Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I shall take the bid and look on it sympathetically. I know that the Prime Minister, as a Villa fan, would want me to do everything possible to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is the Minister as concerned as I am that some teachers in schools today qualified only after re-sitting their basic numeracy and literacy tests on multiple occasions—in some cases, more than 30 times—and what steps will he take to ensure that this is not repeated?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want to raise the bar for entrants into the teaching profession, which is why we are limiting the number of retakes for those tests, which will be taken before trainees start their course, not at the end.

School Transport

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to lead today’s debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. After my question to the Minister in November on school transport, I am sure that he was not entirely surprised to see my name associated with the topic today, and I am pleased that he is here to answer this afternoon’s debate.

If all politics is local, nowhere does that seem to be more true than on the vexed issue of home-to-school transport. My interest in school transport policy arises from the decision of Leicestershire county council on the provision of a bus service to take pupils from the village of Sileby to Humphrey Perkins school in Barrow upon Soar in my constituency. A smaller number of families in Mountsorrel are also affected, but I will particularly focus on Sileby today. The objection in my case arises from the council’s view that the proposed walking route from Sileby to Barrow is safe and the strongly held view of almost everyone else that it is not.

Before I dwell on local matters, I feel duty bound to explore why the Minister and the Department for Education should have an interest in the subject despite the fact that the assessment of walking routes and decisions about the provision of home-to-school transport and on appeals made by affected families are all matters for local authorities. I firmly believe in localism and that local authorities and elected local members should make decisions about school transport routes—as long as they are made fairly and transparently.

National legislation, namely the Education Act 1996, as amended, governs the duties and powers of local authorities in England to provide home-to-school transport. In addition, case law on school transport and “Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance”, published by the then Department for Education and Skills in 2007, contains detailed guidance on the provision of school transport. In March 2011, the Department for Education commissioned a review of efficiency and practice in the procurement, planning and provision of school transport across England. Section 509 of the 1996 Act states:

“A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary, or as the Secretary of State may direct, for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of persons not of sixth form age receiving education…at schools”.

The 1986 case of Rogers v. Essex County Council was one of the most significant brought in recent years on available walking routes. In its ruling, the House of Lords stated that for a route to be available within the meaning of the 1996 Act, it must be a route

“along which a child accompanied as necessary can walk and walk with reasonable safety to school”.

A route does not fail to qualify as “available” because of dangers that would arise if the child remained unaccompanied, but the Court also held that a route is available even if the child would need to be accompanied along the route, as long as it is reasonably practicable for the child to be accompanied. Local education authorities can therefore take into account parents’ capacity to accompany their child. Following that judgment, the law was changed so that in considering whether a local education authority is required to make arrangements in relation to a particular pupil, it shall have regard to, among other things, the age of the pupil and the nature of the route or alternative routes that they could reasonably be expected to take.

Hon. Members must forgive me, because I am afraid that I am showing my background as a lawyer, but the history is helpful. In George v. Devon county council 1988, the High Court took the view that

“For an ordinary child whose home is within walking distance, but who applies under”

the relevant section

“a local education authority should consider: the age of the child and the nature of the route which he could reasonably be expected to take; the question should the child be accompanied on the route or alternative routes? If the answer is ‘no’, then normally there”

is

“no case for free transport. If the answer is ‘yes’, then”

the next question is

“whether the nature of the route or alternative routes is dangerous for the child if accompanied. If the answer is ‘yes’, then normally there would be a case for free transport. If the answer is ‘no’, then: the question”

is

“whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to be accompanied. If the answer is ‘no’, then normally there would be a case for free transport.”

Consequently, local education authorities must consider section 509, together with the various legal rulings, in defining their policies on the provision of school transport and the eligibility of individual pupils for free transport. Pupils, parents and families are encouraged to turn to the Directgov website for views on national policy. It states on its home-to-school transport page that

“Safe walking routes are those which usually include road crossings, good lighting and well maintained pavements and footpaths. LAs are required to assess the suitability of walking routes.”

