Universities: Alternative Medicine

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again I make it clear that it is for the higher education institutions themselves to make these decisions. It would not be right for the Government to interfere.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, in choosing to fund these courses in universities, will HEFCE treat them as science, technology, engineering and medicine courses, in which case they will receive a higher allocation than if they were not treated as such?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I do not know the answer to it but I will certainly make inquiries and write to him. Again, I reiterate the fundamental point that these are matters for HEFCE to decide, not the Government.

Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

I passionately believe that were the Government to do that, students, their families, graduates, universities and the taxpayer would, as a result, have a better outcome but the deficit would still be cut. In turn, the Government would be congratulated on listening, on thinking again and on putting forward proposals which sustain the long-term future of higher education in the UK as a public good, as it is perceived everywhere else in the world.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and as somebody who has spent much of his career teaching undergraduates in this country and in north America. I have to say that I have changed my mind about the view I take on the Government’s proposals. The view you take, I think, depends on where you start from. The vice-chancellors, in their view, have their feet in the coals of the fire and are looking for a way to get them out, and the only way to do that is to support a whopping great hike in student fees. If, however, you stand back and ask some fundamental questions about the justification for the proposals, I believe that you come to quite a different view.

I asked myself three questions. Are the proposals justified and fair? Do they make the funding of universities more sustainable? Do we understand the consequences of this radical change? No doubt noble Lords are on the edge of their seat waiting to hear the answers to those questions. We have heard many of the things that I am going to say already, so I will take a short cut to save anxiety and stress and give the answers in summary form. No, the proposals are not justified and fair. No, they do not make the funding of universities more sustainable. No, we do not understand the consequences. Let me explain briefly why I have come to this view and why I therefore support the Labour amendment to the Motion.

We have already heard, and I do not need to dwell on this, that a university education is partly a public good and partly a private good. Individuals benefit but the nation needs doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists—even civil servants and economists, it is sometimes said. The state should therefore pay part of a university education. I think it is reasonable that students should pay something themselves, so the debate is about how much it is fair to ask them to pay. These proposals represent, as we have already heard, a dramatic shift in responsibility for payment for an education from the public purse to the private purse.

We must not forget, as has been hinted at by other speakers, that the United Kingdom already invests a significantly lower proportion of its wealth in tertiary education than most other countries. The latest OECD figures, published this year, show us at 30 per cent below the OECD average in public investment in tertiary education and at nearly 40 per cent below the EU average. Will the Minister tell us how he can justify cutting public support for universities when we are already spending less as a proportion of our GDP than countries such as Hungary, Mexico, Poland or Brazil? Do not tell us that this is about reducing the budget deficit—it is actually about priorities.

The Minister tells us in his letter that no one should be put off from participating in higher education as a result of the changes. People have already asked where is the evidence to support that assertion. Certainly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes in its report that students from the poorest 30 per cent of families will have more to pay back than they do at present. How do we know that this will not put them off? My conversations with the students I am responsible for suggests that it will.

We are also told—and this point has been raised already—that there are details of access arrangements, some of which are spelt out in the draft letter from the Minister for science and universities to Sir Martin Harris. But normally, when you want to understand the details, you turn to the fine print. I did so, and the print was so fine it was almost non-existent.

My second point was about the sustainability of universities. In his letter to noble Lords, the Minister states that the Government believe that this package offers a more sustainable future for our universities. I have always held the notion that belief should be reserved for matters of faith; no doubt the right reverend Prelates will comment on that. But when it comes to the sustainability of universities, I would prefer something more substantial than belief. We have already heard that in effect this proposal takes money with one hand and gives it back with the other, so the proposed fee increase—if we go to £9,000 a year—would barely exceed, and perhaps only just match, the amount of money that is removed in the cuts elsewhere. Therefore, universities such as my own, Oxford University, will be no better off, even if we charge £9,000 a year, and perhaps even worse off. How does this make the system more sustainable?

Thirdly, and finally, do we understand the consequences of this huge experiment? As we have heard, the proposal turns university education, to a large degree, from a public good into a private benefit. What do we know about the outcome? What do we know about its effect on the balance of students choosing to study different subjects? Do we know that it will encourage social mobility? Do we know what kind of restructuring it will result in in the university sector? I believe that the university sector could benefit from restructuring but I do not think that it is sufficient to leave that to the market. A university education is not like toothpaste or a fizzy drink; the market will not necessarily deliver what the nation needs. That can be delivered only after deliberation and consideration by Government and by Parliament.

As we have heard, universities in the UK are an outstanding success story; in fact, they are one of the very few areas in which we still have world pre-eminence. Let us not conduct a massive experiment and leap into the unknown with this success story without first understanding the outcomes and the possible consequences. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and vote against this proposal.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Krebs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scientific evidence they hold which supports their proposals for control of bovine tuberculosis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, scientific evidence indicates that TB in cattle will not be eliminated without addressing transmission from badgers. The evidence used to estimate the impact of badger culling and vaccination on TB incidence in cattle is set out in our consultation document. For culling, much of the evidence comes from the randomised badger-culling trial, which was recommended by the noble Lord in 1997. For vaccination, it comes from laboratory and field studies.

[Lord Krebs]

I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. As he has indicated, I declare an interest as the author of the 1997 report that led to the so-called randomised badger-culling trials, which were set up to test whether culling is an effective way of controlling TB in cattle. I ask the Minister two questions. First, does he agree with the estimate of his own officials that, based on the results of the randomised badger-culling trials, long-term intensive culling of badgers would lead to a 16 per cent reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle over nine years? Even this modest reduction, which would leave 84 per cent of the problem unaffected, would be achievable only with highly effective, large-scale, long-term culling. Otherwise, culling will make the problem worse. Secondly, does the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, agree with the policy of culling?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the first question, I accept what the noble Lord has to say, but ongoing monitoring since the end of those trials indicates that the positive impacts on herd breakdowns within the culled areas have lasted for a considerable number of years after the culls have ended and that those areas have seen a reduction of some 28 per cent in the incidence of TB. So there is a considerable reduction. We have never said that culling is the sole answer. We have always made it clear that we believe that other measures will need to be taken and that we need to use every tool in the toolbox. As I made clear to the noble Lord in Written Answers earlier this year, we have consulted both the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, and our own chief scientific adviser within the department.