Higher Education Funding

Debate between Lord Willetts and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, because I think he has given us one of the best arguments that I have heard this afternoon for precisely the review that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) has called for. If the right hon. Gentleman poses significant questions about the right interest rate and the right earnings threshold—which we all know was a compromise with the Liberal Democrats—there are obviously some serious questions that demand a review. That is why the logical conclusion is that the Minister should stand up later today and admit that he has changed his mind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will just underline an acceptance that, although we might dispute the right way of calculating a RAB charge, being concerned about the level of debt write-off is none the less very important, because the lower we can keep it, the more money there is for future generations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should save some speech for later.

[Mr Willetts]

On write-offs, I hope people can accept that what we are talking about here is a forecast shaped with some rather peculiar assumptions, not an item of public spending today. On a review, a lot depends on what people mean. My view is that the last thing that the higher education sector needs is another equivalent of Robbins, Dearing or Browne. All three political parties represented in the Chamber today, when faced with how to finance higher education when money is tight, have all essentially reached the same decision: to go for a graduate repayment scheme. My right hon. Friend the Minister is entirely correct when he quotes Andreas Schleicher and the OECD in saying that this is the sustainable model.

In my experience as Minister—I am sure that it is my right hon. Friend’s experience as well—there were certain Ministers around the world who looked at us and tried to work out how to get something closer to what we have. The last thing we need is a review that throws all this up into the air, particularly if the anxieties that people are focusing on arise from an unfair comparison. The reason why there are so-called anxieties about the sustainability of this model is the forecasts, which are very peculiar indeed, and the assumption that everything is fixed until 2046.

When the advocates of a graduate tax stand up and say that they want a graduate tax, they do not then say, “It’s going to be 9%, and it’s going to have an earnings threshold of £21,000, and we commit now that that will be the threshold related to earnings for 30 years.” As soon as they did that, exactly the same kind of calculations would be possible and we could calculate the x billion pounds that they expect to collect in the next 30 years, and every six months we could recalculate and announce that they had just lost £3 billion and ask what they were going to do about the fiscal crisis in their scheme. In other words, the advocates of a graduate tax are of course assuming that it is a flexible device to ensure that people continue to pay for higher education, and that is what this graduate repayment scheme is. Although designed by Labour and adjusted by us, it is conceptually the same thing. The last thing we need is to reopen that question.

Industry (Government Support)

Debate between Lord Willetts and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To indicate the challenge that we face, the previous Government introduced 20,938 new regulations. Between 1987 and 1997, 46 pieces of primary legislation affected the workplace. In the subsequent 10 years under the Labour Government, 92 pieces of legislation affected the workplace. In the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, working with the Secretary of State, we have already identified on our forward programme 200 proposed regulations inherited from the outgoing Government that would have cost more than £5 billion to British business. Every one of those will be scrutinised, and we will roll back the burden of regulation, which is fundamental.

We believe in “rebalancing the economy”, and although those are the new words, I sometimes think that Winston Churchill, who served in the House as a member of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party, expressed it best when he said that he wanted to see finance less proud and industry more content. That is what the Government stand for. Getting a grip on the public finances is fundamental, because otherwise, as my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) described powerfully, interest rates will rise, which is a burden that British industry cannot be expected to bear. We need to bring down the burden of public borrowing and of the public finances.

The Government are not alone in believing in that—former Ministers who are now on the Opposition Benches signed up to such plans in government. They have failed today to give us any information about their plans to deliver the savings to which they publicly committed themselves. Let me remind them of what was in last year’s pre-Budget report with regard to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It said that £300 million would be saved by reducing funding for adult skills budgets, and £600 million would be saved from higher education and science and research budgets. I agree with Labour Members about the importance of science, although it is a pity that they fought the last election on a proposal to save £600 million from higher education and science but have never informed us of exactly how they would have made those savings. We will now deliver the savings, and they are in no position to criticise the savings that they planned for but never had the guts to share with us and explain.

The Government are committed to a strategy for growth that involves an enterprise-friendly tax system, support for science, support for free trade and competition, a belief in investment in skills and training, and rolling back the burden of regulation, setting British industry free. As every contribution to the debate has revealed, there is a simple difference between the Government and Opposition. The Government believe in freedom, enterprise, initiative and competition, and the Labour party still believes in state control, higher public expenditure, more regulation, more RDAs, and more interference in the wealth-creating sector of the British economy. That is not the way we will recover from the recession in which the Labour party left the country.

The Government will commit ourselves to bringing down the burden of borrowing and managing the public finances prudently. In the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in which it is a privilege to work with the Secretary of State, we are determined to have a more flexible and dynamic industrial sector because of our commitment to free trade and free markets.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.