Having set out the national policy background, I will turn to my local issue. Leicestershire county council stated its view on the Directgov approach in a letter to me dated 20 July 2011 from the assistant director of transport:

“‘Safe’ is a very absolute term and it is not possible to guarantee that anything is absolutely safe, so it is an unreasonable stipulation. The law requires that a walking route be ‘available’ for a child accompanied as necessary by a responsible adult and it is this criterion that we apply.”

As I have mentioned, however, a route also has to be reasonably safe, and therefore the dangers of a particular route should be taken into account.

In February 2011, a Leicestershire county council scrutiny review panel reported to the council’s cabinet on the council’s home-to-school transport policy. The panel was asked to consider, first, how available walking routes are assessed and the appropriateness of the current method of assessment, and, secondly, what are known in Leicestershire as “historic exceptions” and whether such services are still justified. Historic exceptions are bus services provided free to children despite the route length being under the statutory distance and despite a route having subsequently been assessed as available for children to walk. Children using services on those historic exception routes will continue to receive free transport until September 2012. The Sileby to Barrow route is not an historic exception.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing the debate on school transport, which is also a major issue in my constituency. Does she agree that under current guidelines common sense sometimes appears to go out of the window? In my constituency, there have been instances of older children retaining free bus passes, while younger children in the same household are asked to walk to school. Does she appreciate how frustrating it can be when a household is judged to be outside the three-mile limit and gets free bus travel, but the next-door neighbour is judged to be within the limit and their children are asked to walk to school? Surely we need discretion and common sense in such cases.

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Common sense has been lost as part of the debate and in reviewing the routes. I have exactly the same situation in Mountsorrel, where apparently older children already at the Humphrey Perkins school will continue to receive free bus passes and younger children starting at the school will not.

In undertaking the review, the scrutiny review panel was asked to have regard to the financial, environmental and health implications of any proposed changes to existing policies in the context of the legal obligations placed on the county council. The overall review was conducted as part of the council’s medium-term financial strategy. The panel did not consider the Sileby to Barrow route and nobody with an interest in the route, such as the headmaster, the families or local councillors, was asked to give evidence to the panel. In reaching its conclusions, the panel decided that the width of a footpath and the lighting of a route did not need to be considered when a route is assessed, which is where common sense has gone out of the window.

In May 2011, parents of pupils in Sileby and Mountsorrel due to start at Humphrey Perkins school in September 2011 were written to and told that free school transport would be available for their child. Imagine their surprise, and the surprise of the head teacher, who also knew nothing about this, when in late June last year they and the families of children already receiving free transport, because the route was deemed to be unavailable, received a letter saying that that would no longer be the case and that because they lived less than three miles from the school and there would now be an available walking route, they would not be eligible for free transport and instead would have to pay for a school bus service. It was at that point that a campaign group was formed and I was made aware of the problems that the 53 parents in Sileby face.

Economic Growth and Employment

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman echoes the shadow Secretary of State in criticising the Government for undertaking quantitative easing. In truth, this Government and the previous one undertook quantitative easing, but there is a huge difference between them. This Government are using QE to buy bank debt to put liquidity into the banks, which is much needed by business, whereas the previous one used QE to buy Government debt, because at the time, the rest of the world had lost confidence in buying it.

[Gordon Banks]

I never mentioned quantitative easing—I was talking about term loans. Term loans are being offered to businesses because they are better for the lender, not the borrower, and because they deliver a skewed figure into the Merlin arrangements. That cannot be acceptable. Business should not be run on term loans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller]

That was certainly the case with the Regulatory Reform Committee—it used the framework of the House to make limited adjustments—but we should remember the legacy left by Sir William Sargent, who did an amazing amount of work leading the Better Regulation Executive and putting in place the framework now being utilised. To ignore his work would be an insult to a fine public servant.

On skills, I am pleased that the apprentice Minister or the Minister for apprenticeships—whichever way it is—is here. I understand that he has indicated his wish to visit West Cheshire college. He is most welcome to visit that fine college built with resources provided by Labour but I would like him to think about some issues, particularly the needs of apprentices and young people coming to train from areas of extreme deprivation. There are many simple things that he could urge the Treasury to think about. For example, in my area there are plenty of vocational courses leading to jobs in specialist sectors, yet young people from deprived areas who, had they stayed on at school, would have got free school meals get no support to help them eat when at college.

TTE training runs a good training centre in my constituency providing Cogent training courses—I recently had the great pleasure to attend the royal visit to the centre organised at the behest of the royal family. That training centre is doing fantastic work at the high end of the petrochemicals sector—with players such as Shell and Ineos Chlor—but it is having difficulty finding a financial solution to deal with the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Secretary of State will know that in Germany the burden is often placed on the large players, which are encouraged to finance the supply chain. That is one possible solution but the important point is that we need a practical solution, otherwise we will have no way forward and the young people making themselves available to go on such courses will be—

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous by suggesting that there was a great deregulatory fervour about the previous Labour Government. For the past eight months he has served assiduously alongside me on the Löfstedt review looking at the reform of health and safety law. Would that review have been carried out under the previous Labour Government? Should it have been carried out? If so, why was it not?

[Andrew Miller]

I do not want to be tempted to comment on the review because it would breach the embargo—of course, the hon. Gentleman and I have seen its contents—but I shall be happy to express my views publicly in days to come. However, there is a fair amount of agreement between him and me on this point so I ask him not to tempt me down that line.

Mention has been made of the serious issue of the science base. The Secretary of State has got to get to grips with the confusion in the university sector. A combination of things has impacted on the universities, such as the fees structure changes, the capital spend problems and the overseas student issue. Yes, it is welcome that millions of pounds are being spent on a graphene centre in Manchester, but would it not have been ironic that had these rules been in place, Andre Geim might not have been at Manchester university to make those fantastic discoveries? The Government have to think carefully about the possibility of damaging a £5 billion industry that provides us not only with a superb base for our own research and development and science-based companies, but with a huge export of knowledge, which improves our relationship with so many of the countries with which we do business. I urge the Government to rethink what they are doing in the university sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I am making this speech because I want the Government to be sure that they know what individual small businesses and manufacturing businesses are saying on the ground.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I do not want to take up too much time because I know others have things to say. I am seriously concerned about HMRC’s handling of casework and I do not think that it has the capacity to balance its role in raising taxes with its key role in generating economic growth. I hope that we can explore this concern on future occasions. I am grateful for the opportunity to let the House know how my constituents feel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I put the two hand in hand. [Interruption.] Yes I do. The Government have a cogent plan, but as I say, they have to deal with the reality that we inherited.

As I was saying, the Labour party just loves to spend other people’s money. We all like to spend money: it give us that warm glow inside, but I imagine that the rate at which Labour has spent money, and wants to spend it again, would give a white-hot glow. Labour Members do not even try to hide the fact that they spent all the money. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) informed us in his now infamous note that there was no money left. Again, it falls to us to clear up their mess.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about problems at the Inland Revenue, but is not the truth that the botched merger with Customs and Excise has meant a vast deterioration in performance, which has affected many of my constituents? That is the fault of the Labour Government.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. That is another problem that we have to sort out by clearing up the mess left by the previous Government.

Despite what Labour Members say and despite the sentiment behind this motion, we are, I believe, making good progress. As we have heard, we are creating the most competitive tax system in the G20; we are investing in businesses to help them start up and grow; we are encouraging inward investment and supporting exports; we are investing in science and technology and creating a more educated and more flexible work force. Of course there is still more to do, and I believe we are doing it.

For example, today, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary announced new reforms to employment law—mentioned by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)—as part of the Government’s plan for growth, which will cut unnecessary demands on business while safeguarding workers’ rights. However, if we listen to the instant reaction from Labour, we find that they would have us believe that these measures are anti-employment and the reforms are about making it easier for companies to fire staff. I believe that the reverse is true. The Opposition spend a lot of time trying to cast employers as the bad guys—as a group of money grabbers trying to get rich off the backs of the workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am sorry; I am running out of time.

We know that the RDA helped to invest in a new generation of advanced technologies with expanding markets around the world, which greatly helped growth in the north-east. Through industry, Government and university collaborations, a number of sectors were identified in which growth should be prioritised, including the processing and chemical industries, automotive and advanced manufacturing, and printable electronics. Those sectors, critically, were underpinned by centres of excellence supported by the regional development agency.

Did the incoming Government seek to build on that? No. What they did instead was get rid of One North East, although it had extensive support from businesses and the community in the north-east, and what we have in its place is the regional growth fund, about which I shall say more in a moment. The loss of the regional development agency led to a loss of expertise in regard to the sectors that needed to be developed in the north-east, and a loss of what was necessary to support that development. In great contrast, the regional growth fund not only has less money but is not strategic at all. I am very pleased that a number of north-east companies have benefited from the RGF, although the Secretary of State must address the fact that getting the money through to the companies is taking a long time.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

No; I am sorry, but I am running out of time.

The RGF along with local enterprise partnerships and enterprise zones do not by any stretch of the imagination add up to an economic policy for growth for the north-east, or for anywhere else for that matter, because they are fragmented initiatives with no local coherence. The RGF will not help to narrow the north-south divide, either. As I have acknowledged, a number of companies in the north-east have benefited from the RGF, and according to the Government’s own figures that will secure about 8,500 jobs, but in the same RGF round money went to the south-east to secure 30,000 jobs.

The north-east’s problems are compounded by the fact that the RGF money is not a sufficient injection to the private sector to enable it to make up for the jobs that are being lost in the public sector. To put the figure of 8,500 jobs in context, last month alone unemployment in the north-east rose by 19,000. The Government must do more, therefore. In the past couple of weeks a number of independent commentators, including the North East chamber of commerce and PricewaterhouseCoopers, have said that the Government need to do more to support private sector development in the north-east, and our five-point plan for growth sets out a clear way for them to start supporting the economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

Obviously, I have not seen the right hon. Gentleman’s letter to the Secretary of State, but I would be happy for either me or a colleague to come to see the specific issues in his constituency. I recognise the challenges of having a transient population and ensuring that all those families are claiming their benefits and are registered for free school meals. The Department is beginning a series of work to encourage schools to make sure that all families are signed up to free school meals.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I very much welcome the introduction of the pupil premium, but is the whole system not completely reliant on the schools correctly identifying and registering pupils who are eligible for free school meals? How successful does the Minister believe schools are in identifying these vulnerable pupils?

[Sarah Teather]

It varies according to area. We know that there is some tail-off at secondary school level, which is one of the reasons why our funding consultation touched on whether or not to introduce measures, including “ever” free school meals. That was about picking up children for the pupil premium who had previously been on free school meals, because there is some drop-off as they move from one area to the next. As I said, we are beginning some work to encourage parents to sign up. Not all parents want to sign up for the lunch, but they may well be keen to sign up if they know that their school will get extra money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

We have heard that under the new arrangements, schools and colleges will have flexibility on who qualifies for support, but will my hon. Friend confirm that disadvantaged students in my constituency will get the help that they need to enter further education?

[Mr Hayes]

My ambition—I do not say “targets”, because “targets” is not a word that this Government use—is to ensure that no one is prohibited from achieving their potential because they do not have adequate means to do so. That spirit underpins all we do.

Vocational Education

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a sign of the last Government’s failure to improve education that more than 250,000 children left school last year without a C grade in GCSE maths and English?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The short answer is no, and let me repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have already had reason to say to him several times: questions must be about the policy of the current Government. I have made that point to him before, and he has breached the requirement several times. He will not do so again.

Higher Education Policy

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denham]

With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall read back to him directly the words I spoke before I took those interventions: two graduates with the same degree from the same university starting the same job will start their working life with as much as a £9,000 difference in their level of debt. That is an accurate representation of the system that there will be and of the current system, in which, as Government Members do not understand, fee repayments start after graduation. The issue, however, is that students—those planning to go to university—are being told that they will be responsible in most courses for footing the entire cost of their university education. That is undoubtedly true.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Willetts]

I have been at many events with university vice-chancellors at which they have all accepted that, given the circumstances that we inherited and faced with the policy options of reducing teaching grant, reducing student numbers or implementing Lord Browne’s proposed changes in student finance, we took the right decision. I am confident that we have improved on Lord Browne’s proposals by making the repayment threshold more progressive.

Let me quote someone who is not a vice-chancellor, but who is perhaps still treated with a degree of respect by some Opposition Members, namely Lord Mandelson. The new postscript to his excellent memoirs, which I commend to Opposition Members, states:

“When the university fee debate came up before the Lords, for example, there was a large part of me that felt I should weigh in.”

I am sure that there was. It goes on:

“It was I, after all, who had set up the Browne Review”—

the Labour party seems to have forgotten that—

“into what future changes were necessary to ensure proper funding for universities in the best and fairest way, for both them and their students. When I did so in November 2009 I assumed, as the Treasury did, that the outcome would have to include a significant increase in tuition fees. I felt that they would certainly have to double in order to offset the deficit-reduction measures that we too would have implemented had we won the election. The alternative would be a disastrous contraction of higher education.”

Those are the words of the previous Secretary of State, and I take them as an accurate account of what was in the minds of Labour Ministers when they set up the Browne review.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I remind the Minister of the words of Professor Steve Smith, the president of Universities UK, who said that the coalition Government’s higher education policies

“will bring in the resource needed to allow students to go to university regardless of their financial circumstances, provide financial sustainability for universities, and ensure that we can maintain the UK’s international competitiveness in terms of undergraduate education.”

[Mr Willetts]

Absolutely. That is the view of Universities UK, and, as I have explained to the House, it holds that view because in the difficult circumstances that we inherited from the previous Government, we have taken the correct strategic decisions.

I have set out our approach to higher education. What was striking in the speech of the shadow Secretary of State was the complete absence of how he believes higher education should be financed in tough times. What was particularly noticeable was the absence of any reference to what we understand to be the preferred policy of his party leader, namely a graduate tax. We are still waiting to see the move to the graduate tax, which we understand is now the view of the shadow Secretary of State. Of course, the last Labour Government produced a helpful document on the subject entitled, “Why not a Pure Graduate Tax?”, which sets out clearly some of the issues surrounding a graduate tax. We are still waiting to hear whether the shadow Secretary of State advocates it.

Of course, our proposals involve a capped graduate tax, which has a threshold of £21,000 and a rate of 9%, is linked to the university that one went to, and is extinguished when one has discharged the cost of one’s higher education. That is the right way of delivering a graduate tax to pay for higher education. I would be very interested to hear from the shadow Secretary of State whether he believes that that system should be improved in some way. Does he prefer a model of graduate tax with, perhaps, a lower threshold and a lower rate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

No—I am not taking another intervention.

Unfortunately, my concerns were further confirmed when I recently met staff from Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Connexions services. Careers advisers were not only demoralised by cuts to their service when young people most need advice and guidance to help them to make difficult choices, but deeply concerned about the impact of Government policies on the teenagers whom they are committed to assist. They told me that fee increases are having a clear impact on many young people, and that many young people in Nottinghamshire feel that they can no longer afford to study for a degree.

The problem is heightened by the increase in youth unemployment. Young people are worried not only that they will rack up debts of £30,000 or £40,000, but that they may not even be able to secure a job at the end of it. It was particularly sad to hear a member of staff of the Aimhigher campaign, which supports young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have the potential to go on to higher education, tell me that it has become increasingly difficult to convince such young people that university is for them.

Young people and their parents frequently bring this issue up on the doorstep. On Monday afternoon, a constituent asked me how he could afford to send his children to university.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No. I have already taken several interventions.

My constituent was in work and owned his own home, and his children would not qualify for bursaries. He understood the importance of learning as a worthwhile investment in their future, but like many middle-income parents he felt that higher education was becoming out of reach for his children. The Government talk a great deal about widening access and ensuring that more young people from lower-income families go to our top universities, and about improving the chances of those in state schools, which are admirable aspirations, but they have done nothing to ensure that those things happen.

I fear not only the impact that the fees increase will have on our young people from low and middle-income families, but the impact that those policies will have on Nottingham. As many in the House will know, Nottingham is home to two excellent universities that attract students from all over the country, and indeed the world. The university of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent university make a huge contribution to our city and are vital to our local economy. Our city’s most successful businesses tell me that one of the main reasons for locating in Nottingham is the availability of highly educated young people. Although residents may on occasion wish that there were fewer students in the local neighbourhood, they also know that our universities are vital to the city’s economy and future financial success.

Last week, I spoke to a senior member of staff of Nottingham Trent university. She expressed concern that the increase in fees represents a threat to our ability to attract the brightest and best students to Nottingham, and reported that many young people and their families are considering studying close to home because they feel that they cannot afford the costs of living away on top of fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Yes, my right hon. Friend anticipates one of my later points. Both the Higher Education Policy Institute and, by implication, the Office for Budget Responsibility have recognised that issue.

Let me make it quite clear that from my personal perspective I have always believed that graduates should make a contribution to their education. There is a legitimate debate—it should have been had before these proposals were introduced—about the appropriate balance of benefit between an individual and the country’s economy and about what the appropriate obligation for payment should be between the individual and the state. That has to take place, obviously, within the constraints of affordability.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman comments on the allocation of payments and the contribution that graduates should make to their education, but was that not the entire function and purpose of the Browne report, which has been taken into account?

[Mr Bailey]

Yes, it certainly was and I was just coming to that. We should have had a White Paper, followed by a full debate, which would have enabled the Government to put forward their proposals and the Opposition and others to probe them. A range of educational institutions —there are an enormous number of them—would have been able to contribute their expertise. What we have had, however, is this seismic shift in Government funding, carried out without adequate research and debate.

I spent 10 years on the Government Benches listening to lectures from Conservative Members about the dangers of hasty legislation and the unintended consequences that almost inevitably arise from it. If ever there was a case in point, I honestly think this is it. Hasty legislation, or hasty regulation in this case, is usually bad legislation, or regulation.

The lack of research and work done highlights a number of issues. The first is the setting of the fee levels. The Minister’s hopelessly optimistic estimates, on which the financial model was predicated, have been demonstrated as completely incorrect. The repayment implications are considerable. A whole range of expert research has been done to demonstrate that the income stream on which the Government predicated their financial model will not be met. There will therefore be a long-term financial liability, possibly an expanding one, that the Government will have to meet.

Another issue that could and should have been explored far more comprehensively if we had had a White Paper is of course the role of the Office for Fair Access. When Ministers were pressed on the setting of the level of tuition fees, they seemed to ascribe to OFFA powers that were completely beyond it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) said in his opening remarks. The fact remains that OFFA is an organisation of four people, to whom responsibility was attributed by the Deputy Prime Minister for setting the tuition fee levels of all universities. That is totally beyond their resources, and they could not do it anyway, because they do not have the legislative basis to do so. This could and would have been teased out in a full and open debate of a White Paper, but by virtue of the Government’s actions it has been precluded.

The outcome is that the figures in the financial model do not appear to stack up. I mentioned the potential long-term financial implications earlier. As the Minister has acknowledged, the options are to cut funding for universities further and to reduce student numbers. I believe that if tuition fees averaged £8,000 per annum, it would be necessary to reduce the number of students going to university by 17,000 in order to stay within the model. There is actually a third option: the Government could change graduates’ repayment conditions. I think that that would open another can of worms, and would provide the basis for further research to assess the possible outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The future funding of higher education was one of the immediate issues, like that of the budget deficit, that had to be addressed after the months and years of drift at what I can only describe as the fag end of the previous Labour Administration. If we had not addressed it we would have risked reaching a point of decline in further education from which we would have been unable to climb back. Hon. Members should have no doubt that doing nothing was certainly not an option. The previous Government recognised that, which is why they commissioned the Browne review in November 2009. The review’s remit was to investigate the balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers and to consider how much students should be charged for attending university.

If our universities are to compete in the global economy, they need to be well funded. With a huge budget deficit, one cannot argue that when other Departments are facing cuts, the further education budget could be in any way immune. However, the increase in tuition fees proposed by the coalition Government does not, as the shadow Secretary of State has claimed, signal a wholesale withdrawal of state support for higher education. Under the current system, higher education is funded 40% by the student and 60% by the state, and under the new regime it will be funded 60% by the student and 40% by the state. That is far from the wholesale withdrawal of state funding. The fact that fees are to be capped means that there will be no up-front payments for students. No one will pay anything back until they are earning at least £21,000.

