| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robathan: We want to lift them all up.
We are talking to Oxford and Cambridge. I met the vice-chancellors last week. We are talking to everybody involved. I am fully aware of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). They must be made aware that, although we cannot influence any university's policy on student admissions, we are watching very carefully to ensure that the static intake of the past 30 years starts to improve. I do not believe that children who are at state schools are intrinsically any less intelligent than children who are at independent schools. On the contrary, all children have enormous potential and we need to do a great deal to start tapping it. I welcome any debate on the review for Oxford and Cambridge. That is why I am so grateful that we are having this debate.
Today, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we are looking specifically at one issue--college fees. I assure the House that we will consider the matter objectively. We will do nothing to endanger the standards of excellence at Oxford or Cambridge.
Mr. Jackson:
Will the Minister give me an undertaking that he will write to me setting out the legal basis of the threats to legislate against the charging of private fees by private institutions? In particular will he take into account European law and the relevant European convention?
Dr. Howells:
When I understand the significance of that question, I shall certainly consider whether to respond. If it is academic-speak for whether we are in favour of top-up fees, let me tell the hon. Gentleman right now that we are not. If there are problems with a percentage of bright young people going from state
Dr. Howells:
No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has intervened many times. I shall look carefully at the legal basis and try to reassure him, if that is possible.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton challenged the Government on the basis of press reports. I hope that she will acknowledge that that is not the best source of information and accept my undertaking here and now that we are not in the business of dumbing down or egalitarian dogma. It is a long time since I have been accused of dogma--
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
Nineteen sixty-eight.
Dr. Howells:
Since 1968, probably.
We have no intention of indulging in dogma. Suggesting that we do is a cheap crack. The Government realise that the country's future lies in our having the best educated, best trained work force in the world. If we do not have it, we will not be able to compete in an increasingly global economy. We are determined to ensure that we have such a work force, and Oxford and Cambridge will play their part in that, as will all the other universities and an area of education about which there is often a deafening silence in this place, especially from Conservative Members--further education.
We will ensure that we see the role of Oxford and Cambridge within that wider context. If we manage to do that, we will go some way towards turning the rhetoric in which so many of us believe--lifelong learning, creating a learning society--into a reality.
We will take note of what has been said today. This has been a very useful debate. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. We have all benefited from it.
Mr. Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough):
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about a matter that is of paramount concern not only to my constituency in South Yorkshire, but to every other area in the United Kingdom that has suffered job losses as a result of the demise of our traditional industries--industries such as coal mining, as in Barnsley's case, and steel, textiles and heavy engineering. All those industries are trying desperately to get back on their feet and reaching for new economic directions. Without new industry and new jobs they will inevitably continue on a downward spiral.
I am happy to say, however, that huge strides are being made. In Barnsley and Doncaster, a brighter future is beginning to emerge: although there is still a long way to go, a solid foundation has been laid for future growth. I would like to say that that foundation stemmed from the interest and help of the last Government over the past decade or so but, sadly, assistance from that quarter has been derisory, so I cannot say it. No Conservative Members are present to answer that point.
What I can and must say is that, without doubt, the impetus for the first steps in Barnsley's recovery has come primarily from the European Union. Given my position as a Barnsley Member, it is difficult for me to criticise Brussels. When we lost 14 pits and 20,000 mining jobs almost at a stroke, Barnsley lost its livelihood and came close to economic death. Over recent years, European help--not the last Government's help--has sustained us and put Barnsley back on the road to recovery. Barnsley is not atypical: I know for a fact that the same can be said for all coalfield areas and I suspect that the story will be similar in the many other areas that have suffered from the structural decline of their basic industries.
The figures speak for themselves. The current EU regional aid programme runs from 1994 to 1999; in that period, the United Kingdom will have received some £4.7 billion in assistance--nearly £1 billion for each and every year. We are talking big money. Over the years, the EU has been used to nurture new enterprises, to provide new industrial infrastructure, to fund training and to develop community projects.
That brings me to the crux of my reason for requesting the debate. There is a real crisis on the horizon: there is a real danger that our principal lifeline could soon disappear. The current spending round for EU aid ends in 1999. Discussions on the framework of the next round, which will run from 2000 to 2006, are already well advanced. The European Commission has already revealed its proposals in a consultation document that was published in July. Fortunately, those proposals have yet to be agreed by member Governments.
I say that with relief because it is no exaggeration to state that, if allowed to proceed, the proposals will deal a body blow to our hopes of recovery. Let me spell it out loud and clear. If the Commission is allowed to do as it intends, there is a real possibility that not one part of the United Kingdom will qualify for continuing regional aid. It is that bad--that serious. I shall explain why.
First, the Commission is determined to reduce the geographical coverage of the regional funds from about 50 per cent. of the EU population to between 35 and
40 per cent. Secondly, it is proposed that there should be no change in the key eligibility criteria--gross domestic product, industrial job losses and unemployment--that are used to decide the distribution of aid. Those two factors--greater concentration of funds and unchanged eligibility criteria--are extremely bad news for Britain.
The GDP indicator for eligibility is used to decide the top tier of aid, which is known as objective 1. If an area is to qualify, its GDP must be less than 75 per cent. of the Community average. In Britain's industrial areas, although GDP is falling in relation to that of the rest of Europe, most rates are between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the Community average and none are lower than 75 per cent.
In other words, those areas are in a poor state of health but are not quite badly off enough to qualify for the top tier of aid. Ironically, despite their lower GDP, they may well fail to qualify for the second tier of aid as well--objective 2 aid. The eligibility criteria are industrial job losses and unemployment. We can no longer demonstrate substantial recent job losses, most jobs having been shed in the 1980s; and our official unemployment rates are falsely low and, for the most part, will not meet the EU criteria.
On paper--this is the information that European Commission officials will use--Britain's older industrial areas seem to be in fine fettle, with few job losses and falling unemployment, but anyone who is familiar with the situation in, for example, the north-east, south Wales, Merseyside and my patch--South Yorkshire--will know that that is simply not the case. Despite progress, the problems of those areas remain numerous and acute.
Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North):
Such concerns are heightened in areas such as Merseyside, which have been experiencing the worst of the recession over the past few years. Among other things, we would like a commitment from the Government to fight for every area that currently enjoys objective 1 and objective 2 status. That is very important to us. We would also like the labour survey figures, rather than the unemployment figures, to be used; and we would like the Government to fight for a flexible approach to GDP. If my hon. Friend the Minister will give me an assurance to that effect today, much of the concern that has been expressed to me--which I know is felt throughout the country--will be alleviated.
Mr. Ennis:
I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply specifically to his points.
12.28 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |