| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
University Access
9. Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): What steps he plans to take to increase the number of people from poorer backgrounds attending university. [262858]
The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Mr. John Denham): This Government are committed to ensuring that every young person has a fair chance to attend a university. The proportion of young entrants from lower socio-economic groups going to university has increased steadily, reaching almost 30 per cent. in 2007. The National Council for Educational Excellence set out a series of further measures to widen participation and promote fair access, and we are working with a group of 11 selected research-intensive universities that are committed to reaching out to talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds to ensure that they have a chance to demonstrate what they can achieve.
Mr. Grogan:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the university of York’s bursary scheme, which is based on household income, is more likely to encourage more
students from lower-income backgrounds to apply than, say, the university of Sheffield’s bursary scheme, which is heavily weighted towards A-level results? Does that not reinforce the case for a national minimum bursary scheme, so that all students, wherever they applied, would know what support to expect?
Mr. Denham: So far the Government have not been convinced that we would be better off with a national bursary scheme, because it would be hard to determine how it differed from the national system of student financial support. Universities enjoy freedom and flexibility in determining their bursary schemes, although the schemes must be agreed with the Office of Fair Access. I have no doubt, however, that the operation of such schemes is one of the issues that will examined when the review of fees and financing is launched later in the year.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD): Although there is good practice and much is being learned at universities throughout Britain, the Department may be interested in a specific example arising from my involvement with the university of Glasgow. When people were encouraged to provide more scholarships, especially for disadvantaged students, it became clear that many of those who might be considered eligible to donate were put off by the very word “scholarship”, assuming that it was necessary to be extremely rich to provide a scholarship or endowment. In fact the donations can be quite small, but they can make all the difference—particularly to a potential student from a disadvantaged background in, say, the city of Glasgow who might otherwise not go to university.
Mr. Denham: That is an interesting point. We are always willing to learn from good practice wherever we can find it. We have encouraged further donations to support such activity with a match funding scheme launched last summer, which provides additional funds from the taxpayer if universities can also raise money from endowments.
A key issue is that we are currently losing a set of students who do not get near to applying for what they perceive as the most selective and competitive universities, generally the most research-intensive. That is why I am so encouraged by the work being done by the group of 11 universities with which we are working. They are examining ways they can proactively seek out such students—who may intend to go to university, but not to apply for places at the research-intensive universities—and encourage them, by means of summer schools or other such activities, to consider studying at such universities. I believe that breaking down the barriers to aspiration is as important as some of the financial inducements in the system.
Mr. Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that more than half of all young people from all social backgrounds aspire to embark on higher education, and that those who reject the target of allowing them to do so—including Opposition Members—merely demonstrate that they do not share the dreams of those young people?
Mr. Denham:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we have observed in the Chamber over many weeks and months, those who come up with arguments against the
50 per cent. target—arguments such as “We would not want to set a target because you cannot tell people to go to university”—are simply disguising the fact that they do not share the ambitions of young people across the country, and have no commitment to the policies that would make a difference. If they ever got their hands on the budget, they would do what the Conservative party has already promised to do and reduce the budget to make it impossible for progress to be made for those young people.
Topical Questions
T1. [262873] Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Mr. John Denham): This is national science and engineering week, featuring events involving around 1.5 million people. As I am sure the House will know, the website for the Save Our Bees campaign has been overwhelmed by public interest and support. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I believe that that demonstrates that science and public support for it are critical to tackling the great challenges of our time, including the environmental challenges.
In the past 10 years the Government have doubled science spending, which will rise to nearly £6 billion by 2010-11, creating an outstanding research base and a huge national asset. As the Prime Minister said recently,
“we will meet our ten-year commitment to maintain science spending... we will maintain the ringfence we have placed around science funding - protecting money for science from competing demands in the short-term”.
Mr. Drew: As one who has just written an article on “Save Our Bees”, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what we are doing for science; but let me turn to the issue of apprenticeships. I congratulate the Government on the scheme allowing those unlucky apprentices who have been unable to complete their apprenticeships because of the recession to be taken on by other companies, but will my right hon. Friend look into the funding of that scheme? It may be necessary to consider some form of wage compensation—particularly in the automotive industry—because it seems that at present people often undertake the training off their own bat without any direct reward. Surely it is only right and proper for them to receive such a reward to enable them to finish their courses properly.
