---

Mr. Sheerman: It is the Bury mafia.

Alistair Burt: Indeed. The Bury mafia is at work.

My question to the Minister is: if, in five years, the proportions of those from independent schools going to Oxford, Cambridge, University college London, St. Andrews, Imperial and Bristol are about 44 per cent., 42 per cent., 38 per cent., 37 per cent. and 36 per cent. respectively, what will that say about the work of OFFA? If those figures remain the same, will the Minister intervene at that stage and say that there must be some change, or will he be content to leave universities be, because they will be seen to have been doing all they can? Much hangs on his answer to that question.

If there had been enough time in what has been an interesting debate, I would have developed this point: I am not convinced that Martin Harris's remark about class being the root of all the problems in our universities is correct. If we asked universities what is most on their mind at present, they would tell us that it was, first, competition. We sometimes forget that universities are in competition for students, as well as in competition with universities all over the world. They want the best students and are working actively to ensure that they get them. If they do not obtain the best students, they will suffer.

Universities also want the best teachers. I was intrigued to read that Martin Harris's former university, Manchester, in its strategic view foreword, states that by 2015 it must be attracting

"at least five Nobel laureates . . . with three appointments secured by 2007"

and that it must treble

"the number of staff who are fellows of the Royal Society".

I wonder whether the university will worry about their socio-economic backgrounds, or whether it will simply recruit the very best.

If universities cannot compete on a worldwide basis, they will suffer. The university of Shanghai now produces tables showing the world standing of universities. Universities will look increasingly to such tables; that is what will motivate them, rather than necessarily ensuring that their intake has a particular quota and follows a particular pattern.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1195
 

At present, Britain's universities do well in international comparisons. Two are in the top 10 and four are in the top 25; only one other European university is in the top 25. Our universities know what they are doing. Are OFFA's aims truly compatible with universities maintaining their current competitive position?

Of course, universities are worried about China; they are worried about losing out to competition world wide, and increasingly worried about the baseline for their raw material. What has been said on that point is true. During the past couple of years, I have spent some time at four universities: Kingston, Royal Holloway, Bristol and Imperial. Without exception, they report, first, that they have to do remedial work in science when students enter university and, secondly, that they are working exceptionally hard to bring people in. They are building relationships with neighbouring schools and going out around the country. They are especially concerned that the science base is not strong enough and worried about the type of teaching that is taking place. They also all say, without exception, that they do not believe their students are any less bright than previously. They believe their students are as bright, but there is a problem in the teaching and in bringing them up to university level that used not to exist and exists now. That concerns them.

Class is not the major issue facing our universities. If one of the major issues is ensuring the widest possible participation, class is not the problem. As colleagues in the House have said, this is an old debate. Trying to reopen it will get us nowhere. It raises all the old suspicions in this place. We want to improve participation but we must ask the right questions, and asking about class is not one of them.

I was not the first person in my family to go to university. I was, however, the last generation to go to a direct grant grammar school and I regret that. Severe damage has been done to that ladder of opportunity for youngsters from a poorer background, the very people about whom we are concerned now. Whatever we do, we will not improve their position, we will not improve the raw material of university entrants, and we will not ensure that our universities are among the best unless we ask the right questions. I am not convinced that OFFA answers the right question or is in the right context for the question in the first place.

6.31 pm

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): We have had an interesting and important debate. We have discussed the matter extensively this year, so what is new? Why the debate today? Two things have happened very publicly in the past few weeks that have given us in the Opposition and many people in the higher education sector real cause for concern. The first was the appointment of the new director of OFFA, a man who describes himself as an unreconstructed old Labour class warrior. Is that the right approach for someone who holds such an important position? Secondly, there has been the publication of the HESA benchmarks, sending a ripple of concern throughout the higher education sector.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1196
 

As the Minister knows, there are also details behind the scenes—the minutiae now coming out from the Government on the level of fines that can be levied on universities that do not do as they are told, on the detail of the guidance to OFFA and so on. We heard fine-sounding words from him today, as we have before. He may remember that mythical children's book creature, the pushmi-pullyu—the gazelle that has a head at either end of its body, pointing in different directions. As I heard him speak to the Opposition and to his own Back Benchers, he reminded me of someone trying to look in two directions at once. The problem is that one cannot do that.

The evidence makes clear what the Government are trying to do. The previous Secretary of State, now Minister for the Arts, admitted as much in 2001 when she said that widening access

"is not a sideshow that can be confined to the admissions or careers office".

Martin Harris said about class that

"everything else is a distraction."

What about the international competitive threat from US universities? What about the challenges to our science base in key subjects such as chemistry and physics? What about funding, which we have debated so much in recent months? It is an extraordinary statement from the outgoing vice-chancellor of one of Britain's leading universities, and it raises a key question. If it is the Government's intention not to interfere in university admissions, why would they appoint as access regulator someone who clearly has a mission to do just that?

In his opening remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) set out concerns that are shared across the Opposition and the higher education sector—concerns that the Government, for all their fine-sounding words, are set on a course that will eventually damage our higher education system. Our position is straightforward: it will never be the job of politicians to tell our universities whom they can and cannot admit. For all the Minister's comments, it is clear that that is what the Government are trying to do.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): My hon. Friend made an important point about the detailed guidance from OFFA, from which the Minister demurred. The Minister tried to give reassurance about that. Is my hon. Friend aware of the milestones that are set for universities and vetted by OFFA, and on which the universities will be judged, to assess whether they are doing enough to meet OFFA's terms? Does he share my interest in knowing whether those milestones will include—[Interruption.] I am referring to the detailed guidance given by OFFA in paragraph 9.5. The Minister should read it. Is my hon. Friend interested in knowing whether those milestones will include details of school type, socio-economic background, parental background and so on?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have slightly changed their original guidance, rather conveniently. As I said to the Minister in an intervention, they have specifically linked the HESA benchmarks to the milestones that they expect universities to pursue. Although the Government
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1197
 
have been careful to say that they will not penalise universities for not meeting those milestones, in the paragraph to which my hon. Friend refers, when it comes to renewing an agreement, which is a different issue entirely, the Government say, "You will want to take this into account when considering renewal, so if you don't do as you're told, you may not get your access agreement renewed."

That is what we are dealing with, and it is only part of the truth. Last month we debated the new regulations that will allow financial penalties to be levied on universities. As the Minister mentioned, it was his first debate in his current role. After some pushing, he was quite frank—more so than the Government have been up to now—about the implications of his plans. The new regulations go much further than we were told in Committee. Yes, universities will get fines of up to £500,000 if they do not do as they are told. There is more: they face a surcharge of 10 per cent. of their fee income if they fall out with the regulator.

---