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that £21,000 figure is at 2016 money, so in current terms the figure is £15,900? Once someone earns more than £15,900, they begin to pay back.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I would need to check the hon. Gentleman’s figures, but the sum is considerably more than the current level. The bottom 20% of earners will pay back considerably less in total, and those earning less than £25,000 will pay back less than £1 per day for their university education. That is a progressive repayment system. The Government are working on ways to help students from the most economically disadvantaged backgrounds by reducing the fees that they will have to pay back.

In opposition to this, we have the puffed-up inaction of the Labour party and the support given by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor to the idea of a graduate tax, which is not a solution to higher education funding. It would provide no guarantee that universities would receive the additional funding raised. There is no mechanism for former students to repay early, and it would not allow any differentiation between a student from a lower income background and one from a higher income background.

[Margot James]

Does my hon. Friend think that is why so many senior members of the last Labour Government disagreed with a graduate tax, including Alan Johnson, Lord Adonis, the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair and Lord Mandelson, as quoted by the Secretary of State?

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Opposition are split on the matter for obvious reasons. A graduate tax is not the solution. A considerable number of graduates would pay substantially more than the cost of their course. In addition, there would be a large funding gap in the short term. The Browne review estimates that if all new students from 2012 paid a 3% graduate tax which would start at £8,000, not £21,0000, the tax would not provide sufficient revenue to fund higher education until 2041-42.

With the reckless spending habits displayed by the previous Government, universities would have much to fear if they had to rely on a graduate tax, which would inevitably fail to raise sufficient money, in contrast to the up-front and stable tuition fee income, which will allow universities to spend money as they see fit, rather than being subjected to constant Government interference.

The policies of the previous Government discouraged part-time students from studying, as they are expected to pay tuition fees up front and had no access to student loans. The fact that part-time students will have equal access to student loans will give more opportunity to those who may wish to study later in life, and will give universities a more balanced age range of students. Hon. Members should be aware that more than 250,000 students are studying at the Open university, and they will all be better off under the present Government’s policies. Given the need to retrain in a rapidly changing world, I welcome this.

The changes being bought in by the coalition Government will result in a higher standard of teaching being maintained, a higher completion rate of degree courses as a result of an informed and considered decision-making process, and students from poorer backgrounds being given a better opportunity to make the right decisions. This can only help universities by having students on the right courses.

We should also consider what the Opposition would call the ideological argument—whether universities should be dependent on the Government for their finance. The Browne review argues that a graduate tax would weaken the independence of universities, which would become entirely dependent on the Government for their funding. It argues that its own proposals would force universities to improve standards to compete for students. Under the coalition policies, the relationship of universities with students would rightly become more important than their relationship with Government.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I fought against a market system under our last Government. We agreed a reasonable compromise, but not without a fight. On the Opposition Benches there was no fight. We knew where the Liberals used to stand. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House where his party’s manifesto mentioned a trebling of tuition fees and an 80% cut to teaching grants to universities?

[Andrew Bridgen]

The policies are fair. There is increased fairness, increased opportunity and stability of income, and it is my firm belief that the coalition’s policies will allow our universities to prosper.

I am a graduate, and I had a full grant in my day, but in those days 4% of the school-leaving population went to university; last year, the figure was 43%. That is a considerably different proposition, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that in my constituency 84% of people are not graduates. An average graduate will over his lifetime earn in excess of £100,000 more than a non-graduate, so, if we are talking about fairness, is it fair that my non-graduate taxpayers should subsidise the earnings of those who have had the benefit of a university education? They will have that benefit not for the 30 years that they might pay back their student fees, but for all their working life, and I hope the hon. Gentleman remembers that.

To those who say that the system will not work, I say “Look at America”, where for decades the fees system has resulted in the country having eight of the world’s top 10 universities. If Oxford and Cambridge universities are to remain in the top 10 and other UK universities are to have any chance of breaking into the top 10, we need that stability of funding.

The increased tuition fees will create an expectation and demand for quality teaching among students, and with the proposed changes to A-level marking, which I support, students will apply with actual rather than predicted grades, helping state students to go to the best universities, reducing the drop-out rate and ensuring better results for students all round.

Fairness, opportunity, quality and stability are the hallmarks of this coalition policy on higher education funding, and these tough long-term decisions will secure the future of our nation’s universities, our graduates and our undergraduates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

What are the Minister’s views on the viability or otherwise of a graduate tax as a solution to higher education funding, as proposed by the Opposition?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Havant referred to an interesting document that Labour has produced, “Why not a Pure Graduate Tax?”, which concludes:

“We have been unable to identify any other country with a graduate tax system along the lines described that could serve as an exemplar for how a pure graduate tax might work.”

I have good news! Experts in Labour central office have now found one. Ethiopia has a graduate tax, but it is thinking of ditching it, just as Labour has decided to take the idea on board.

As for the charge that variable fees will deter working-class students, we heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) speak with authority on the subject. I know that he is a close student of working-class culture—[Laughter.] I said merely that he was a student; he does study it. He and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) told us that fees would deter working-class students. When the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was a Minister, he introduced variable fees, saying:

“I reject the notion that working-class kids are more debt averse than youngsters from other backgrounds. I just reject it completely, absolutely completely.”

That was his view of the effect that variable fees would have on the participation of working-class students.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that £35 million has been allocated to free schools this year. We will be completely transparent about this. As soon as a free school opens, all the details of the funding agreement will be made public once all the figures relating to that school are known.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

12. Whether he plans to review the eligibility criteria for free school meals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Under current arrangements, eligibility for free school meals is focused on children in non-working families to ensure that those who are most in need receive that valuable help. Universal credit will replace existing benefits, and the Department is working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop new free school meal eligibility criteria. We will also consider free school meal eligibility in 2012, in the light of the evaluation of the current pilot schemes relating to extended eligibility.

[Andrew Bridgen]

When I have visited schools in the more deprived parts of my constituency, it has been apparent that many parents are currently too proud to claim free school meals, feeling that a stigma is attached to them. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the free school meal criteria will be reviewed regularly, and that efforts will be made to inform parents of the importance of registering for them, given that the pupil premium is allocated according to free school meal take-up rather than eligibility?

[Tim Loughton]

I believe that 7,490 pupils under 16 in maintained schools in my hon. Friend’s area are eligible for free school meals. That is about half the national take-up. It is important for the pupil premium to be available to those in the most deprived areas, and we will of course monitor the situation to ensure that a perception of stigma does not prevent people from registering.

Building Schools for the Future

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman says on the one hand that we acted with unprecedented haste, and on the other hand that we should get on with it. One of the reasons we acted as we did is that the scheme we inherited was wasteful and inefficient. I should point out that as a direct result of changing the scheme we have been able to ensure that a school that was part of Building Schools for the Future, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), is going to be built one year faster than it would have been under Labour, with 30% savings. Under this coalition Government, we are making the savings and beating the time scales to ensure that in the most deprived areas, the schools are built.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is it not the case that despite the huge amounts of money spent on BSF projects before a brick was even laid, the Government architecture watchdog judged that 88% of those projects were either mediocre or not good enough? Does not that underline how badly managed the scheme was under the previous Government?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment made it clear that far too many of the designs were not up to scratch under the previous Government. We want to make sure that every young person has a school that is fit for purpose. That was not the case under the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to be proud of the Sure Start children’s centres, which are an excellent programme. That is precisely why the Government have made sure that the money is there in the early intervention grant, and why we have built on that by providing extra money for health visitors, through the Department of Health, and more money for things such as the family-nurse partnerships, which we know work on the ground and are often delivered through children’s centres. I believe that localism is the right way forward. Good local councils are thinking creatively about, for example, how to ensure that they can cluster their centres and merge their back offices, and how to prioritise outcomes for children—it is outcomes that matter.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend envisage opening up the assets of these underused children’s centres to community groups to expand the big society?

[Sarah Teather]

In some areas, local authorities are very good at making full use of the assets, which are often fantastic buildings, but in other areas they are not as good. I hope that providing the flexible fund will mean that local authorities start to think more creatively about how they can join services together and perhaps provide support for older children. By providing that kind of flexibility we enable local authorities to make the right decisions for their areas.