Mr. Denham:
There are a number of important issues in my hon. Friend’s question. We have already taken steps to enable those apprentices who may lose their jobs to continue to the end of their technical training, and we are looking at further ways of offering support. We have committed up to £100 million to the skills council that covers the motoring industry for enhanced investment in training, and, as my the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), mentioned, we are working with group training associations, which are of particular relevance to engineering companies in the supply chain, to ensure that they are able to sustain apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary met with the motor
industry yesterday to discuss the wider package of measures, such as the potential of £2 billion of support for the industry, including investment from the European Investment Bank. That is obviously also important in maintaining investment in skills and training.
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Has the Secretary of State had a chance to study early-day motion 1013, which deplores the university of Liverpool’s intention to close down the three departments of philosophy, politics and statistics? A great city such as Liverpool needs philosophy and politics. What can the Minister do to discourage this appalling philistine act?
Mr. Denham: As we often celebrate in this House, we have a world-class higher education system in this country. One of the reasons for that is that I do not run the universities and I do not make such decisions about individual universities. I think that that is a shared view across the House. The truth is that these decisions—which often give rise to local, and sometimes even national, concerns—are decisions that must be taken by the universities themselves in developing their own priorities and sense of mission. I do not believe that our university system would be better off if central Government were to begin to dictate to universities which departments they should or should not close. Occasionally, the funding councils will rightly step in with strategic funding, as they have done in the past to sustain physics departments, but that is different from my stepping in on decisions made by Liverpool or any other university, which will inevitably make changes to their pattern of courses and investment over years to come.
T3. [262875] Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab): Next Tuesday, there will be the official opening of the Printable Electronics Technology Centre in Sedgefield, one of only four facilities of its kind in the world, and it has been forecast that by 2015 that will be an industry worth £16 billion. The centre’s innovation has already helped to save 600 jobs at Thorn Lighting in County Durham and is helping to prepare the north-east for the economic upturn. What else are the Government doing to promote science and innovation in our economy, and will my right hon. Friend welcome the opening of PTEC and meet representatives from it to discuss the importance of the technology?
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that these are topical questions, so I ask for quick, punchy questions and quick, punchy answers?
Mr. Denham: In addition to the science investment to which I have referred, the Government are investing in the Technology Strategy Board, one of the major investors in the centre in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is by maintaining investment in science and research that we can create the jobs of the future economy that will make us competitive and prosperous. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituency on what they are achieving.
T2. [262874] Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con):
What can we all do to help the Secretary of State extract further funding for further education in his discussions with the Chief Secretary? Earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made it clear to the House that he had found an extra £2.2 billion from the
Treasury, and I am sure that, if we all came together with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, we could, with a charm offensive, persuade the Chief Secretary that skills and training are a very good investment in a recession and that there are very good capital projects in that regard that will create much-needed employment in the construction industry. If so, projects such as those for Oxford and Cherwell Valley college could go ahead, all of which would be extremely good news. We want to help the Secretary of State.
Mr. Denham: All help gratefully received, but the truth is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already enabled me to bring well over £100 million of extra investment in FE colleges forward to this and the next financial year. We have also brought forward more than £100 million of investment in higher education for the coming years, and we have had new investment for apprenticeships and for training and skills for those who may lose their job. The Chief Secretary has been very good at recognising the case we have made for extra investment, but, as I have said, I will never turn down help from any quarter because we are always willing to invest more.
T4. [262876] Mr. Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 64 per cent. rise in the number of young people entering higher education from my constituency in the past 10 years—three times the national average? Will he continue to invest in higher education, and will he tell me what the effect on those figures would be if £600 million was cut from the universities and skills budget, as proposed by the Conservative party?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Just the one supplementary answer will suffice.
The Minister of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Mr. David Lammy): I can tell my hon. Friend that it would be disastrous. He will see that this week we published figures showing what has happened in every constituency across the country, and in the 88 most deprived constituencies, time and again numbers have doubled—they have gone up. That would all be gone if we saw the reduction proposed.
T5. [262877] Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Following up the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, when the world economic downturn comes to an end, the United Kingdom will face a real challenge to its competitiveness, particularly from the developing countries and the far east. Does he not agree, as my hon. Friend stressed, that colleges such as Macclesfield college in my constituency can play a major role in providing the skilled apprentices and work force that this country will need to survive. What new initiatives is the Secretary of State going to take?
Mr. Denham:
Of course colleges are going to be crucial, which is why the investment we have made in new colleges and in the expansion of the training budget will turn out to be one of the best investments this country could possibly have made in making sure that we raise skill levels and have the capacity to train more
people for the future. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the best way to support us is to persuade his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), to reject the cuts in the budget for my Department being proposed by his party.
T6. [262878] Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State agree with me that, especially in a time of economic downturn, investment in human resources in general and in apprenticeships in particular needs to be increased? Will he confirm that the investment in apprenticeships will continue to increase in small and large firms, public and private, and in the wider economy generally, and take account not just of constituency location but of travel-to-work areas? A number of my constituents have to travel outside the constituency to Deeside, Ellesmere Port, Liverpool, Chester and so on to find these most valued apprenticeships.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Mr. Siôn Simon): My hon. Friend has put the case perfectly himself, and I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made it repeatedly this morning. It is exactly as he says: we will continue to invest—investment will rise to £1 billion in the next two years—and the Conservative party are committed to cut.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Why is it, then, despite what we have heard, that Tresham institute in my constituency was promised expansion money in December but that was postponed, and was postponed again in March? This Government say that they are bringing forward capital spending; they are actually pushing it back.
Mr. Denham: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written ministerial statement last week that shows we are bringing capital expenditure forward? However, as I made clear in that statement and at this Dispatch Box, Tresham and a number of other colleges have been given approval or encouragement by the Learning and Skills Council way beyond the resources that it has to allocate in this spending review. That is precisely why I asked the LSC to appoint Sir Andrew Foster to provide a report for me, which will of course be published, on how this situation arose. I can understand the views of people involved in the hon. Gentleman’s college. The LSC has created this situation, and we will need to resolve it with it, and Sir Andrew will report to us on how the situation arose.
T7. [262879] Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): The benefits to small enterprises of an increasingly skilled work force are well known. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to raise employers’ awareness of the Skills for Life programmes, so that they can help to invest in training and increase the productivity of their business?
Mr. Simon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This week, we launched a refreshed Skills for Life strategy. Since we came to office, 2.8 million people have got basic skills under that strategy that they did not have before, and which they would not have had under the Opposition.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): Does the Minister share my concern at the performance of the Learning and Skills Council in cancelling the proposed redevelopment of Cheadle and Marple sixth-form college and, furthermore, in leaving 900 students without their education maintenance allowances in January of this year? Will he tackle the LSC on both of those topics?
Mr. Denham: They are both issues of legitimate concern. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill currently going through Parliament will abolish the Learning and Skills Council.
T9. [262881] Liz Blackman (Erewash) (Lab): The student fee assumption, which is the amount that the LSC assumes FE colleges will collect from adult students in training, is rising steadily. Will the Secretary of State undertake to keep that level under review, given falling family and company budgets?
Mr. Denham:
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which has been raised by colleges. We always keep such matters under review, but I have two points to add. The performance of colleges in recovering fees varies widely and some are much more effective than others. I would be worried about pursuing a course of action that
effectively penalised those colleges that take fee recovery seriously in order to reward those that have not previously focused on it in the way they might have done. We can continue to discuss that issue, but we need to be careful about doing anything that may have untoward consequences.
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): Has the Secretary of State looked at the tremendous success of the United States community college system in attracting students from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education? They are local, flexible institutions that are properly integrated into the US system. Can we learn anything from the US?
Mr. Denham: Although I do not think that the structure of community colleges could be easily imported into our system without enormous disruption and relocation, there are elements of the community college system that we could build into it effectively, particularly—although not only—the ability to progress from vocational qualifications to vocational education at a higher level. In a recent speech to university vice-chancellors, I made it clear that we need to do more of that in the future. From what I have seen of US community colleges, they have strengths in that area.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |