Higher Education Funding

Debate between Adrian Bailey and Barry Sheerman

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Third Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Student Loans, HC 558, and the Government response, HC 777; and calls on the Government to outline proposals that will sustain funding for the sector while addressing the projected deficit in public funding.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold this debate, which is of huge significance to universities up and down the country and, indeed, to the cohorts of students at or about to go to those universities. The debate is essentially about the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report on student loans. I must thank my Committee colleagues because the report’s recommendations to the Government were unanimously agreed on a cross-party basis. It is fair to say that they reflect the concerns of Members from both sides of the House.

I will also draw on other reports not mentioned in the motion, including some by academic and university institutions, but particularly a report by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies and one by the Higher Education Commission. I stress that the IFS is an independent body with expertise across both the academic and economic spheres, and that the Higher Education Commission report was co-chaired by the Conservative peer Lord Norton of Louth and Dr Ruth Thompson. Although the reports’ details may vary, their conclusions are remarkably coherent and consistent.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will know that I used to co-chair the Higher Education Commission. I have a copy of the “Too Good to Fail” report, which we produced on an all-party basis, and I thank him for mentioning it.

[Mr Bailey]

I understand that my hon. Friend is due to speak, so although I will draw on his report, I will not pre-empt him by discussing its conclusions.

The motion mainly deals with the policy’s public spending and budgetary aspects, but it is important to recognise that we are not just talking about money. Higher education is vital to the economy of this country and to our society. It is an £8 billion export earner and attracts students from all over the world, because British universities consistently feature at the top of the rankings of world universities. In addition, universities drive and sustain economic growth in their immediate local economies, which are often in some of the most deprived parts of the country.

For an individual going to university, such an education is a potential path to personal fulfilment, and of course an economic advantage. Various estimates of graduate earnings show a minimum of something like £150,000 earned by a graduate over their lifetime over and above what they might expect had they left school after A-levels, and many estimates show more.

The Treasury estimates added benefits from taxes earned, and further benefit to employers through productivity gains. In short, higher education in this country is a success story that needs to be sustained, and it is crucial to reinforce Britain’s position in a global economy that is becoming ever more competitive.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend, as ever, touches on the key issue underlined in the Committee’s report, and I will address that issue in due course.

As I was saying, higher education is a success story and vital for our economy, our society and the aspirations of millions of young people in the country. To underpin it we need a funding system that enables it to respond to the demands that will be placed on it by outside pressures, and to sustain its role as a driver of social change. The current funding system is based on recommendations in the 2010 Browne review and subsequently implemented, with some changes, in 2012. The key change was to replace direct Government funding of university teaching by a fees-based system payable by individual students on the basis of Government loans through the Student Loans Company, capped at £9,000. Those fees are to be repaid after graduation once a salary of £21,000 has been reached, over a period of 30 years.

There were short-term benefits to that model. It removed the cost of funding from public accounts, except for those costs that would have to be written off through under or non-repayment in the future—technically known as the resource accounting and budgeting, or RAB, charge. That model benefited the universities because it led to an increase in funding at least in the short term, and it benefited taxpayers because there was a drop in public subsidy per student of something like 5%. The benefit to the student is far less clear. Although the system delays payment for education until later in life and is income-contingent, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the average debt per student will be more than £44,000 for a combination of tuition fee and maintenance loans. In its report the Higher Education Commission stated that focus groups demonstrated a low level of awareness among students about that issue and its potential implications for them.

[Mr Sheerman]

The IFS and the commission report highlighted the fact that many students we interviewed had no idea that the debt would be that much. They will possibly never be eligible to get a mortgage later on, which I find absolutely stunning, astounding and disgraceful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation. When I speak to sixth formers and potential undergraduates I always make the point that, compared with the cumulative spend in their lifetimes on cars that depreciate immediately, investing in their education is a very good investment. But it will have consequences for patterns of consumer expenditure, the full implications of which we do not yet know.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House and I know that he is replying to an intervention, but the IFS study says that middle earners—the public administrators, the health and education workers—will be particularly affected. That is 40% of graduates, so we are not talking about a small number who may never be able to get a loan for a house.

[Mr Bailey]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and I could talk about it at some length, but I recognise that other people wish to speak in the debate so I will not pursue it any further.

It is now clear that the level of debt repayments is predicted to be much lower than when the scheme was initiated. In the early days, the Committee questioned the Minister on that point, and the estimate was a level of default of between 28% and 30%. It is now acknowledged by the Government that the rate is 45%, and that may rise. In crude terms, for every £100 the Government lend, they get only £55 back. That has huge implications for the Government’s long-term budgeting.

The principal reason for the projected increase in non-repayment is the fact that graduate income has not grown as anticipated by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That will keep an increasing number of graduates below the repayment threshold, and even if they reach the threshold they will repay at the lower rate, commensurate with their lower income. That will mean that they will be unlikely to pay off the debt within 30 years.

The IFS has estimated that 73% of graduates will not repay in full. We can add to that the difficulties that the Student Loans Company has had in securing repayments, particularly from former students living abroad, so there is a basic problem and other administrative problems.

