14 Sept 2004 : Column 141WS
Written Ministerial Statements
Tuesday 14 September 2004
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
Higher Education (Admissions)
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am delighted today to commend to the House the report from Professor Steven Schwartz, vice-chancellor of Brunei University, on fair admissions to higher education.
Professor Schwartz and his group have over the last 15 months carried out an extensive and thorough examination of the processes for admission to higher education and have consulted widely on two occasions before presenting their conclusions. I am indebted to Professor Schwartz and all who have worked so diligently with him on this important task.
Responsibility for admissions to higher education rests firmly with the institutions themselves. They have to be satisfied that the students they admit have the ability and potential to complete their studies successfully. That is right and proper and this report unreservedly maintains that position. It also confirms, on the basis of the evidence, that admissions processes in our universities and colleges of higher education are generally fair. Nevertheless, Government has an interest in ensuring that admissions processes also command the confidence of prospective students, their parents, advisers and teachers. That is why I invited Professor Schwartz to identify options for institutions to adopt when assessing the merit, achievement and potential of applicants for their courses.
The report "Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice" will stand as a practical guide for institutions as they review and develop their admissions policies, practices and systems. Everyone involved with admissions to higher education has a deep concern to ensure that they are fair and that they are seen to be fair. In pursuit of that end, Professor Schwartz has identified five underlying principles that I wholeheartedly endorse as the basis for fair admissions.
These principles will support:
transparency in admissions processes;
selection for merit, potential and diversity:
reliability, validity and relevance of assessment methods;
minimising barriers for applicants: and
professionalism in all aspects of admissions services.
Taken together, the five principles provide the bedrock for building fair admissions systems that provide equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of background, to gain admission to a course suited to their ability and aspirations. The implementation guidelines also offered by Professor Schwartz will help institutions in mainstreaming the principles within their
14 Sept 2004 : Column 142WS
own admissions systems. I hope that all universities and colleges will take immediate steps to introduce the principles and guidelines within their own arrangements.
The report is more than just a guide however. It is also a call for action by higher education institutions and across the wider education establishment including some matters for Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
setting up a new Centre of Expertise on Admissions. I can confirm that the Higher Education Funding Council for England will work with Universities UK, the Standing Conference of Principals and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to see how this Centre can be established, perhaps under the umbrella of the HE Academy where it would dovetail well with the role for staff development.
research to assess the feasibility and reliability of a single, national test for potential that is not fully demonstrated by exam results. I support this as an early task for the new Centre of Expertise on Admissions and will look carefully at the outcomes of the study alongside the final report from Mike Tomlinson on 14–19 qualifications reform that is due in the autumn, before deciding on the way forward. What we must not have is tests for tests sake, but if there is a genuine need, it would be right to explore the opportunity.
ensuring that consistent levels of advice and guidance are available to all applicants. Similar messages are emerging from Mike Tomlinson's working group as well as from the End to End Review of Careers Education and Guidance that my Department has undertaken. As part of its work on the Youth Green Paper—to be published in the autumn—the Department is considering how it can best ensure that all young people are able to access and interpret the information and advice they need to make well-informed decisions.
the introduction of a radically different system for applications to higher education whereby students will not apply for higher education courses until they know their exam results. I am concerned that over very many years such a system has acquired the reputation of a holy grail for the HE admissions world—desirable but not achievable. I am aware of the complexity of the practical difficulties that would need to be overcome before a post-qualification application (PQA) system could be introduced, but I remain persuaded by the arguments for PQA which have been endorsed by Professor Schwartz and his group. It must be fairer and more transparent for students to know their final results before making important choices about where and what to study, and this must also aid decision-making by universities. PQA could also help many students, including those from families without a tradition of HE, to feel more confident in applying to our leading universities. I have therefore asked Sir Alan Wilson, the Director General for Higher Education and the former Vice Chancellor of Eeeds University, to lead the work on implementation for PQA. He will be assisted by an implementation group which he will establish. Sir Alan will consult with all interested parties. engaging fully the devolved administrations, and advise me on the arrangements and an appropriate timescale for the introduction of PQA.
Finally, Professor Schwartz has asked that I initiate a further review of admissions after three years as a means to assess progress in implementing his group's recommendations. I accept that it would be sensible to follow up this initial review and that three years will allow time for some of the more immediate benefits to have been realised and for appropriate action to be underway to secure the longer term ones. I shall commission the further review in due course.
14 Sept 2004 : Column 143WS
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Housing and Planning in the Regions
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I am pleased to announce the publication of a consultation paper concerning the merger of the regional housing boards and the regional planning bodies.
The paper responds to one of the recommendations in Kate Barker's review of housing supply (ISBN 1–84532–010–7) published in March. We have already accepted her recommendation that responsibility for housing and planning regional strategies should be merged. The paper proposes that responsibility should rest with regional assemblies. This is in line with our general policy on devolving decision-making and the broadening of the role of assemblies on integrating regional strategies.
The paper also covers proposals for taking forward Kate Barker's recommendation for the provision of independent advice to the regions to strengthen the evidence base that supports regional housing and planning strategies and increase the transparency of the processes for producing these strategies.
Consultation will run until 30 November 2004. Copies of the consultation paper have been made available in the Libraries of the House and it is available on the ODPM website.
