| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The hon. Gentleman is disparaging-I am surprised to see how disparaging he is-of the appropriate quality and inspection regime that exists for universities. I do
not know whether that is indicative of a Conservative proposal for an Ofsted arrangement for our universities, but the Government have always sought to maintain the autonomy of the university sector while ensuring that we are not complacent about standards and quality.
That is why we think better student information is so important going forward. Students need to know what the employment prospects are when they embark on a course. They need to know the degree of independent learning, contact hours, the style of teaching and other important information. That is the direction of travel. At the same time, it is important that we are more public-facing in the national conversation that we are having about quality in the system.
It is a false debate for the hon. Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box and try to draw an either/or about science, technology, engineering and mathematics as against art and humanities. It is not an either/or; it is an "and" and "both", but in underlining science, technology, engineering and mathematics, we recognise where we have come from. When we came to power, there was a campaign called Save British Science because things had got so awful for scientists and students in the sector. We cannot have that if we are to come out of a downturn.
We recognise that those subjects cost more. They are more expensive as a cohort of subjects than traditional arts and humanities. Of course we support the digital economy, low carbon and all the other areas that depend on the STEM subjects, but we are saying what industry and the CBI have said to us-that this area is critical going forward. It is critical to international collaboration. It requires more funds. We must support it, and we are making funding contestable to ensure that those universities that can add and do more are able to do so. We will be publishing our response to Alan Milburn's report- [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)- [ Interruption. ] Absolutely; I mean my right hon. Friend, and I was very pleased to speak to the Darlington constituency Labour party just a few months ago.
We will also be ensuring that our information, advice and guidance improve. That means a stronger role for Ofsted; the new statutory guidance that has been issued; working, in some schools, on teacher attitudes; identifying students more appropriately; and universities, particularly the more selective institutions, reaching deeper into schools, which is why we have asked Sir Martin Harris to do the work that he has done.
The hon. Gentleman has tried over the past few weeks to have his cake and eat it. He is part of a review; one week he speaks to one audience by indicating fee levels of £7,000, which we have not forgotten; the next week he attempts to speak to students by underlining their importance in the system; and today he plays to the audience-we know which papers he is trying to reach into-with his class warfare caricature contextual data. University and attending university, as he knows and agrees, is about attainment, aptitude and potential. That is why we have a UCAS form-so students can indicate that aptitude and potential.
However, we know that, for students from poorer backgrounds, sometimes that potential is thwarted; and I stand by those young people in constituencies such as mine, living on a housing estate and sharing a bedroom with four or five brothers or sisters, because if they achieve an A and two Bs, that achievement needs to be recognised. I welcome what universities are doing in
that regard. The hon. Gentleman commends the programme at St. George's medical school, and that is precisely what we are seeking to underline and support throughout our sector.
I am very pleased that 13 of the most selective universities have come together to work out how they can support each other on contextual data. The Government have sought to support them, but we are not responsible for admissions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman a second time, but this time my concerns are in his direction. He has now taken longer to reply to the questions than it took to put them to him. Bearing in mind the strictures of Mr. Speaker about the business that we have today, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), and that we can inject some extra urgency into the rest of the proceedings.
Mr. Lammy: Mr. Deputy Speaker, forgive me. Contextual data always gets me going- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) says, "On the careers service." We will respond to my right hon. Friend's report in due course.
Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) (Lab): I welcome the framework, but may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the forthcoming review, it will always be better to have people-students and providers-inside the tent than commenting from outside? In the lead-up to the review, will he, along with his right hon. and noble Friend Lord Mandelson, reconsider the notion of penalising universities that decide, at their own expense and off their own bat, to take additional students who would otherwise be excluded and, therefore, unable to take up the opportunity of social mobility, to which all of us have been paying lip service?
Mr. Lammy: I recognise what my right hon. Friend says, with his wealth of experience in these areas. He might be aware that David Melville is looking particularly at the situation that arose at London Metropolitan university, where this has been a broader issue that may have bigger implications for the sector. My right hon. Friend is right to raise the matter, and we are looking into it.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I, too, thank the Minister for prior sight of the statement.
It looks to me as though the educational cat has escaped the bag. In almost the last paragraph of the statement, the groundwork for raising university tuition fees seems to have been laid. I was shocked this morning when the Secretary of State attempted to defend this Government's introduction of tuition fees as a "bold and successful" move. In what way is saddling graduates with nearly £10,000-worth of tuition fees bold and successful? Of course students have the right to have high expectations, but that must not be used as an excuse to raise fees. The Secretary of State talked about students being more demanding, and rightly so, but why is the Minister apparently blocking the National Union of Students from being represented on the funding review panel? Perhaps he could comment on that.
Worst of all is the confirmation that the funding review will not report until after the election. Such collusion between the official Opposition and the
Government will only fuel suspicion that the two parties are set to raise fees, doing nothing for widening participation and driving up social mobility in this country. The Minister talked about widening participation and universities being engines of social mobility, which is welcome. However, it should be remembered that his Government's record on widening participation is woeful, with only a third of first-time entrants to higher education coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The use of contextual data in the selection process will be a step in the right direction, but any plans to raise fees will have a huge impact on whether many young people even consider applying to university in the first place.
On strategic subjects, I welcome any effort to fit this country with the skills that we need to fulfil our economic potential. However, modern languages is experiencing funding cuts. It is important as a strategic subject in its own right, and it is currently in crisis in our schools. Will the Government consider making modern languages a strategic subject when it comes to funding allocation?
Obviously universities have a very important role to play in working with business and aiding our economic recovery, but it should also be borne in mind, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned, that higher education gives students important skills and this country long-term benefits, no matter what subjects they are studying.
More transparency, choice and information is of course welcome, but I feel slightly uneasy about introducing the language of the consumer, particularly if it comes with a big price tag and students end up with a mountain of debt.
Mr. Lammy: On the hon. Lady's serious point, she will be aware of the Worton review on languages. I welcome that review. Professor Worton has recommended a new forum, which I am happy to chair, to try to ensure that university languages departments diversify and extend beyond traditional European languages, particularly in developing Chinese and some of the Asian languages over the next while. I welcome that and we will continue to consider the issue.
On the political points that the hon. Lady raises, the Liberal Democrats' position is constantly changing. I ask her to recognise that the leader of her party has changed their position and is flip-flopping between whether they are for tuition fees or against them, and I note the partisan nature of how they are seeking to do this. The point is this: the Lib Dems can abolish tuition fees only if they are content to cut numbers; they cannot have both. They cannot challenge us on widening participation and then stand by their position on tuition fees.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he had been one of my students and presented this statement as an essay many years ago, when I was a university lecturer, I would have said that it was a bit vague in terms of what it is trying to deliver? If this is the future of universities-there is some very good stuff here-can we be sure that the Government, if re-elected, will, year on year, increase the amount of money invested in this absolutely vital resource of our economy?
Mr. Lammy:
I know that my hon. Friend is a quick reader, but I cannot believe that he has managed to consume the entire report quite so quickly. I promise
him that there is meaty detail in the document. He is a valiant campaigner for funding for higher education, and I hope that he knows that the Government recognise that it is a key component of our economy and needs to continue to be properly resourced.
Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): There is a great deal to welcome in the statement and also some things on which we need to encourage the Government to do further. I am particularly pleased to read in the report about the inadequate information, advice and guidance at school to which the Minister referred. The Government's recent response to the report of the then Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills on the subject was somewhat disparaging and dismissive of the concerns expressed. They have an opportunity to redeem themselves in a few weeks when they respond to the report of my Committee, the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, which made exactly the same point. I hope that they will flesh out the Minister's point when they do so, because it is extremely important.
Mr. Lammy: May I commend to the hon. Gentleman the relevant work that was published last week by the Department for Children, Schools and Families? It is an excellent contribution to ensuring that schools are equipped to be better in terms of the information, advice and guidance they offer over the next decade. There will be a role for Ofsted, an identifiable person in a school who is responsible for careers and new guidance for schools to follow, as well as the work that I have outlined today, which Martin Harris has set up. I hope that we will continue to reach further in considering how schools can better support students to make choices in higher education.
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and particularly the progress that we have been able to make as a result of the 2003-04 changes in respect of widening access. In the forthcoming review of fees, will there be a presumption against a completely unrestricted fees market, which would make it impossible to maintain that progress on widening access?
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend puts his point well. He will recognise that there are a range of views about how best to get funding into the system. He mentions one way, but the Government set their face against it when they capped fees at the £3,000 mark back in 2003-04.
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): The Government have correctly identified that the expansion of the higher education sector in recent years has partly been driven by foundation degrees, but the really successful model lies in the US with community colleges. Is the Minister aware that community college students are generally funded under a tripartite system, with a third of the costs coming from business, a third from the state and a third from the individual? Is that financial model under active consideration by him and his Department?
Mr. Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is much to commend in the college system in the United States, but there is also much to commend in the role of
both further education in this country and the post-1992 universities, which have been right at the centre of extending participation and account predominantly for the 54 per cent. of students in our system who are mature students, which is more than there are 18-year-old undergraduates. Yes, we can commend the States and look harder at the system there, but let us recognise that we have some real gems in our own country.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet) (Lab): I welcome the statement, particularly the part that is likely to lead to more science and engineering graduates in the long term. Does my right hon. Friend agree that sometimes the problem is not the lack of available places and courses for science and engineering so much as the lack of available students who want to study those subjects? What more can we do to encourage more young people to take an interest in those subjects and become science and engineering graduates?
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is right, and we continue to work with colleagues in the DCSF and with Aimhigher associates, who are young people themselves and are returning into schools and inspiring a new generation of students. We work also with the professional bodies such as the Engineering Council, which has a range of schemes-I can think of a particular one in south London-and will hopefully produce a new generation of ethnic minority students who would previously not have considered science as being for them. We are also ensuring that business is better connected to schools, through our academies and a range of programmes such as our diplomas. That will inspire a generation of young people with the throughput and desire to progress in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): But to follow the point made by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is the Minister not more concerned about the lack of connection between universities and schools in relation to science? That lack of connection means that a number of science faculties now have to run remedial courses for their undergraduates, and that an increasing number of good-quality science courses are filled by an over-proportion of overseas students, because the offering being made by schools in terms of science undergraduates is not meeting the needs and requirements of universities. Does he not have to do more to close that gap between schools and universities to ensure that we get the science graduates we need?
Mr. Lammy: I do not recognise that caricature, because if the hon. Gentleman looks at the recent results at A-level science and at the cohort of young people doing science, he will see that both are up, never mind the number who take up postgraduate study, which has doubled since the previous Administration. Of course there is more we can do, particularly in relation to triple science, and the DCSF is doing that, but I do not recognise the caricature that he has presented.
Laura Moffatt (Crawley) (Lab):
It is good to hear my right hon. Friend reiterate this Government's commitment to increasing participation. Does he agree that it is vital that we press ahead with the innovative schemes of university centres in new places, such as the one in Crawley, which was one of the last six selected? It is a fantastic innovation, under the leadership of Brighton
university, and it is co-located on a further education site to exploit the talent of new people who want to get into a university.
Mr. Lammy: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her advocacy of a new university centre in her area? At its heart, it is about extending higher education to a cohort of young people and adults who previously would never have gone on to it. That is why we launched the scheme. I commend what has been achieved in her constituency and the wider consortium that has come together. I hope that she will be pleased at the emphasis that the Government have placed on mature students in the framework announced this afternoon.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): The Minister has verbally painted a beautiful picture of the future of further and higher education through a wish list of what he wants for the future, but without offering an explanation as to how it might be achieved. I hope that that is in the documents, but he certainly has not explained it today. The only thing that was missing was motherhood and apple pie. My question is this: does he accept that his Government have actually shut down social mobility during their time in office, to the great disadvantage of the least advantaged in society?
Mr. Lammy: I rather like motherhood, and I rather like apple pie, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman knows a lot better in relation to social mobility. He remembers those young people abandoned to the old youth training scheme. He knows that the achievement of young people in the poorest constituencies in the country was dire because of underfunding in FE and schools and poor resources for universities.
Of course, we continue to stretch for more in terms of social mobility. That is why we asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) to do his work and why we have set out to do more, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that in every single constituency in the country, participation has gone up. In the poorest constituencies-the Hackneys, the Tottenhams and the Lambeths, and the inner cities of Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool-participation has not only gone up since 1997, but the number of students has increased by more than 100 per cent.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): My right hon. Friend mentions the role of the Quality Assurance Agency. Some time ago, I received a communication from it which said:
"HE serves students best when it progressively and incrementally weans them off direct teaching".
On this view, presumably the most effective university is the one that teaches least or indeed not at all. If that is the official view, is it surprising that people feel that teaching is losing out to research, that junior staff often feel dumped on by senior staff in teaching terms, and that many students feel that they are not getting the teaching to which they are entitled?
Mr. Lammy: The QAA has sought to underpin one of the key values of higher education, not only in this country but in the world, and that is the principle of independent learning. A sixth former is different from an undergraduate student in the sense that the latter's learning is, yes, about teaching, but it is also about what they engage in independently as they make their path towards research. Across higher education, different mission groups and institutions place different emphasis on that, and I think especially of those institutions that bring the best out of students who might not have recognised that higher education was for them. The journey is about independent learning, and I disagree with the caricature that gives the impression that higher education is the same as school. That is why we reject a national curriculum and the idea that it is about contact with lecturers and academics: it is not.
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that Leeds university is planning to shed 700 staff? What impact does he fear that that might have on its ability to meet the objectives that he has so lucidly and eloquently outlined in his statement?
Mr. Lammy: I am not aware of the individual circumstances of that institution, but my hon. Friend will recognise that universities are autonomous and it is for university leaderships and their boards to make assessments of the appropriate balance between staff and pupils and the faculty mix at their institutions.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |