Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab): We welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said about Oxford university. What we are saying is that if universities are to impose higher fees on students, they are obliged to do exactly what he says Oxford will do. We want all universities to do it. If they do not reach out and encourage groups of people from working-class backgrounds to seek admission, they should not be allowed to charge higher fees. That is perfectly reasonable.
Mr. Collins: Let me ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question. Will he name a university that does not do that?
Jonathan Shaw: I am not going to name a university[Interruption.] I am not going to name a university, but that is precisely the role of OFFA. That is why we are creating the post: so that we can draw comparisons between those that are engaged in good practice, working hard to reach out, and those that are not. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he ought to read the briefs with which Labour Members have been provided.
Mr. Collins: I think the hon. Gentleman's problem is that he has been reading those briefs rather too assiduously. He has no answer to the question "Which universities do not already do that?", because they all do. His justification for OFFA's creation seems to be that it will force universities to do what they are already doing, universally and fully. That is not compatible with the assurance given by the Secretary of State to the House and the country that OFFA would be non-bureaucratic and powerful, that it would make a difference, and that it would empower those who have previously been unable to go to university.
The fact is that, when pressed, Labour Members cannot come up with any example of a university that is not already doing its level best. It is clear that the creation of this institution is at best bureaucratic nonsense and a waste of time, and at worst an act of political spite and vindictiveness.
Helen Jones (Warrington, North) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman accepted earlier that ability was distributed to all ranks of society. In his report, Professor Schwartz clearly states that
"only 26 per cent. of young entrants to full-time degree courses came from skilled manual, partly skilled or unskilled family backgrounds."
Does it not follow that if universities are trying to reach out to people from such backgrounds they are not doing very well so far, and ought to attempt to do better? That is what we are trying to encourage them to do.
Mr. Collins:
What the hon. Lady seems not to recognise is that most of the groups she has identified do not take five GCSEs, and do not take A-levels. They are let down by the school system. It is not for the universities to be punished and penalised for the product of decadesfor this has not been happening only since 1997of problems with the state secondary school system. No one can be expected to put everything right
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1149
among 18-year-olds when it should have been sorted out when they were between 11 and 18, or indeed probably much youngerat the primary or pre-primary stage.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon) (Lab) rose
Mr. Collins: I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
We have talked a little about what Oxford already does. It is a great pleasure to be ableas I have not been for quite some timeto cite with unqualified approbation and endorsement words uttered by my old friend and colleague, Mr. Chris Patten. He was a very distinguished chairman of the Conservative party some years ago. It must be said that since then he has not always been in line with every aspect of Conservative policy. I am delighted to note, however, that on this issue he and we are once again of one mind. In his capacity as chancellor of Oxford universityhe is also chancellor of Newcastle universityhe said:
"What the government is trying to do is to press universities to make up for the inadequacies in parts of our secondary education system and what that means is they are pressing for a lowering of standards. It is as brutally simple as that."
He is absolutely right in that characterisation, and that view is widely shared by many people in the worlds of academe.
Alan Howarth (Newport, East) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman set up an Aunt Sally in what he had to say about academic freedom: we all believe in academic freedom. However, I wish to press him on what he means by academic merit. In the words of the motion, his party
"affirms that access to higher education should be determined on the basis of academic merit, not social, economic or geographical background".
Does he mean by "academic merit" simply exams passed, or does he mean academic potential? If he accepts that admissions policies should take account of academic potential, how can they then not take some account of social, economic and geographical background?
Mr. Collins: I have much sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman on these issues, because he thinks creatively and independently. If that is the reason why he will not vote for our motion, he cannot therefore vote for the amendment, which says that the Government
"agrees that admissions to higher education should always be based on merit".
We are all agreed that admissions should be based on merit: I hope that we could all agree that it is for universities to define what "merit" means, not for politicians or politically imposed regulators.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab):
On that basis and to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's thinking, does he welcome the practice undertaken by some universities of admitting pupils with lower A-level standards than others, because of their academic potential?
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1150
Mr. Collins: I welcome universities doing whatever they believe to be appropriate in order to recruit the best possible students for their courses. The hon. Gentleman once again makes the case that we strongly adhere to: universities are experimenting, reaching out and doing their level best already to try to obtain as wide a spectrum of talent as they possibly can. They do not need a bureaucratic and party-politically imposed regulator to force them to do so.
The gentleman who has been appointed as the Government's director for fair access is Professor Sir Martin Harris. He is a man of enormous reputation and esteem, and greatly respected throughout the higher education sector. I entirely understand why the Government chose him to take up that remit. However, it was widely felt, not only on these Benches, but through the education world and among the wider public, that it was extremely unfortunate that he made it clear in an interview in The Times on his appointment that, first, he was happy to be described as
"resolutely old Labour",
and secondlyand much more seriouslythat the fundamental issue facing higher education was class. He said that
"class underlies almost all the inequalities and unfairnesses in our system, and that to focus unduly on any other variable . . . is to lose sight of what actually makes a meritocracy difficult to attain in practice. Until we tackle this issue at its roots, everything else is a distraction."
I very much regret that he said that and so do many people in higher education. There is no systematic, conscious, deliberate class differentiation in universities and it is a throwback to a different decade to believe that there is. It is very worrying that a person who will wield considerable power over our universitiesto put in terms what the Secretary of State believesshould think that this country needs an old-fashioned class war. That is the last thing this nation needs as it goes into the 21st century.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): My hon. Friend is right. It says in the Schwartz report in section B.5 that
"DfES analysis shows that pupils from low-income households are over-represented in schools that add the least value to pupils' performance."
That shows that it is the schools that are letting down children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, not the admissions process.
Mr. Collins:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for putting his finger, in a very systematic way, on one of the most profound reasons why many of our young people are being let down at a very early age indeed, well before the age of 18: the absence of the proper introduction of synthetic phonics teaching, which has such a huge beneficial effect on literacy and numeracy, especially for those who come from backgrounds where they are not familiar with books and whose parents may not be likely to take a primary role in educating them in literacy and numeracy. My hon. Friend is right: that is where we need to tackle the problems, rather than penalising universities for not taking someone at the age of 18 and adjusting for what may well have been more than a decade of being let down by the school system.
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1151
Next Section | Index | Home Page |