Poor Planning Authorities
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill):
In my statement of 17 July 2003, Official Report, column
14 Sept 2004 : Column 144WS
57WS, I explained our approach to achieving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's public service agreement six (PSA6) target. This requires all local planning authorities to complete local development frameworks by 2006 and to perform at or above best value targets for development control (BV109) by 2006 with interim milestones to be agreed in the service delivery agreement. The revised PSA6 target, announced in July as part of the outcome of the spending review, will require all local planning authorities to sustain this level of performance to 2008.
We are now one year nearer to the 2006–07 target date and, whilst local authorities' performance overall has shown encouraging progress, there is still much to be done. I am therefore setting out today ways in which we are working with local planning authorities and strengthening our strategy of engagement with those that are performing poorly in their handling of planning applications.
We will continue to designate poorly performing authorities as planning standards authorities on an annual basis, as described in my statement of last year. Where their performance falls below specified thresholds, in terms of the percentage of applications determined within the target time frame, then they are asked to achieve specific performance standards in the following year. In 2004–05 both the thresholds and the standards were raised by 2–5 percentage points. This was a relatively modest increase to give local authorities further time to make use of the additional resources available though planning delivery grant. We envisage a more significant ratcheting up of both the thresholds and standards for 2005–06 (by up to 10 percentage points) as a necessary step towards meeting the targets in 2006–07, as follows:
| 2003–04 | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | 2006–07 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major | Threshold | 28 | 30 | 40 | 50 |
| Standard to be met | 50 | 52 | 57 | 60 | |
| Minor | Threshold | 37 | 40 | 50 | 55 |
| Standard to be met | 55 | 58 | 63 | 65 | |
| Other | Threshold | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
| Standard to be met | 70 | 73 | 75 | 80 |
Threshold = performance below this level at previous year ending June would qualify authority for standard.
Standard = percentage achievement required within 13 weeks for major and eight weeks for minor and other applications.
We will encourage authorities to draw up trajectories and improvement plans as soon as they are identified as potential standards authorities, and will review their progress against trajectories shortly after they are designated. Help in this process will be made available, including support from the new planning advisory service that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has invited the Improvement and Development Agency to host. Further support comes in the form of continued funding through the planning delivery grant after 2005–06, as announced in July following the spending review.
In the course of the year for which an authority has been designated as a standards authority, my officials will contact the authority's planning service to collect information on what steps have been taken or will be taken to improve its planning performance. This will be assessed to determine if further action will be needed to support performance improvements. Regard will be given to authorities' progress towards the specific performance standards they were set and, in the longer term, authorities' ability to reach the targets set out in ODPM's public service agreement six (PSA6).
Engagement with an authority will be reviewed at the end of the year for which it has been designated as a standards authority in light of whether it has achieved the standards specified in the best value order and any demonstrable sustained improvement in performance over the period. We will remain engaged with authorities until we are confident that a sustainable level of improvement has been achieved, with the level of engagement proportionate to the risk of failure.
Authorities causing serious concern will be asked to self-assess their performance against trajectories and draw up improvement plans to share with the relevant Government office for the regions, who in turn will report on progress to ODPM on a quarterly basis. If performance continues to deteriorate then we will
14 Sept 2004 : Column 145WS
consider the case for further more direct intervention. In doing so we would adopt the proportionate approach outlined in my earlier statement and would have regard to the authorities' CPA status.
Authorities causing a lesser degree of concern will be asked to self-assess performance against trajectories and share their conclusions with the relevant Government office for the regions on a quarterly basis. Government Offices will report to ODPM by exception, where performance shows significant deterioration.
I will consider the case for relaxing the intensity of engagement or for disengagement with other authorities where the annualised performance in all three categories of application is on or above the relevant planning standard and the authority's own trajectory for two consecutive quarters.
Over the last year 39 planning standards authorities were found to have made significant improvements in performance, and outstanding improvements in a number of cases. I congratulate them all on their success in improving their performance and I expect to see them making further rapid progress towards meeting and exceeding the national targets. The 39 authorities were:
Bedford District Council
London Borough of Brent
Brighton & Hove Unitary Authority
Bristol City Council
Calderdale Met. Borough Council
Canterbury City Council
Chichester District Council
Durham City Council
London Borough of Ealing
East Cambridgeshire District Council
East Hampshire District Council
Epsom and Ewell District Council
Fareham District Council
Forest Heath District Council
Gloucester District Council
Havant District Council
Isle of Wight Unitary Authority
Kerrier District Council
London Borough of Lambeth
Leeds City Council
Mansfield District Council
Medway Unitary Authority
Milton Keynes Unitary Authority
North Devon District Council
Oldham Met. Borough Council
Reading Borough Council
Reigate and Banstead District Council
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
Rossendale District Council
Sheffield City Council
Spelthorne District Council
Taunton Deane District Council
Three Rivers District Council
Vale of White Horse District Council
Wansbeck District Council
Wear Valley District Council
West Lindsey District Council
Weymouth and Portland District Council
Worcester District Council
The new planning advisory service (PAS) will play an important role in supporting local planning authorities. This includes through a newly developed improvement planning programme. Already the PAS has held an introductory event on improvement planning which will be followed up with a series of regional workshops and other ongoing support. Also as part of the PAS a new advisory panel on large applications is now gearing up to assist a number of local planning authorities in the high demand regions of London and the wider south east.
The PSA6 targets are challenging but we believe achievable. We will continue to monitor progress and to keep our strategy for engagement under review as we approach the target year of 2006–07.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |