Higher Education Funding

Debate between Bob Stewart and Brian Binley

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Binley]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I shall say a little more about my views on the point he raises as my speech unfolds, but I will say now that every small business man in the land—I do not mean small in stature; I mean small in the sense of the size of the business—will know that if he lends money that he will not get back, he will have a cash flow problem that will create real trouble for him, if not now, then certainly in the future. I do not believe that Government money is any different in that respect.

The saga of higher education funding and support has rumbled on for a long time. Reforms in the 1990s created an expansion in higher education that widened participation, which, of course, is welcome. However, those reforms necessitated a change in the financial model for universities and those attending them. That is becoming increasingly unsustainable and could lead, as I have said, to a sizeable black hole in the Exchequer accounting, which the Government seem not to wish to recognise.

Many Government members are also my personal friends, and I am sure they are working on contingencies and do not have this in mind, because I would not ascribe to them the financial inadequacy that not recognising the problem would suggest. I hope my good friend the Minister will recognise that I do not think he is inadequate and I do think he will come up with the answers we require—that he will recognise the problems and consider very carefully the need for a proper review not only of the RAB charge itself and the loans surrounding it, but the way our universities work. I will talk about that as my speech unfolds.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very hon. Friend for giving way. Is it correct that if my children go to a Scottish university, they will pay a lot of money, whereas those from Scotland, or from France or Poland, do not pay tuition fees? That is unfair and should be addressed, too.

[Mr Binley]

I will allude to that problem, which I hope will be corrected when this place discusses—if it has the courage to do so, and I pray it does—devolution and the Barnett formula, because there is no doubt that Scottish students who attend Scottish universities get a much more helpful and lucrative deal than Scottish citizens who attend English universities. This is a matter not of English or Scots, but of devolution, which in this instance works very much against students in English universities. They are ill done by, as are citizens more broadly, on whom less per head of population is spent than on our fellow Scottish citizens.

The much discussed 50% target for participation in universities, although arbitrary, was entrenched in the need for change in the 1990s and was one of the motivators of the current situation. I was a secondary modern schoolboy under the tripartite system, which could have been enhanced and could have flowered in the extent of choice it gave to parents. I regret that, at a stroke, it was done away with. I fear that was to our great cost and genuinely feel that the extension of offers in education that is beginning to flower now is an important development. Most importantly, we must place apprentices, technologists and all those who are so vital to the well-being of our economy on an exact par with university students, and in the past I fear they have not been given that recognition. I want to see a more equitable division between those who have gone on to higher education in technical fields and those who have chosen the academic areas for which the universities are famous. I think that that is part of the answer and I am sure that the Government will take it on board.

The 2011 White Paper promised that higher education would be put on a financially sustainable basis. The Browne review established the principle that the beneficiaries of higher education would need to make a greater contribution towards the costs, and I agree with that. It was also proposed that graduates should pay a proportion of their salary only when they were earning more than £21,000 a year, and that was widely welcomed. That provides a part-answer to a previous question.

The Select Committee inquiry in the first Session of this Parliament, to which I contributed, drew two conclusions about the affordability of the loan system. We agreed that there should be clarity for students about the relationship between the burden borne by them and that borne by the taxpayer, as a function of the performance of the economy. That seemed to me to be vital, because we have turned students into customers and consumers, and consumers have a right to know that they are getting a fair deal. That fair deal will also have an impact on their children and grandchildren, which is why this matter is so important.

I genuinely believe that we are leaving a massive black hole for future generations to deal with, and I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I find that immoral and totally unacceptable. I know that he thinks of politics in terms of an ethical and moral base, and I hope that he will hear my plea. We have no right to lay so much danger and concern on to those who follow us. We are already doing it with a deficit that was built up to far too high a level. That is causing us problems now and will continue to do so for at least the next five, six or seven years. I do not want that problem to be added to by a black hole because we did not take the trouble to consider this issue properly.

That is why I am appealing to my right hon. Friend in this regard, and I do so not for ourselves. Of course the Government can hide the problem away, but if they do so, they will not be acting in the ethical and moral way in which the Minister and I would want them to act. I therefore hope that he will recognise this element of the problem. This is not about the accounting that the Treasury seeks to project; it is about what most Members of the House of Commons want to see. I have served here for almost 10 years, and I believe that Members consider morality, ethics and good practice to be massively important factors in their deliberations, and I hope that we can apply those factors to this issue.