The Select Committee has made recommendations on the latter. If we look at the implications for annual budgetary expenditure, we find that £7.4 billion in loans was given to undergraduates in 2012-13. In 2015-16, that figure is estimated to be £12.6 billion. If we estimate that nearly half of the loans will not be paid back, it is clear that that has enormous implications for future budgetary planning. If that were not a big enough problem in itself, the Chancellor added to it in his 2013 pre-Budget report by announcing the lifting of the cap on student numbers to allow the additional recruitment of 30,000 students. He tacitly admitted that there was a funding problem when he said that that would be funded by the sale of the student loan book. The Committee subsequently questioned Ministers and others on that. We expressed considerable concern that such ongoing expenditure should be financed in this way, and we were very doubtful about the Government’s potential to balance their books by doing so.

Student Visas

Debate between Adrian Bailey and Barry Sheerman

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

I agree. In varying degrees, none of those is right at present.

Before I go on to the substance of the issues, let me make it clear that no MP in any party can be unaware of public concerns about immigration or can fail to recognise the legitimacy of the Government’s intentions to address that. Similarly, I do not think that any MP in any party can object to actions being taken against bogus colleges and the use of education as a route to illegal immigration. I am sure all MPs of all parties would stand behind the Government and the education system as a whole in seeking to block that.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on this very good report. It meshes well with the Higher Education Commission report on post-graduate education, which he will know of. What is good about his report is that it flags up in a sensible way the problems of migration and bogus colleges, but points out strongly that, within this international market and this great employment and wealth creator, the universities of this country and post-graduate education in particular are sensitive to the possible reaction of legitimate students—highly qualified people—who come here.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman addresses an important point. Skills and higher education is now a global market. Those with the best brains are increasingly footloose and go to the places where they think they will get the best opportunity to develop their expertise and where they feel they will get the warmest welcome. It is in that international context that we must look at our policies on student visas.

In addressing what must be recognised as a hugely sensitive issue and a focus of public concern, the Government must have a student regime that does not deter bona fide international students and does not undermine our further education colleges, our universities or the wider economy. I recognise the efforts that the Prime Minister has made to visit India and China in particular to make it clear unequivocally that there is no cap on bona fide student applications. However, the Prime Minister has a credibility problem if, at the same time as he proclaims those things, students who wish to come to this country from abroad find that their dealings with the Home Office and the visa process completely contradict his public assertions.

Manufacturing

Debate between Adrian Bailey and Barry Sheerman

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituency borders that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), so if my remarks echo his it is because of our shared experience of black country manufacturing and the challenges that it faces. My constituency, consisting of Oldbury, Tipton and Wednesbury, was at the heart of British metal-bashing for centuries. When Britain was the workshop of the world, the black country was the centre of that. It has a proud manufacturing tradition, and I am equally proud to say that, even given the hard times that the industry has gone through, there are still more foundries in my constituency than in any other in the country. The number of people employed in traditional manufacturing, while nothing like what it was, is still higher than in most areas of the country. My constituency is thus second to none in having an interest in the particular theme of this debate.

I know that many people, particularly within the black country business community, welcome the Government’s rhetoric on boosting manufacturing, rebalancing the economy and securing export-led growth. I certainly share both the Government’s and the local business community’s enthusiasm for all of those. I think, however, that we need to measure this with a touch of realism.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East made it clear that although we might want to extol the virtues of manufacturing, we must not do that to the detriment of the contribution made by other sectors of the economy, particularly our creative industries, which are world leaders and provide a significant proportion of our national output and a large number of employees. This applies to our service industries as well. Although manufacturing might have declined relatively, that is partly because we have an expertise in the service industries that is recognised throughout the world and provides potentially exportable market opportunities.

Manufacturing has a crucially strategic role. Although it provides something in the region of only 11% of national output, it provides nearly 50% of our exports. If we are to export our way out of recession, the service industries might play a significant part, but we cannot overlook the potential of manufacturing industry. It contributes something like 74% of research and development. The more R and D there is, the more competitive we become: the two are crucially linked.

We must recognise that without having more R and D and without providing a higher value-added manufacturing base, we might not be able to generate the levels of employment that we have had historically in manufacturing. We might well pursue policies to help businesses expand manufacturing as a proportion of our national output, but that might not necessarily result in a huge increase in the number of people employed because as we become more competitive and productive, we might be using fewer and fewer people to achieve it. That can sometimes blur the distinction between manufacturing employment and service employment—hence the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East to “manu-services”. Increasingly, as our high value-added manufacturers export abroad, they follow it up with service contracts, which provide a lot of employment for people who are technically in a half-way house between servicing and manufacturing.

[Mr Sheerman]

I know that my hon. Friend, as Chairman of the Select Committee, has a great deal of knowledge on this subject. I wonder, however, whether we are avoiding the fact that Germany is also good at services and at design and many other things, yet it still has a manufacturing base that is twice as big as ours. That is why I keep coming back to “It’s Germany, isn’t it?” that we need to copy.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is quite right—for a whole range of reasons that, unfortunately, time constraints prevent me from developing. Germany has a far stronger manufacturing base than we do, and a much stronger manufacturing culture throughout the country. I would like to discourse at length on that, but time constraints prevent me from doing so.

Notwithstanding the German experience, it is generally recognised that our expertise in some of the service industries may well give us greater export opportunities to countries such as China. Because of Germany’s expertise in manufacturing, it has done very well in what we might term the first wave of exports to China, but we may do better now because of our superiority in some service industries.