| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Morgan: My Lords, they participated before. The charges are totally untrue.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the argument obtains across a wide range of higher educational institutions. I believe we have evidence of a redoubled activity in that respect. There is no doubt that from time to time we all need the spur and challenge of those who express some criticism of the way in which we act.
We recognise that the Universities UK report, Social Class and Participation in Higher Education, is a valuable contribution to the agenda. We recognise that the report builds on strong foundations going back a considerable way, and we recognise—my noble friend Lord Morgan has sought to reassure me—that the universities have been involved in generating a substantial momentum. I am heartened to see that the report shows just how much institutions are committed to widening participation and sharing good practice.
We are also greatly encouraged by the work that is taking place to encourage widening participation in the demanding subjects, such as medicine, where often students have come from a rather limited social background, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said. For the good of our health service and for the good of students, it is essential that we broaden those opportunities.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vincent, that we also recognise the point that he made about particular areas of high level vocational courses at Imperial College and Cranfield. He will know that Sir Gareth Roberts has just produced a report to the Government on science and engineering skills. We are examining his recommendations and I am sure that they will bear significant fruit in the near future.
All this means that we have to make effective use of existing moneys. The postcode system was raised but it defied the capacity of one of my colleagues to express it in plain English. I shall duck that challenge on this occasion. My English is probably not up to it. I can reassure the noble Baroness that HEFCE recognises that aspects of the postcode system scarcely meet the level of precision and accuracy that we require.
There have been many proper challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, drew some attention to that. I can reassure the House that we are looking forward to rather more sophisticated and more accurate measures than what we would all recognise were the first, early attempts to address the issue. We also believe that rather more refined strategies would be—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, would the postcode list be published?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government will be responsible for ensuring that higher education institutions know exactly the opportunities that are before them and the criteria against which they will be operating.
But HEFCE has its responsibilities in those terms. It is not for me at this time to prescribe in greater detail the way in which HEFCE will operate. However, we shall certainly need to win the support and confidence of the institutions under the new structure, and we can rely upon our colleagues in that body to ensure that that takes place.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, under what clause of the Freedom of Information Act will this information continue to be withheld from us?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am being drawn down a rather devious route when I have only a minute or two in which to conclude the debate. So perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for not responding to that specific point.
I want to address myself to what was a central element in the debate this evening; that is, the issue of student finance. I can reassure my noble friend Lady Andrews that we are concerned to ensure that proper support is given to needy students. It will require a restructuring of student finance. My noble friend drew attention to specific groups. I have not the slightest doubt that they will fall within the criteria.
A review is taking place at the present time which will report in the fairly near future. Its job will be to sustain and support improved access to higher education. We take on board some of the criticisms advanced this evening about the present system,
though once again I seek to disabuse the House of the notion that the present system of financing higher education has led to a significant drop in applications from students from working class backgrounds. That is not sustained by the facts.We recognise that the perception and reality of debt is an important factor for students. We may perhaps need to adjust to a different situation. We need all the resources we can get in higher education. There is no doubt that the new review will continue with the principles that have been adumbrated since we came to office. It is surely unfair that graduates who, on average, earn 35 per cent more than the average wage, should make no contribution to the education which gave them that advantage. So I can assure the House that the principles behind the review—as if anyone would doubt it—will be based upon some contribution from the state, some contribution from the student and a contribution from the families. However, we hope to produce a better system than the present system and that is the burden of the review.
I pay due tribute to those noble Lords who emphasise that we need to think about higher education in a broader perspective than has been the case in the past. I have no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, among others emphasised, that further education has a significant role to play. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, emphasised how many students follow higher education courses in our further education colleges. There is no doubt that the partnership that we need to forge not only between further and higher education, but also between the schools and further and higher education, is tremendously important in creating opportunities and ladders for progress. In the past entry to higher education has looked like a series of hurdles that people have to surmount. It is much more important that it be seen as a series of ladders which they can climb.
Therefore I share the view of noble Lords in welcoming this report. It reveals the real progress that the higher education sector is making and we should pay tribute to all those who have achieved those results. But we still have a long way to go. The Government's vision is to close the gap between the learning rich and the learning poor so that everyone has the opportunity to develop their talents to the full. I hope that this report and today's debate will give the sector a new stimulus to make progress in this important work.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comprehensive and sympathetic reply. I am also grateful for the contributions from all noble Lords throughout the House this evening. It has been an excellent debate. It has shown what a variety of insights can be offered from your Lordships' wide experience, even when shining the spotlight on a highly focused topic.
I realise that we are pressed for time so perhaps I can simply reflect on the fact that all noble Lords emphasised one point above all. To open opportunities from those from lower socio-economic groups will demand innovative and flexible responses and approaches and will require new resources. It cannot be done on current funding methods.
I leave noble Lords with a comment from John Knowles from the Access to Higher Education project at Lincoln University. He attended our parliamentary launch last month and his words sum up today's debate. He said that it is good to see so many students who have benefited from widening participation initiatives and to see the great and the good taking notice. I thank your Lordships for taking notice. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
European Capital of Culture
7.46 p.m.
Lord Luke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government by what criteria they will select the United Kingdom's entry for the European Capital of Culture for 2008.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I start my speech I should perhaps declare an interest as I deal in watercolours and have been known to sell watercolours of some of the cities in the list we are discussing.
In my researches for this debate the one word that came up most frequently was, naturally enough, "culture". So I thought I had better look it up in the dictionary. The most apt sounding definition that I could find was that it was the "intellectual side of civilisation". I am not at all sure that I know what that means. Can the Minister say whether that corresponds with the definition used by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
We are talking this evening about an annual award from the EU to what was originally the "European City of Culture", and at this present time still is but will be changed to the "Cultural Capital of Europe" in 2005. Up until 2004 each designated country in the EU will decide which of its cities to nominate and that will be the end of the matter. However, according to the DCMS briefing, from 2005 it appears that,
- "The European institutions will take part in the selection procedure".
The Government announced that they will run a Centres of Culture Award in parallel with the European Capital of Culture competition. That award will be given to each of the cities forming the short list for the ultimate award which will be chosen in March.
That is an excellent idea—but only if it is accompanied by a grant substantial enough for each city to make a real impact.The list of British cities which have put in bids is a large and culturally formidable one. But it seems that the largest and most powerful city in cultural terms—of course I mean London—has not put itself forward. Why not? After all, Athens, Paris, Berlin and Madrid have all been cities of culture in their turn. Was London dissuaded from entering to make it easier to select from others in the list?
Of course, each of the cities which did put in a bid, ranging from Canterbury and Inverness to the leviathans such as Birmingham and Newcastle, has its own specific attributes, which make each one an excellent candidate for the award. The difficulty will be how to judge between one attribute and another. That must in the end be a subjective judgment that will call for a particularly adroit panel of judges. Can the Minister tell us tonight who the chairman will be? Perhaps she can announce the names of the other members as well. If not, perhaps she will tell us when that announcement will be made.
I come to the main reason for this debate: to elucidate the criteria by which the panel will determine its shortlist and eventually, next March, a winner—or will the final winner be chosen by the Prime Minister? There has been a report to that effect. Perhaps we shall hear about that later.
The guidelines published by the DCMS are broadly right but I shall suggest some criteria that I hope will not be used as well as some that I hope will. In my list, political correctness would have no place. Political opportunism, however tempting it may be to choose such and such a city, should in my reckoning be ignored. "Dumbing down", that particularly unattractive but nevertheless descriptive phrase, should not be included in any city's programme.
On the other hand, transport infrastructure is particularly important. Access by rail, air and road—and in certain cases sea—should all be really effective. What happened at the Dome, where the family car driver was virtually ignored, must not be allowed to happen. After all, the winning city will want to attract tourists and visitors from the rest of Britain as well as from abroad.
The winning city must have shown itself to be especially adept at exploiting the assets that it already has, as well as to be likely to have the collective imagination to find new and attractive ideas. To return to the guidelines issued by the DCMS, what does,
- "the ability to display a city's cultural wealth within a European context",
- "encourage other European States' participation".
The object of a successful programme should be to uplift a city's citizens' ideas of culture. As I said, that means the liberal use of lively imaginations. It will be
extremely difficult for the panel to compare, for example, the attributes of Liverpool and Canterbury. I hope that they will bear in mind that a good little 'un can often be as good as a good big 'un. Fair and proportionate judgments are required.I hope that, if nothing else, I have put forward some ideas that will stimulate a wide-ranging debate. I look forward to listening to your Lordships and, as always, I shall enjoy the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for initiating this debate. I must add that when I dealt with the noble Lord when I was a Whip in this House, I always found him to be fair. I am grateful to him for his colourful style in this House.
I am not sure that I require an explanation of the criteria that will be used to determine the successful bid. I have enough confidence in the Government to know that whoever is chosen, the selection will have been made for the right reasons. However, the debate gives me the opportunity to say a few words about my preferred bid.
The Government have asked local authorities to work with partners to develop a local cultural strategy. Whatever happens to the bids when they are finalised and whether or not they are successful, communities will benefit from the fact that they have had to work together to formulate the bids in the first place and are therefore more likely to work together in future.
I know from my experience on Tyneside that many years ago we were forced to work together by the circumstances at the time. In the early 1980s, the North East had unemployment thrust upon us almost overnight. At that time we in any case had the highest unemployment on the mainland. That was partly because of the economic climate, partly because of government policy and partly because, in industry, we as a region had all our eggs in one basket. That made us very vulnerable when downsizing and industrial decline came upon us.
Coal, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering were all affected. I hope that I never again have to witness the despair of families who have lost their only wage-earners so suddenly. Not just wages or jobs are lost when there is a rapid decline in a region's industrial base. The loss is much more long term than that. Training and skills are lost. It is much harder to start the wheels of industry again if a workforce must be trained once more.
I have touched on the past problems of the North East simply to highlight how far the region has come since then. Part of any criteria to qualify for the European Capital of Culture must be a city's ability to work together. That is where the Newcastle-Gateshead initiative scores so highly—for out of the problems of the 1980s, the North East decided that it could not survive on government handouts. Not that there were many of those around, as I recall.
After years of struggle, we created the Northern Development Company, which brought together the various elements of the region: industrialists, local authorities, trade unionists and educationists. It involved people from all political persuasions. That body had a number of successes during that period, including bringing the Japanese company, Nissan, to the region. It was the forerunner to the regional development agency, One North East. I am pleased to say that that now has a 10-year strategy that complements the region's new vibrancy.
As the Newcastle-Gateshead initiative clearly demonstrates, it is now an outward-looking region that is self-reliant and has vision, ambition and aspiration. But the North East has much more than that, it has a cultural distinctness that puts it apart from any other part of Britain. Establishing a strategic cultural partnership is not a problem for the region. In fact, it comes naturally. There are a warmth and trust that are easily recognisable and which make it much easier to create working relationships.
I do not intend to list all the attributes of the North, as they can be read in various publications. However, I recommend the Newcastle-Gateshead council's 10-year strategy for culture booklet which highlights much of the regions' culture: the beauty of Hadrian's Wall stretching across the region and through the city; the picturesque city of Durham; and the coastal city of Sunderland. Attractive as those cities may be, it is, however, the city of Newcastle that is recognised as the hub of the region.
I bring your Lordships' attention to recent developments on both sides of the Tyne. There is the Baltic, the centre for contemporary art, the new music centre on the Gateshead side of the Tyne and, of course, the quayside developments on the Newcastle side. I must admit that the last Tory government can, through its Development Corporation, take some credit for working with local authorities in promoting that development. However, I must make it clear that credit for vision and planning must go to the two excellent councils, so ably led by Tony Flynn and George Gill. Both men have a lot of vision and commitment to their community.
I should explain to those who are not aware of the region's geography that it is only the River Tyne that divides Gateshead and Newcastle; they are linked by numerous bridges. We feel justified in referring to the conurbation as "the city".
People in the North are more aware of and more involved in cultural activities because of the cultural enterprise shown in the area. The success of any cultural strategy depends substantially on the extent to which everyone feels included in the process. The Newcastle-Gateshead initiative is based firmly on the involvement of the communities in cultural activities. Whether or not the North East is successful in its bid to be the European Capital of Culture, we have learnt that cultural development can make a major contribution to real progress in the delivery of a
regional initiative. That is why the Newcastle-Gateshead initiative recognises that, to be truly effective, it must listen to and involve local people in delivering its programmes and ideas. Winning the title would hasten the process of developing well thought through, imaginative and realistic plans.8.2 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I can only assume that the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, were not aware that European institutions would be involved in the selection process or they would have been in their places making their regular speeches about the iniquities of Europe.
I speak as a humble Back-Bencher. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will give the official party view on the matter. I come to the question in a genuine spirit of inquiry. I shall say nothing detrimental to the bids of any of the cities hoping for the accolade. I know how quickly "Good morning" leaflets can be got out on the eve of an election, and I do not want any derogatory comments from me about any of the competitors appearing in a last-minute leaflet.
It is worth asking why the prize is worth winning. As well as its artistic and cultural benefits, it brings enormous economic benefit to the winning city. That was first seen in Glasgow, where they had the "Glasgow's miles better" campaign. The city took the opportunity to remind an initially sceptical public of its cultural riches and re-positioned itself as a centre for inward investment by concentrating on the more positive aspects of life in the city and on its cultural merit.
What should the Government look for? Credible candidates must have a genuine cultural base. Even the most skilful PR campaign could not underpin a bid that did not have genuine cultural merit. The city must also have supportive civic leadership. A council with a poor record of support for cultural activities will quickly be found out. There must also be a cross-community vision, shared with local communities and business groups. The bid must fit in with an overall regeneration plan and be seen as bringing benefits to the candidate city and region. I understand why London is not applying; the preferred candidate should be a city that will get a positive benefit from a title that, for London, would simply be a cherry on the cake.
In some ways, the Minister will have to behave like a judge at a 1950s beauty contest of a kind that is now considered so politically incorrect. Various Members will parade the assets of their city before her, hoping that they will catch her eye. That is not, in itself, a bad thing. The process encourages cities and centres to "Search for the hero inside yourself", to use the words of the popular song. It causes communities and their civic leadership to look positively at the cultural aspects of their region, emphasise them and knit them together in a programme.
I make no secret of the fact that my preferred centre would be Liverpool. It would be a fitting culmination for its 800th anniversary celebration in 2008. It would
also be a fitting acknowledgement of the successful rehabilitation of the city after the bleakness and lunacy of the 1980s. Since childhood, I have thought about the awesome aspects of the city. There is its architecture, including St George's Hall, the Pier Head and the two cathedrals. There are also the eight art galleries, the Philharmonic, the three universities, the Albert Dock, the maritime museum and Tate Liverpool. All that represents a considerable concentration of artistic and cultural power. We can add the city's sporting heritage and its special place in popular entertainment. I am old enough to remember Ted Ray, Arthur Askey, Jimmy Tarbuck and Ken Dodd.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |