HL Deb 13 January 1997 vol 577 cc12-4

3.20 p.m.

Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they intend to introduce a loan scheme for student maintenance in order to cover the "top-up" fees which some institutions propose to charge in the 1998-99 academic year.

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no current plans to extend the student loans scheme to cover top-up fees. We believe that top-up fees are neither necessary nor desirable, particularly in the light of the 1996 Budget settlement; and we regret that those higher education institutions which are considering such fees may be prejudging the outcome of the Dearing inquiry.

Lord McNally

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the amount of concern felt by students, academics and others about reports of activities in the university sector? I refer to statements by the LSE about the introduction of top-up fees and statements about a premier division of universities and colleges. I suggest that all of these reflect a drift in the +Government's policy. Assurances need to be given, particularly to young people who plan to go into university education, that they will not take on new unbearable fees. The Minister's action of kicking everything into the long grass of Dearing is not good enough.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's point. I have made it clear, as have other Ministers, on a number of occasions that I see no need for top-up fees, particularly in the present funding context. I am grateful that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has also offered its advice to universities. It has said quite clearly that they ought to defer decisions about any such fees for full-time home undergraduates and to keep open all funding options while the Dealing inquiry is under way. I believe that it would be wrong, as I put it earlier in my original Answer, to prejudge that inquiry.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, is it not the case that two institutions, the London School of Economics and the University of Birmingham, have gone some way towards introducing a scheme for the academic year 1998-99? Can the Minister inform the House how advanced these proposals are and what discussions those institutions have had with his department?

Lord Henley

My Lords, it is for the institutions to make these decisions. It is open to them to make such decisions. The noble Lord is right to refer to those two particular institutions. We have made it clear that, particularly in the light of the current funding arrangements and the extra money that we have been able to secure in the recent Budget settlement, we see absolutely no need for such fees. As I said in answer to the first supplementary, I believe that it would be wrong to go down that route in advance of Dealing. We believe that they are trying to prejudge that inquiry.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, can the Government advise the House what legal authority universities have for charging top-up fees? Does that legal authority extend to schools charging top-up fees for education in high schools, possibly after the age of 16?

Lord Henley

My Lords, schools are another matter, but I do not believe that they would have such authority. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter if I am wrong. The universities have such authority because they are private institutions and can make such decisions as they wish.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, I declare an interest as a staff member of the London School of Economics. Does the Minister accept that the most important element in deferring decisions until Dealing comes along is the fact that the Dearing Committee will not report until after the election, and that, sadly, both the Government and the main Opposition party wish to kick the matter into touch? Does the Minister accept that any government are unlikely to find extra funds for universities of the kind that we need to maintain the highest quality higher education?

Lord Henley

My Lords, we make very large amounts of public money available to higher education in this country. The figure made available to higher education is some £7 billion, which represents about 20 per cent, of all the money that is made available by the taxpayer for education. I believe that that is a very significant amount of money. I do not accept that we have kicked higher education into the long grass, as the noble Lord puts it. Over the past few years we have seen dramatic changes to higher education. Higher education has expanded and numbers have doubled and doubled again. We thought it right that some 20 or 30 years after the previous report into higher education there should be another independent inquiry into the whole shape, size, future and structure of that sector. Obviously, one of the matters that Sir Ron will have to address is funding. Following his report, the Government will look very carefully at the recommendations that he makes.

Forward to