations and the routine non-manual occupations—the gratifying increase we have seen—will continue.
§ Baroness BACONMy Lords, can my noble friend say how many local authorities make discretionary grants for this purpose, and what proportion that number is of the total number of local authorities?
§ Lord CROWTHER-HUNTMy Lords, I do not think I can answer that supplementary question precisely—
§ Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGEMy Lords, it is 30 per cent.
§ Lord CROWTHER-HUNT—but, my Lords, I think it is more than the noble Baroness has just suggested. It is considerably more than we thought at one time but I will find out the precise figures and send them to the noble Baroness.
§ Lord GOODMANMy Lords, is the Minister aware that his indication that he is prepared to reconsider this matter will give very great satisfaction? I think he must be aware of the deep anxiety that the whole purpose of this university will be defeated by the increase in fees. May I ask the noble Lord, whether he realises, as I am sure is the case, that the point and purpose of this university was to give a second opportunity to people who had forfeited the first opportunity largely for want of means?
§ Lord CROWTHER-HUNTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that supplementary question. It is not so much a question of my agreeing to reconsider this. As I pointed out to the Vice-Chancellor and his colleagues who came to see me on 25th March, I am really very worried about this whole 888 matter. I promised that I would continue to review it in conjunction with their proposals. That is really what I am doing, because I want to make it possible to produce a situation in which the aims: of the Open University, which has made the most significant and encouraging progress, will continue.