MP's Questions

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, but his leader has recently mentioned the necessity of savage public expenditure cuts and an article in The Times mentioned that universities would face a 20 per cent. reduction in their budgets. Is that Liberal Democrat policy, and how does it compare with the cuts that the Conservatives would make in higher education?

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that the leader of my party was referring to the desperate state of the nation's finances and the reluctance of the present Government or the Conservatives to face up to the cuts that have to be made if we are to balance our national books, or to give any specific examples of how those cuts could be made. At least my party has put forward some specific examples, such as the Trident missile programme which no longer needs to be renewed and which would release billions of pounds to be invested in other priorities.

I mentioned the skills that we will need for the low-carbon economy that must be part of our future. I just want to draw the House's attention to some good practice. For instance, in Cornwall an array has been built offshore to take advantage of the tidal energy. Combined Universities in Cornwall has introduced a new degree in renewable energy-the first such example in the country-and a foundation degree in renewable technologies, and is working with others to provide technical-level skills. We need much more of that happening in our higher and further education institutions.

I cannot agree with the penultimate sentence of the motion, which states that this House

"welcomes the idea of a cross-party student finance review to look at the long-term sustainability of the higher education sector".

That is not because I oppose trying to reach a consensus on the funding of higher education or other long-term issues that face this country, such as long-term care for the elderly or pensions. It is because the fees review in higher education was specifically promised in the Higher Education Act 2004. Lord Mandelson has so far dodged announcing that review, although I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant on getting a reply to his letter from Lord Mandelson. My own experience has not been so happy. We were due to have a meeting to discuss the fees review, but it was cancelled at short notice. It was replaced by the promise of a phone call at a very precise time-and at that very precise time the Minister's private secretary called to say that he no longer had the time to speak to me. So I am none the wiser about Lord Mandelson's ideas on cross-party working on the future of higher education, or more critically, when the review promised in the Higher Education Act will commence or what its terms of reference will be.

It is evident that a cosy consensus is building up between Ministers and Conservative Front Benchers, because they do not want this debate to take place in the run-up to the general election. They want to stifle that debate and ensure that the conclusions of the report are kicked into the long grass in the field beyond the next general election. The Liberal Democrats believe that students deserve better than that and that higher education should be a key part of the debate between all three parties at the next general election. We will certainly be affirming, and reaffirming-

Barry Sheerman: I apologise for missing the start of the debate, but Committee duties delayed my arrival in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Education and Skills Committee, and he mentioned confusion. I am confused about whether the Liberal Democrats now believe in variable fees-top-up fees as they are called-or whether they have changed their minds? Is it that their leader does not like them, but the party does?

Stephen Williams: It was a pleasure to serve on the Education and Skills Committee and the Children, Schools and Families Committee under the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship, and I learnt a lot from that excellent Select Committee process. If he is patient and stays for the rest of my speech, he may find that his question is answered.

The sixth shambles over which this Department has presided-the problems faced by international students-is referred to in the motion. On this issue, my sense of déjà vu goes even further back. It was the subject of the first early-day motion that I tabled as a new MP in May 2005 and the second speech that I made which was on the Immigration Bill. I spoke specifically about the difficulties that Bristol university and Universities UK had brought to my attention. They anticipated that the changes in the visa regime in that Bill would lead to problems for international students. The then Home Office Minister, Mr. McNulty who is, as we all know, gentle and kind, especially to new hon. Members, told me twice that I was talking rubbish and more rubbish-