I shall be leaving this place in three months and I want to make a heartfelt appeal to the Minister on behalf of my two children and three grandchildren. The problem could easily be shoved aside, but it will come back to haunt us in a big way in 15 or 20 years if we are not careful.

The Select Committee inquiry drew two conclusions. I have just outlined the first, but the second has greater significance. We stated:

“The affordability of the new system is dependent on a wide range of variables which are outside of Government control.”

The truth is that we doubted that they had been fully taken into account when the system was set up. That gives the Minister the opportunity to say that there is a need to revisit this issue to consider what the other variables outside the Government’s control are. We are not the masters of every issue we face—we are rarely the masters of any issue we face, but that is especially true of this one, which will leave a deficit for our children and grandchildren if we are not careful. This issue is not totally, by any means, within the Government’s control and we need to consider that aspect. If we do not do so, we will be letting future generations down. Consequently, I wish to focus my remarks on the second conclusion.

Let me repeat for the record the doubts I had at the time the reforms were introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) will know of them, because of some friendly, courteous but relatively robust cross-examinations when he was on the Front Bench. He knows that we were deeply concerned at that time, and nothing that has happened since has changed my mind. I do not believe that proper regard was given in the first place to long-term sustainability, and I want to concentrate on that nub of this matter.

In October 2012, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant, a wise and certainly highly intelligent Minister, was reported in The Independent—this was “reported”, so I cannot claim he actually said these things, as we all know the dangers that lie in that term—to have said that the RAB on students loans would not rise above 32%, with a 38% ceiling being the worst possible outcome for the taxpayer. In April last year, in response to a parliamentary question, he asserted that estimates at that time placed RAB at about 45%—in such a short time it had already risen way above what I believe were his genuine and heartfelt estimates. In my view, a level not far off 50% has been reached—perhaps it has already moved above that figure—and that simply highlights how important this matter is. To be totally fair, I should point out that he also stated that the Government had achieved significant savings for students, and increased income for universities. I believe he was right to say that, and I welcomed that view then and do so now. We pay tribute to the work he did in the Department, which will benefit my children and grandchildren. I hope I have given an even view of how I see the work of a right hon. Friend I am criticising just a little.

Looking at the reforms from a more detached perspective, it is far from clear that the Government can claim that these changes were a total success, not least on the RAB. A forecast drop in student loan repayments has raised existential questions about the true sustainability of the new system, and we could face a situation in which the effect of trebling tuition fees has resulted in a more expensive settlement for taxpayers, in the way that I have described. A report in March last year by London Economics found that if the charge increases beyond 48.6%, the cost of the reform

“will exceed the 2010-11 system that it replaced.”

That is a startling fact and it ought to add not only to our concern, but to the need for an immediate review in the way the Select Committee is requesting. As I have said, the RAB index is perhaps already above 50%. No business could sustain, and no Government should be prepared to sustain, such a situation, because it is the worst kind of accounting. It is the worst kind of financial thinking about the future, and I reject it, not only as a business man, but as a parent.

Pub Companies

Debate between Bob Stewart and Brian Binley

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I thank my friend and colleague the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee for his contribution. It has been an honour to serve as vice-Chairman under his guidance and I welcome the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you in particular will know, since 2004 there have been four Committee inquiries on this subject; I have had the pleasure of participating in two of them. Progress has been made, but many assurances have been given about the voluntary code that have not been upheld and that is not good enough.

The background is relatively simple. The nature of public houses and the associated brewing industry has changed much in the last 30 years. I recall a Monopolies Commission investigation as long ago as 1972, as a result of which breweries were increasingly made to question the value of maintaining their estate. In consequence much of the estate was sold, initially to entrepreneurs, but they were progressively usurped by the big players who developed massive estates of pub chains. They borrowed much to create those estates and therein lies the problem.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend talking about pub companies that own pubs, rather than breweries that have a pub estate? Is that the thrust of his argument?

[Mr Binley]

That is absolutely correct. I am talking about pubcos and I exclude family businesses that own fewer than 500 pubs. The big owners of pubs and their unsustainable financial structures are the real problem. Let me make it clear: this is not about family-owned brewery companies, who do a very good job indeed. I am talking about big pub companies whose model is unsustainable; it is based on excessive debt, misleading information and deception, as the inquiry has proved.