---

University Admissions Policy

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.31 pm

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): I beg to move,

That this House believes that universities should be solely and wholly in charge of their own admissions policies, without regard to any externally imposed quotas, targets or benchmarks; affirms that access to higher education should be determined on the basis of academic merit, not social, economic or geographical background; welcomes and supports the efforts of universities to seek out, find and encourage talent in all parts of society, endeavours which long pre-date Government intervention and which are threatened, not encouraged, by it; recognises that attempts to force universities to use politically-determined criteria threaten academic excellence and independence alike; notes that the Government's policies on these issues have sparked deep-seated anger and resentment among universities, whose leaders have in consequence warned Ministers not to interfere with university admissions policy and even openly contemplated self-privatisation as a means of escape; regrets the appointment of a University Access Regulator who has declared himself to be of the view that the principal issue facing higher education is class; and urges the immediate abolition of the Office for Fair Access and the removal of state interference from issues which lie at the heart of university independence, freedom and standards.

The debate is about excellence, independence and freedom. All are essential prerequisites for the standing of the UK's world-class universities, all are the fundamental bulwarks of achievement in both research and teaching, and all are profoundly under threat from the Government's misguided policies. As ever, the Government try to have it both ways. They try to send different messages to different audiences. The Minister is all reassurance, all charm, as he naturally would be inclined to be, when he is speaking to an audience of academics. When he is speaking to an audience of his Back Benchers, he is breathing fire, he is determined to change things, and he will not put up with what universities are doing.

A classic symbol of the confusion, whether deliberate or unintended, at the heart of the Government's policies appears on the Order Paper, in the amendment to which the Minister will speak. The Government accept the first few words of the Opposition motion. In particular they accept

"that universities should be solely and wholly in charge of their own admissions policies".

Excellent. Admirable. What could be better than that? But unfortunately they delete the next words, which read

"without regard to any externally imposed quotas, targets or benchmarks".

It is difficult to see how universities could be in charge of their admissions policies if they were to have regard to

"externally imposed quotas, targets or benchmarks".

Perhaps it is the words "quotas, targets or benchmarks" to which the Government object, but later in their
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1146
 
amendment, referring to statistics that have recently been published, they say they abhor

"the recent misinterpretation of those indicators as targets or quotas".

So it is not the word "target" that they object to, or the word "quota". Perhaps it is the word "benchmark" that they object to, except that the Minister is on record as saying:

"Universities will not be penalised for failing to meet their benchmarks",

so it is difficult to see why those words are deleted from the Opposition motion unless, as we all suspect, the Government want universities to be obliged to have regard to externally imposed targets, quotas and benchmarks.

That is at the heart of the debate today—whether our universities will improve their quality, their international reputation, their ability to research and their ability to attract the best minds not only nationally but internationally, if they are subject to external interference on a wholly unprecedented scale. Let us remember where all this began: in a very unfortunate speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of a student named Laura Spence. The Chancellor chose to take the view that he, as someone who had no experience of Oxford's admissions policies, was in a better position than experienced Oxford admissions tutors to judge who should and should not be admitted to a course which was heavily oversubscribed. After announcing that he, as the person in charge of the nation's purse strings, concluded that Laura Spence should have been admitted, he failed to tell Oxford which of the exceptionally well qualified alternative candidates would have had to be ejected to make way for Miss Laura Spence.

Throughout the process, the Labour party in government has attempted to use university admissions policies as a party political football, a means of scoring with Back-Bench Members and reassuring core activists that it remains a socialist party at heart and retains the old class war instincts.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend make it clear that he supports the principle of equal opportunities for all, and that, when people are qualified to go to university, from whatever school but especially from state schools, they should have the opportunity to do that?

Mr. Collins: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party has always believed in equality of opportunity, whereas the Labour party believes in equality of outcome, which is fundamentally different and bears no relationship to merit.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): It is extremely generous of the Opposition to allow children from state schools to go to university. Does the hon. Gentleman admit that questions about admissions to our leading research universities need further examination to guarantee the equality of opportunity that he endorsed? Does he genuinely believe that there is there no problem in the admissions policies of our leading research universities?
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1147
 

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman puts the case in a characteristically light, welcome and subtle way. Nevertheless, his comments go to the heart of the debate. I am sure that he knows that admission to our leading universities from state schools is lower now than 30 years ago. Academic selection in higher education is the unsurprising result of doing away with academic selection in secondary education.

To the charge that a problem exists, we contend that universities do their level best to get people of all social backgrounds through their doors. I have never met a university vice-chancellor, teacher or don who wants to teach those who are more stupid than they should be. They want to teach the most able and most academically talented. They are determined to do that. However, Conservative Members believe that the state has no role in telling universities whom they should admit and whom they should not. If we followed the route of the state's dictating admission, it would lead to a profoundly unequal position whereby the least articulate, the least able to lobby their Members of Parliament and the least able to get the state to intervene on their behalf lost out the most.

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): The hon. Gentleman is right about the Laura Spence case. He showed how foolish it was of the Chancellor to cite an individual case, especially that case, because it was unfair on the admissions staff at Oxford. I hope that he agrees that Oxford faces the problem of getting enough state students to apply in the first place. That problem is not solved by stereotypes and caricatures such as the one the Chancellor used. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that judging on A-levels alone may discriminate against students from less good educational backgrounds, and that that is why the interview process is so important at some universities?

Mr. Collins: I agree almost entirely with the hon. Gentleman. As he would expect, I naturally endorse his comments on Oxford and citing a specific case. I also agree that, if universities are allowed to proceed in some freedom, they will increasingly move towards the form of selection that he suggests. He knows from his constituency experience that Oxford has invested a huge amount of effort, time and commitment in outreach programmes. Indeed, a note from Oxford that was widely circulated before the debate states that, on almost every day of the working week, some outreach activity occurs.

The university is determined to expand bursaries, and to penetrate some of the most difficult and deprived local education authority areas to encourage students with aptitude and ability—they are certainly to be found in every part of our country, from every social and economic background—to apply. It goes out of its way to do that.

Oxford is equally adamant, however, that it is for it to determine who goes there; it is not for Government, or for any Government appointee, to do so. The phrase "Get your tanks off our lawn" is being used. This is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House: we believe in academic freedom, and we take it seriously.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1148
 

---