| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. In light of his comment about the Government's wish to attract more students into higher education, I want to repeat the question that I put at Question Time a month ago. Will he make a categoric statement at the Dispatch Box now, ruling out any future use of differential fees, as requested by the Russell group and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals? Higher education would be out of the reach of many students if they had to pay real-terms costs.
Mr. Wicks: I am about to move on to that topic. The hon. Gentleman is prescient--the issue was raised by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West when he quoted from representatives of the Russell group.
Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wicks: Not yet, as I want to answer the question. I have an old-fashioned sense of order; indeed, our policies are built on good old-fashioned values. I shall give way to the hon. Lady later.
Many students and their parents have been worried by recent press reports about top-up fees. I am happy to reassure them that the Government's policy has not changed. Indeed, we have legislated to prevent universities from levying differential fees. We are monitoring the charges that institutions make to ensure that differential fees are not being levied. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterated that policy recently when he said:
- Anything that discourages open access to all universities and their departments in this country is, in my view, wrong. Those who argue for substantial differentiation in fees have to answer where the resources would come from to pay for those on low incomes to enter university departments, given that the top-up fee that they were levying would have to pay for that and for any improvement in quality.--[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1106.]
Miss Kirkbride: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am sure that the House would like more state school pupils to go to university, although it must be borne in mind that more used to go under the old grammar school system. However, the House would also be interested to know whether the Minister backs the Chancellor over the controversial case of Laura Spence. Interestingly, the Minister has not mentioned that case yet.
Laura Spence did not get into the medical school of Magdalen college, Oxford, where the Government have limited the number of places available to five. The Chancellor said that that was wrong, but the people who got the precious five places all had the same academic qualifications as Laura Spence. Some were women, some were from ethnic minorities and some came from comprehensive schools.
Will the Minister back the Chancellor and tell the House which of those students should have been deprived of a precious place at Magdalen college so that Laura Spence could go?
Mr. Wicks: The difficulty is that disproportionate numbers of students with very good A-levels come from private schools. I wish them good luck, but the reasons for that are easily understood. Although about two thirds of our high-achieving A-level students come from state schools, those percentage differences are not reflected in the intakes to our top universities. That is the issue that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done so much to highlight. If we are to build an equal society, we must tackle that problem for the sake of our young people.
Miss Kirkbride: It is class war.
Mr. Wicks: It is not a matter of class war but of the common-sense revolution that is taking place in the way we treat each and every young person in the country. We support that common-sense revolution.
I apologise for the fact that I have not addressed all the important issues. I would have had much to say on health care, for example, but I will say merely that I hope that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and his colleagues will recognise that the recent expenditure on the NHS announced by the Government is a record investment in a major institution close to the heart of British men and women. We are finding the resources but, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who, on health care, seemed to be among the forces for conservatism, to coin a phrase, we do not think that it is a question of pouring money into the health service without thinking through how the patient and the public will get as much as possible from every extra health pound that is spent. That is why, perfectly properly, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister are leading a review to find out how we can develop structures for the health service that enable that money to be spent properly.
At the outset of my address, I referred, rather generously, to the fact that the Liberals and Labour have shared a radical tradition over the past 100 years. We have been pushing that radical agenda in government, building on the values of the British people and their concerns about fairness, and trying to balance economic prosperity with social justice. However, although we are proud of our record of achievement, I repeat that no one can be complacent. Much has been done but so much more needs to be done. Those of us in the House who have the honour to serve our constituents and meet them regularly in our advice surgeries know that in all our communities, much pain and suffering needs to be addressed. The agenda is clear--there is much to be done.
Our vision is clear, as well as our agenda. Ultimately, it is a simple vision, which decent men and women have shared over the years. Each and every citizen has equal rights and duties. Each and every citizen, whatever their background, deserves decent opportunities. That is what this debate allows us to say, and that is what the Government are doing. This is an important debate--no debate could be more important.
4.36 pm
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): As the Minister said, the Liberal Democrats' motion is somewhat all-embracing. It refers, as observers of the debate should be aware, to education, taxation, pensions, health care and access to services in urban and rural communities. I feel sure that it was only an oversight on the part of the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip that there is no reference to kindness to animals, but no doubt that will make an appearance on a future Liberal Democrat Opposition day.
I always look forward with eager anticipation, beads of sweat upon my brow, to the contributions of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). He is an agreeable cove, and he has fine parliamentary jousting skills, so I say with the greatest respect that it is a pleasure to engage in debate with him today. However, the motion tabled by Liberal Democrat Members and the speech that the right hon. Gentleman devoted to it were notable more for their breadth than their depth. It was, if I may say so, the scattergun approach--the broad brush. The right hon. Gentleman could not be accused of an over-intense focus on any one issue.
It must be said, however, that the proposition of the Liberal Democrats, at least in terms of the meat of some of the issues that they quite properly raised in the motion and the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech, compare favourably with the stance of the Government. The House should be aware of just how risible is the Government's amendment to the motion. Specifically, the Government apparently think it necessary and desirable, in an amendment, to state--wait for it--that
- access to higher education should be based on merit not background . . .
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: Not just yet, but I will happily give way to the hon. Lady in due course.
That is a banal observation. It is like saying that, when it is sunny, one ought to wear a hat to protect one's head, and when it is raining, it would be a good idea to carry an umbrella. It is blindingly obvious. What we on the Opposition Benches know, however, is that a political party should be in business unashamedly to support the pursuit of excellence, to underscore the important principle of academic freedom and to recognise that admissions tutors--not Ministers in Her Majesty's Government--are best placed to make judgments about the people whom they admit to their institutions.
I want to focus somewhat on the on-going row--believe me, it will be on-going--about elitism, admissions policies and the behaviour of the so-called privileged. This fight was picked by the Chancellor. It was outrageous for a senior Minister to pick that fight, but the battle has been well and truly joined.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), made no discernible reference to the conduct of Oxford or of Cambridge university. I have considerable respect and, in the light of recent events, great sympathy for the vice-chancellor of Oxford university, Dr. Colin Lucas. I have no vested interest in the matter; I do not know the distinguished vice-chancellor. To my knowledge, I have not met him. I did not go to Oxford university. As some people will be aware, I hail from the wing of the Conservative party that pays a mortgage and buys its own furniture. I went to a comprehensive school and to Essex university, but I have the greatest admiration for Oxford university and, as I said, great sympathy for the vice-chancellor of that institution, who has been assailed by a wholly improper propaganda campaign from the Government.
What did Dr. Lucas say in the run-up to the debate? Referring to his institution, he said:
- We cannot compromise on education, if we are to remain a world class university.
There was some chuntering among Government Back Benchers when my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) observed that more state school pupils went to Oxford and Cambridge universities when there were more grammar schools. Labour Members--presumably showing the same ignorance of the facts as that displayed by the Chancellor in the recent saga--dissented from that proposition. Let me offer the Minister some facts on the matter.
In 1970--Oh, I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is herself the privileged product of a private education, regards the facts on grammar school access to Oxbridge as an appropriate occasion on which to yawn. She and other members of the Government will have to hear the facts. In 1970--[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that she is not a product, but a person. If she wants to pick a semantic argument, I am happy to accept that amendment. The term "state school product", at which she cavilled when I used it in an intervention, is perfectly commonplace. If she is not familiar with it, that is her problem--not mine. If she wants to be referred to as a person, I am happy to oblige her.
In 1970, 60.4 per cent. of people going to Oxford university were from state schools, and a substantial proportion were from grammar schools. The figure for Cambridge university was 61.3 per cent. During the ensuing three decades, there was a marked deterioration. Nevertheless, over the past five years, there has been a substantial improvement in the proportion of state school pupils admitted both to Oxford and to Cambridge. It is genuinely a source of regret to me that the Minister failed to mention that in his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman--the product, I believe, of an independent education, although I do not hold that against him--is normally a very fair-minded fellow. It saddened me that he did not take the opportunity to say something about the improvement in the performance of Oxford and Cambridge in relation to state school access to those institutions. He should have done so--especially in the light of the monstrous remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 May, that it was time that Oxford university opened its doors to people from all backgrounds and, indeed, opened its doors to women. What breathtaking ignorance. Does the Chancellor not know the facts? Is he not aware of the reality? Did he not pick up the phone and inquire? If he had done so, he would have discovered that 50 per cent. of the people going to Oxford university are women. That is pretty well a reflection of the composition of our population. However, the Minister said nothing in defence of the magnificent efforts of Oxford and Cambridge or to admit that the Chancellor's remarks were a disgrace.
I had hoped that the Minister would say more about those institutions' efforts in their summer schools to encourage more children from state schools to go into higher education, and specifically to go to Oxford. He certainly did not say anything about the target schools and Oxford access scheme. It is a worthwhile scheme that is being pursued with great vigour and commitment by
professionals dedicated to the enhancement of opportunity for children from all types of background and from the length and breath of the United Kingdom. He did not say anything about the teachers in service scheme, which has been operating since 1998 in respect of Oxford university, or about the university's new website on chemistry. What a dismal performance.The Minister seemed reluctant--just as the Prime Minister was--to endorse the inflammatory terminology deployed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He lacked the guts and forthrightness simply to say in unmistakable terms and on the record that the Chancellor had got it wrong and that he should have the decency to apologise. I am happy to admit that I have made mistakes from time to time. I have even admitted to them occasionally in the privacy of this Chamber on the basis that it would probably be a state secret if I did so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |