Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Higher Education Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

General Duties of the Director


(1) The Director must perform his functions under this Part in such a way as to ensure full access to higher education based upon academic ability and potential.
(2) In performing his functions under this Part the Director shall also have regard to—
(a) the desirability of promoting equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education,
(b) the requirement to maintain the independence of the procedures for the admission of students of individual institutions, and
(c) the desirability of securing that his powers are exercised in such a way as to impose the minimum necessary burdens of cost and compliance with regulation on institutions.'.—[Chris Grayling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

1.21 pm

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2 General duties of the relevant authority in relation to Wales


(1) The relevant authority in relation to Wales must perform his functions under this Part in such a way as to ensure full access to higher education based upon academic ability and potential.
(2) In performing his functions under this Part the relevant authority in relation to Wales shall also have regard to—
(a) the desirability of promoting equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education,
(b) the requirement to maintain the independence of the procedures for the admission of students of individual institutions,
(c) any guidance given to it by the Assembly, and
(d) the desirability of securing that his powers are exercised in such a way as to impose the minimum necessary burdens of cost and compliance with regulation on institutions.'.

Amendment No. 1, in page 14, line 6, leave out Clause 30.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 48, page 22, line 13, leave out 30(1)' and insert


[general duties of the Director]'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 22, line 44, leave out 30(2)' and insert


[general duties of the relevant authority in relation to Wales]'.

Amendment No. 99, in schedule 5, page 31, line 33, at end insert—


'(2A) In any report under sub-paragraph (1) the Director shall include an assessment of the factors which most discourage any particular class of person from seeking access to higher education, in particular factors related to income.'.

31 Mar 2004 : Column 1611

Amendment No. 100, in page 31, line 33, at end insert—


'(2A) Any report by the Director may include recommendations for public policy.'.

I rise to speak to new clause 1 and the other consequential new clause and amendments, tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. Four years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer began a process of Government interference in our universities that will, if the Bill goes through, establish the mechanism for the Government to dictate to them how they should select students. We all remember the case of Laura Spence, the applicant from the north-east who was turned down by Oxford university and subsequently admitted to Harvard. For some reason—and with what seemed like precious little knowledge of the detail of the case—the Chancellor thought that it was his job to come to Laura Spence's defence.

I have been looking back at the coverage of the case, and the events, and their consequences for our debate are clear. A report in The Times of 26 May 2000 stated:


That is not entirely a surprise. The real message in that story was in the last paragraph, which stated:


Further funding conditions are precisely what are on the table today. They are forcing those people, in the eyes of the Government, to put their house in order. Our new clause and the related amendments seek to challenge that intervention, and to ensure that unwarranted political interference by the Government cannot happen.

James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab): In answer to a question that I asked in the debate on the programme motion, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that there were hordes of Conservatives waiting for the end of that debate so that they could speak in this one. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there are only three Conservative Back Benchers supporting him now, given the earlier claim that there was massive interest on the Conservative Benches in this important Bill?

Chris Grayling: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he will find that much of the interest in speaking today is on his own Benches, where

31 Mar 2004 : Column 1612

large numbers of people are only too keen to speak against the Government's ill-thought-out approach to higher education. The sad thing is that all too few of them will have the opportunity to do so—if, indeed, they have not already been cowed into submission by the intense efforts of the Government Whips Office.

It has been noticeable in recent weeks that some supporters of the Prime Minister have, perhaps with his retirement in mind, started to talk about "Blairism" as a political philosophy, although I am not sure whether that is a contradiction in terms. This measure is not about Blairism; it is about Brownism, and it is a sign of things to come if the country should ever be unfortunate enough to see the Chancellor move house from No. 11 to No. 10. The fact that the measure is before the House today is also a sign of just how weak the Prime Minister has become within his own party, and just how strong the Chancellor has become.

When I challenged the Prime Minister on this issue a year ago, he disowned his Government's own policy. I said to him:


The Prime Minister's response was:


The purpose of new clause 1 is to ensure that it does happen, and if the Government are so enthusiastic for it to happen and if Ministers are so keen on it happening, I suggest that we stop the debate now so that they can accept new clause 1 and we can move on. Would they like to do that? [Laughter.] No, I thought not.

New clause 1 would write into the Bill the simple principle that the access regulator should be mindful of academic achievement and potential, and of that alone. That is where the Conservatives stand on this issue. Only those two factors should be taken into account when deciding who should go to university. The admissions system should not become a system for social engineering.

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): Has the hon. Gentleman had time, since the Bill was in Committee, to consider what he means by "potential"? Can he now give the House a better explanation of what he means by that term, and of what his objection is to fair access, which is something else that he could not get to grips with in Committee?

Chris Grayling: I suspect that the difference between the hon. Lady and me is that, as a politician, I do not think that it is my job to define "potential". I would rather leave it to the professionals in the universities to decide which young people have the potential to succeed. They do not need politicians to step in and do their job for them.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something wrong with a system in which, over the last 50 years, no more than 15 per cent. of people from C5 backgrounds have

31 Mar 2004 : Column 1613

gone into higher education? Is he saying that the vast majority of such people—of whom I represent many—do not have potential?


Next Section

IndexHome Page