House of Commons
Thursday 15 March 2007
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Education and Skills
The Secretary of State was asked—
Nursery Services
My colleagues and I have regular meetings with and correspondence from representatives of all sectors, as well as early years providers, including those providing the entitlement to 12.5 hours early education or care for three and four-year-old children for 36 weeks of the year. It is this Government who introduced the entitlement and guaranteed that it is and will remain completely free to all parents who wish to take it up.
Does the Minister share my concern that at a time when we read that one of the leading chains of nurseries is planning to close down 10 of its 13 facilities, this will be repeated across the country? I have had reports of that happening in my constituency, Ilford, North.
If that were the case, yes, I would be concerned. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who speaks from the Front Bench, have stated that that chain has closed. From our information, I understand that that is not accurate. The chain has changed hands, as such businesses do, but we cannot find any reports of intentions to reduce places. That rumour and a number of other comments from Opposition Members are untrue. In fact, there has been increasing stability in the market over recent years, particularly for private providers. That reflects both the investment that we are making and our commitment to maintaining a diverse sector.
As always, there are two sides to the argument. What representations has my right hon. Friend received from parents about their entitlement to free care? Sometimes parents are asked to top up what should be a free entitlement, and they are unaware of their right to an excellent scheme for helping them and their children.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. It is in parents’ interests that we ensure that providers and local authorities understand that this is a free entitlement. That is the point of it. We do not want to discriminate between parents who could afford to pay top-up fees and those who could not. From my discussions with local authorities and the broad swathe of providers, I am convinced that the £3 billion a year that the Government are committing to this free offer is sufficient. Provided that it is administered properly by local authorities—we are looking at that—there is no reason at all for any provider to ask for a top-up fee, and we will certainly not allow them to do so.
I am delighted to see the Minister back in her place. We are all agreed that we want to see more child care, rather than less, but the Minister must accept that the free entitlement is not free, that in large measure the local authorities are not passing all the costs on to providers, and that the providers are using the extra half-hour over and above the statutory entitlement to subsidise the cost. To a large extent, the Government have had this child care cheap. Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a mixed economy in respect of provision? Will she come clean and say what will happen when the code of practice applies to the pilot areas, and clear up any confusion? There is great uncertainty on the part of providers about what will happen from 1 April.
I know that the hon. Lady is keen to develop a campaign on the issue, but the points that she makes here and elsewhere are simply not true. They are causing needless concern for parents. The experience over the vast swathe of the country is that the money going through local authorities is sufficient. In some instances the way in which it is being allocated by local authorities should be examined. I am sure she is aware that that is why on 7 March we launched a consultation document on schools, early years and 14-to-16 funding, including specific proposals which, if they are supported, will ensure better alignment in allocation across the sectors in local authorities where that might not be the case. I am convinced that the £3 billion is sufficient and that the provision must remain, as it is at present, free to parents at the point of access. We will not have the kind of two-tier system that the hon. Lady wants. We do not want vouchers and we will not allow discrimination—
Teacher Vacancies
Teacher vacancies in local authority maintained schools went down between January 2005 and January 2006 by 250, to reach 2,230 posts, which is broadly the same percentage as it was 10 years ago. We expect that vacancy figures for January 2007 will be published on 26 April.
Will the Minister accept that the large number of supply teachers in all too many schools, particularly as head teachers, French teachers and maths teachers, is not only very bad for morale in the common room, but harms children’s education? What more is he going to do to make sure that we have more permanent head teachers, French teachers and maths teachers?
We have commissioned a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers on leadership in schools. We are doing a series of things involving the National College for School Leadership in respect of head teachers. Lord Dearing published his report this week on language teaching, and we are addressing some of the recommendations. The statistics on maths teachers are very encouraging, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning launched some new measures for science, technology and maths this week. The overall picture is that we have more than 36,000 more teachers than we did 10 years ago, and we have added 140,000 more support staff so that teachers can concentrate on teaching. The general trend is extremely positive.
My constituency lies right on the boundary with inner London, where there is a significant enhancement for teachers through London weighting. Although the areas and the schools are very similar, my area finds it difficult to attract teachers against that competition. Will my hon. Friend consider the issue to see whether there is any way in which he can make a more level playing field, so that the schools in my area can attract teachers to work in Enfield?
My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising that concern with the ministerial team. We will continue to look at the success that we have achieved through the chartered London teacher scheme, London Challenge and Teach First. A series of measures is making sure that London schools are getting the leadership that they need and that we are getting the quality of teachers that we need to continue the exceptional improvement in the quality of education in London schools, which is ahead of that in the rest of the country.
We have heard the figures on teacher vacancies. According to the most recent figures, however, 25 per cent. of newly qualified secondary school teachers and 26 per cent. of newly qualified primary school teachers were not in full-time employment six months after they graduated. Does the Minister agree that that is a real concern? What does he plan to do about it? And what implications does it have for the Government’s recruitment campaign for teachers?
We have to get the right balance. I have received a number of letters from hon. Members representing constituents who have trained as teachers and who are struggling to find posts. We have to balance that against the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). There are particular subjects such as languages, maths and science where we need to improve the supply of teachers. Although the vacancy rate for head teachers is broadly what it was 10 years ago, there is a future challenge in terms of succession planning. We have to strike that balance. The level of supply is broadly in tune with the level of demand, but there will always be some geographical disparities.
Secondary Schools
Since 1997, education has been this Government’s top priority. We have doubled spending per pupil, and there are now 36,000 more teachers and 150,000 more support staff. We are investing more than £1 billion in personalising learning by 2008. The secondary national strategy is improving the quality of teaching and learning with training and support for teachers. Our 14-to-19 reforms, including the introduction of diplomas, will enhance our focus on functional skills. Attainment has increased at all levels in secondary schools since 1997, and the number of schools with fewer than 25 per cent. of pupils achieving five or more good GCSEs is down from 616 in 1997 to 47 this year, and 85,000 more students achieve that standard each year.
Will the Secretary of State explain why in Milton Keynes, where we are having to build new schools, English Partnerships will charge full price to the local authority for a piece of land if a secondary school is being built, but if the same site is used for a primary school, it will transfer the land at zero cost? Why is there an imbalance between the two different types of school? Since the Secretary of State has such commitment to secondary education, will he look at the matter? And will he meet a delegation from Milton Keynes to discuss it?
That does not sound right to me, and I would happily meet a delegation from Milton Keynes to discuss it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the figures that are coming out about the success of extended schools are quite remarkable and should be applauded? Will he begin a campaign to get more Members of Parliament to go out and visit more schools? As I go round the country visiting secondary schools, I see improving achievement, whereas many Conservative Members seem only ever to have been to the independent schools that they were raised in.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am getting to the age when as I look around at the new intake, some of them look as though they have just left secondary school. I think that we would all agree that it is a very fulfilling experience to go and visit our local schools—much more so now than it was 10 years ago.
The Secretary of State is no doubt aware of the decline in the study of languages in secondary schools, following the Government’s decision to relax the curriculum. We all want to see the study of languages prosper, and we now have the Dearing proposals to try to address the problem. Does the Secretary of State believe that following those proposals there will be an increase in the number of candidates in our secondary schools for public examinations in languages at GCSE and A-level?
Lord Dearing has done a valuable task, and his report is full of good sense. We have accepted his principal recommendation that we should make languages compulsory in primary schools, and we will do so at the next available opportunity when we review that key stage. As for children in secondary schools, we need to do much more to encourage schools to go for a much higher benchmark. On Saturday, I was at Wakefield city high school, which is in the middle of a council estate and has a large intake of pupils who have free school meals. The number of students taking languages has not changed since we moved from compulsion to entitlement. That is because of inspirational, very good-quality languages teaching and a method of teaching that enthuses youngsters. That represents a large part of Lord Dearing’s recommendations, and we should ensure that it happens in every secondary school.
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Wakefield city high school with me on Saturday, when its inspirational head teacher, Alan Yellop, told us how he took a school where just 7 per cent. of pupils were getting five good A to C grades at GCSE in 1994 to one that is not only performing above the national average in absolute terms but is in the top 5 per cent. of the country, in value-added terms, for maths. Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider the need for capital financing to rebuild that school? Following our tour, I am sure that he will agree that we urgently need a significant investment in the school to ensure that its high-quality teaching and inspirational leadership continue.
There we have it. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I can say that MPs are not only visiting schools but doing so on a Saturday. [Interruption.] There were children in attendance. My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a tremendous school with tremendous leadership, great teaching and improved results. The capital spend needs to go in, because the school is in a poor condition. We understand that. That is why we are refurbishing and rebuilding every single secondary school and have targeted the capital funding available to local authorities to deal with schools such as Wakefield city high. I hope that that school will soon have an infrastructure to match its tremendous teaching.
The Secretary of State will know that one of the measures that the Government have taken to improve secondary schools is to allow them to move to trust status. Ryeish Green school in my constituency is undergoing a consultation on closure. It is a much improved school that wants to be a trust school, and it looks as though it has the strong support of a very good local organisation. The only problem is that the local education authority needs some persuasion. Will the Secretary of State meet people from the school, the local education authority and me to bring all parties together to ensure that this opportunity to raise secondary school standards is taken?
I will certainly facilitate such a meeting. If the circumstances are as the hon. Gentleman describes—I have no reason to doubt him—we should include the school among the many that wish to introduce trust status in the next couple of years.
Educational achievement in Hartlepool has doubled in a decade, facilitated largely by a doubling of spend per pupil by the Labour Government. Whereas fewer than 30 per cent. of pupils in 1996 achieved five good GCSEs, 60 per cent. now achieve that. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, following the current comprehensive spending review, which is acknowledged to be tighter than previous rounds, education will continue to be a central focus of the Government’s policy so that pupils in Hartlepool can continue to benefit from rising standards and increasing spending?
The achievement in Hartlepool is truly remarkable. It should be a beacon to other areas of the country, which have similar circumstances but have not managed the same achievement.
I obviously cannot comment on the comprehensive spending review. However, we are locking £66 billion of funding into the Department this year—record amounts are being spent on education and I hope that we will retain that and have a real-terms increase on top.
Despite the record spending on education and the plethora of initiatives that the Secretary of State has described this morning, only 75 per cent. of youngsters this year reached the level expected of them in key stage 2 tests in English, maths and science. Is it not time that the Secretary of State took on the left-wing, liberal establishment, which dominates education, brought an end to all-ability comprehensive schools and mixed teaching classes, and introduced traditional methods of teaching English?
The reference to liberals certainly created a stir on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
The hon. Gentleman talks about 75 per cent. achievement in three subjects at key stage 2. He needs to consider the position in 1997, since when a tremendous amount of progress has been made. That is due not to politicians, educationists or civil servants, but to teachers and head teachers. They do a tremendous job.
Much of changing the culture has to do with building aspiration, especially, as I said yesterday, among working-class boys. That matter is being addressed, but with a teaching profession that is in better shape. There are more teachers and they comprise probably the best cohort of teachers that we have ever had in this country—whether they are left-wing liberals is a matter for them.
My right hon. Friend rightly says that the key to raising standards is good teaching. Yet time and again, the Select Committee in its investigations finds deficiencies in teacher training. Teachers will face far more demands in future with the changing curriculum. When will my right hon. Friend examine the content of teacher training courses for initial training and continuous professional development to ensure that we have a teaching work force that is adequately trained for the demands of the 21st century?
Make that woman a Minister.
I very much agree with that sentiment. If it were in my gift—which it is not—my hon. Friend would be a Minister. She raised an important point, which the Select Committee has made on occasions. Its distinguished Chair is sitting near my hon. Friend—perhaps another ministerial job approaches?
Both my hon. Friends would agree that we have done much to improve teacher training and the work that goes into that from the Training and Development Agency and others. Much work is going into school leadership and getting teachers to aspire to it. The challenge of introducing diplomas and the various other measures that we are taking requires us to redouble our efforts to ensure that our teacher training and our career professional development is of the highest quality that we can make it. We are working towards that and I believe that we share that objective with my hon. Friends.
Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the previous question, does he agree that the curriculum is critical to raising standards in secondary schools? Given his comments last week about the danger of the new diplomas going horribly wrong and becoming “secondary-modern” qualifications, will he now rethink and implement Tomlinson in full?
No, I will not, although I understand the balance of the arguments over Tomlinson. Tomlinson himself, of course, is now our diploma champion, to use a terrible term, with the education profession and he says that the report provided 90 per cent. of what he was looking for. I actually think it would be wrong—for parents, for pupils, for everyone—just to throw everything up in the air and get rid of the A-level, which has been our gold standard since the early 1950s, when we have this opportunity for children to follow such diverse routes. They can go down the GCSE, the A-level, the international baccalaureate or the diploma route.
Incidentally, while I have the opportunity to say so, I was giving an honest answer to an honest question. I said that diplomas are so difficult and radical that they could go badly wrong. Short of saying that introducing these diplomas will be a breeze, we have to acknowledge that it could go wrong, but we are determined that it will not, which is why we are putting considerable resources and effort into ensuring that this most radical change takes off and becomes the success that we all hope it will be.
The reference to the left-wing liberal establishment by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who I believe is a refugee from teaching, encourages me to my feet. Does the Secretary of State agree that the sort of genuinely comprehensive schools of which I am a governor—Ibstock community college and Ashby school in north-west Leicestershire—provide very high-quality education and a model for all types of local education authority? Does he further agree that it is no surprise that genuinely comprehensive LEAs outscore and outpoint parts of the country, such as Kent, Buckinghamshire and Northern Ireland, in respect of the quality of education supplied?
I agree that all-ability, non-selective schools right across the country are good schools. Some of them are comprehensive, some are academies and some are trust schools, but what we should focus on is not the terminology, but whether or not the schools are good. Where they are good schools, it is not particularly because they are labelled comprehensive or anything else, but because of good leadership, good teaching and a good ethos in the school. I accept that it is the all-ability, non-selective feature that is important, and we need to continue to hammer home the fact that that is the way forward. There are still some people harking back to a golden age, though not the Conservative party nowadays—[Interruption.] No, not the Front Benchers, and perhaps not many behind them. All our experience suggests that the sort of schools of which my hon. Friend is a governor produce astounding results year after year. We want to ensure that every school is in the same situation.
One of the main focuses of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’s secondary curriculum review appears to be to encourage schools to move away from discrete academic subjects towards more joint subject teaching and themes. The QCA’s director of curriculum thinks it would be “lovely” if the PE teacher turned up in the history lesson, and Professor John White, an external adviser to the curriculum review, believes:
“The academic, subject-based curriculum is a middle-class creation”
whose
“rationale has long fallen away”.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that quality and rigour are maintained in our curriculum, and can he reassure the House that the revised curriculum is not being used as a pretext to impose a potentially damaging and untested educational fad on our schools?
It is not too difficult for me to give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. The reason why we are so keen to introduce functional skills, for instance, in English, maths and science is to ensure that we make life more difficult for ourselves by having an absolutely staunch benchmark that we can test against. As to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I see the views of educational theorists all the time and some of them are very interesting. I would point out that Lord Dearing made an important point in his report this week—that languages can be introduced to other subjects to make them more interesting. He made the point that it could be helpful if sports or history and geography lessons had a languages dimension.
indicated dissent.
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if it is a choice between taking advice from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) or from Lord Dearing, I would take Lord Dearing’s.
Adult Education
Colleges have benefited from our 48 per cent. real-terms increase in further education funding between 1997 and 2005-06. We have realigned funding to support our priorities and, as I announced today, we have met our interim adult level 2 target, with 1 million more adults with essential employability skills in the work force since 2002. Also, more than 1.6 million learners have achieved skills for life qualifications in literacy, language and numeracy.
I thank the Minister for that response. He will be aware that Cornwall has a low wage economy and very low levels of adult skills. As a result of the funding changes, Cornwall college has had 10,000 fewer applicants for adult courses this year, not only for recreational courses but for technical equipment courses and even for courses for those with learning disabilities. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the funding changes on deprived areas with low levels of skills, such as Cornwall?
We are continually evaluating the shift in adult provision to ensure that it is having the right beneficial economic effects. The train-to-gain initiative, which offers a radical commitment to ensure that every adult in the work place who does not have the equivalent of five good GCSEs gets a guarantee of that educational training, is a move in the right direction. We are increasing funding, but there is also a shift in priorities away from short courses towards longer provision that will have a more beneficial impact. I announced this morning that we have got 1 million more adults up to level 2 in the past five years. That is a significant achievement that will benefit the whole country, including people in Cornwall.
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about more adults coming into employment. Will he also consider increasing key and basic skills training in inner-city areas such as Birmingham, where we need to offer better provision to get more lone parents re-engaged in education and back into employment?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are absolutely right to focus on the level 2 commitment, because that is the minimum platform for sustainable employment in the work force. However, we also need to ensure that the stepping stone provision below level 2 is protected. I think that that is the kind of provision to which my hon. Friend is referring. The introduction of the foundation learning tier, which we have made clear will be guaranteed as resources become available over time, is the kind of commitment that he and his constituents are looking for.
The Minister will know that Macclesfield is fortunate, in that it will shortly have a virtually new college as part of the learning zone, for which the people there are very grateful. Does he accept that there is a growing need for vocational training, particularly for adults, in order to fulfil the needs of local industry and commerce? Will he come to Macclesfield to visit the college when it opens later this year, to discuss adult education with the corporation and me?
I am happy to accept the plaudits about the capital transformation of further education colleges that is taking place up and down the country. We are spending some £500 million this year; 10 years ago, there was not a penny in the mainstream capital funding budget. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point; we need to do more in the area of vocational skills. The train-to-gain initiative, which guarantees training to adults in the work place who have not reached level 2, is an exceedingly important step forward. Diary permitting, I will see what I can do about coming to Macclesfield.
My hon. Friend will be aware that a key recommendation of the taskforce established to deal with the consequences of the collapse of the Longbridge car factory was the creation of at least a 14-to-19 centre on the former MG Rover site, and possibly a full college relocation to boost skills and regenerate the area. A feasibility study of that recommendation should have been completed and available by now. Will my hon. Friend have a word with the local learning and skills council so that we can get on with this project, which will be vital to skills boosting and regeneration in the south-west Birmingham area?
I will happily look into that and meet my hon. Friend to discuss such issues. I remember visiting Longbridge a year or so ago, talking to the Rover taskforce—
Order. I know that the Minister means well, but if he looks in the hon. Gentleman’s direction when he speaks, he cannot be heard by the rest of the Chamber.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
I visited Longbridge about a year ago, met the Rover taskforce and was extraordinarily impressed by the cross-departmental working taking place, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has championed strongly. I commit myself to considering the matter and meeting him shortly.
Seventy per cent. of the 2020 work force is over the age of 16 now, so it is vital that we upskill and reskill the adult population. Yet adult education is being savagely cut—it is down 10 per cent. in the past year and below its 1997 level. Not all such courses are on crochet and croquet: many of them lead to further study and work. Given that workplace training is also being cut, and that less than 6 per cent. of employers are involved in “train to gain”, how have the Government managed to spend so much more on FE, but achieved so little and delivered so much less?
Normally, I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views but I will not take lectures about the funding of further education colleges. Under this Government, funding has increased by 48 per cent. in real terms, which compares favourably with the 14 per cent. real-terms cut that took place in the five years up to 1997. According to its evaluation, the “train to gain” initiative, which is still in the first year of its national roll-out, is incredibly highly valued by employers, who are keen on the brokerage element. It is bringing huge numbers of people into adult education and training, and is particularly benefiting the over-45s, who are a key target group. It is in its first year of operation, it is a truly radical initiative, and it is delivering results.
ESOL Classes
English for speakers of other languages has been a real success, with more than 1.9 million learners since 2001. The current rate of increase, however, is unsustainable. Numbers and funding have tripled, but further increases will adversely impact on other skills for life provision. Therefore, in October I announced changes to ESOL funding involving charging those who can afford to make a contribution and excluding adult asylum seekers from access. Following representations made as part of the race equality impact assessment, however, I have made it clear in the past week that I am minded to consider a range of new measures, compared with the original proposals, to reprioritise funding towards the most vulnerable.
With 29 per cent. of Hackney residents having been born outside the UK, I welcome the Minister’s rethink on the issue. Of the 2,500 ESOL and life skills learners at Hackney community college, an estimated 20 per cent. would be affected by the rules. Will he meet me and representatives of Hackney community college to discuss this matter and its impact on Hackney residents?
I will happily meet my hon. Friend, as I have met many colleagues, to discuss the issue. Let me make it clear that we are not reversing the fundamental thrust of our policy on the issue. The current trajectory is simply not sustainable, and will impact on the budget for other skills for life provision unless we make changes. Under the changes, over 50 per cent.—indeed, over 80 per cent., as I understand it, in the college to which my hon. Friend referred—will continue to get access to free ESOL. As a result of the representations made, we are considering a number of other indicators to ensure that we assess low income properly and that those who genuinely cannot afford to pay continue to get free ESOL.
It may be right to ask for fees from people who can clearly afford to pay, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important to make applying for fee remission simple? In particular, we should rely not just on working tax credit as an indicator of low pay, but on other indicators too.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have announced in the past week that I am minded to consider a range of alternative indicators of low pay, at a local level, that would enable a person to access free ESOL. Clearly, the system must be as simple and easy to understand for the individual as possible.
Many people have come into this country from the new European Union states. That has put pressure on courses such as those about which we have been hearing, but also on small primary schools that are being asked to support the children of families who are new to their areas. What action is the Department taking to supply those schools with extra resources?
Additional funding streams are available for schools in those circumstances, but the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an important issue. It is true that if the challenge of funding ESOL is to be met, we need a significant contribution from the Government—who have tripled funding over the past five years—and it is true that we need contributions from individuals, if they can afford it. However, we also need employers to meet their own responsibilities to train their work forces properly. In the context of the changes that I have announced, we are keen to address that issue, together with the CBI and the trade unions and through the social partnership.
Surely we should focus more on youngsters whose first language is not English. According to a report that I read recently, a young girl was placed with a group of three others who did not speak English as a first language. Everything had to be translated in that science group, and the young girl who spoke English felt that she was being held back because everything had to be translated. When she asked to be moved to another group, she was condemned for doing so. Can the Minister ensure that those who need English language teaching are given the focus they deserve so that their skills can be improved, while those who do speak English are not held back simply because attention must be focused on those who do not?
I respect the intention of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I have learned through long experience that when one starts digging, newspaper stories of the kind that he has related turn out to be far more complicated than they appear. A number of other issues tend to be involved. If the hon. Gentleman gives me the details of the case, I will examine them. However, in primary schools where there is a significant cohort of legitimate migrant communities, it is important for us to ensure through the additional funding stream that all children, regardless of circumstances and background, receive the teaching that they require.
I know that the Minister shares my view of the importance of a grasp of the English language to both social inclusion and community cohesion. I had many concerns about his original proposals, but I am extremely grateful for the concessions and changes that he announced recently, which will go a long way towards allaying my concerns and those of colleagues. Nevertheless, there remains real concern about people on low incomes. Will the Minister’s door be open to representations from Members in the light of experience of the changes and particularly of their impact on people with low incomes, and will he meet my colleagues from Woolwich college to discuss the issue?
I certainly undertake to do that. In recent weeks I have met a number of colleagues to discuss the matter, because although I genuinely believe that the status quo is not an option, I also believe that we must get the changes right. I agree with my hon. Friend that if there is to be real community cohesion we must ensure that people can understand and communicate in English, and our changes are intended to give everyone that opportunity.
This issue is not just about refugees and asylum seekers. I recently went to Kashmir with members of the Muslim community from Banbury, and as a result I appreciate that many young people who have grown up in this country still expect to enter into what we would call arranged marriages with partners from, in many cases, Kashmir. Brides who come to the United Kingdom may still not have English as a first language, and may well be joining low-income families. Is not the ability of those people—who will live here for the rest of their lives, will have children here and will become part of the community—to speak, learn and acquire English important both to community integration and to good race relations?
I entirely agree. I think it is critical for people to live genuinely as part of communities rather than being hermetically sealed in individual areas. One of the changes that I intend to make, which I have announced in the past week, is the reprioritisation of funds at local level to provide free access to ESOL for spouses who are priority learners in hard-to-reach groups, and unlikely to have access to their own money or family benefit documentation. I believe that that will go a long way towards allaying the hon. Gentleman’s concern.
Apprenticeships
According to the latest data available, at the end of 2005 there were 78,900 16 and 17-year-olds participating in an apprenticeship in England, compared with 34,100 in 1997. My priority for the current comprehensive spending review is to offer an apprenticeship place to any qualified 16 to18-year-old who wants one.
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. As a former apprentice in the construction industry, I strongly believe in the apprenticeship scheme. One of the ways that we can best encourage youngsters to engage in apprenticeship schemes is to allow them to sample what being an apprentice is like while they are still at school. What progress is the Secretary of State making in involving schools in the scheme that allows pupils a 50-day experience of being an apprentice?
We have made a great deal of progress since 2003 when we introduced work-based learning so that, as part of the 14-to-19 agenda, youngsters start going out to businesses and companies in their constituencies—or, rather, in their area. [Interruption.] Well, MPs are not getting that young. Youngsters therefore experience what work is like, which might give them the opportunity to decide on what their future career should be. That is one of many elements of policy that give choice and diversity to youngsters and ensure that they get a proper grounding before leaving school.
I completely support all that goes on with regard to apprenticeship schemes for those aged 16 and above, but I wish to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to something that is still a big problem in this country: how to tie in young boys aged about 12 and upwards who do not believe that academic routes are the routes for them but who find that schools so specialise in academic subjects that they are left out—so they truant or leave school early. That is one of the major issues that we have found as we go around communities.
I ask the Secretary of State to visit Holland, if he has not already done so. I deeply admire the Dutch for embedding their vocational training in schools, and their truancy levels are much lower than ours. A Dutch educationist said to me that the difference between them and the United Kingdom is that they are just as intelligent, computer-literate and educated, but they also believe that people have to build the houses that they live in, carry out the plumbing work and do the wiring as well, and that they celebrate that rather than make it a second-class occupation.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the problems that we have traditionally had in respect of vocational qualifications. They are particularly to do with the parity of esteem argument, as academic qualifications are seen as infinitely superior to vocational qualifications. That is in large part due to cultural issues, and we can do a lot in schools to address that. Let me say something about the introduction of diplomas, although they come in a bit later—at 14 to 19—and the right hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about youngsters as young as 12, and boys in particular, having to be switched on to learning. That is a general point that applies to both academic and vocational education.
I cannot emphasise enough the significance of the introduction of diplomas. They are not vocational diplomas. There is that mixture of the theoretical and the practical, which is what we have lacked in this country for so long, and those diplomas, along with apprenticeships and work-placed training as accredited training, can provide the kind of choice that our youngsters need. I said a lot yesterday on issues to do with young boys—working-class boys in particular—and trying to close the attainment gap at age 14, especially in English, as in other subjects we do not have that gender gap. All those areas are important and we are looking closely at the lessons that can be learned from what happens in the Netherlands.
Building Schools for the Future
The first local authority projects are due for completion in 2009. I opened the first BSF “quick-win” schools in Solihull in June of last year, and the first BSF school to be procured through a local education partnership is on schedule to be open in Bristol in September 2007.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have an excellent record in the transformation of primary schools—in rebuilding and refurbishing them. It is essential that we now get on with the transformation and that we put the new capital investment into secondary schools. We want that programme, under building schools for the future, to go ahead as quickly as possible. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would meet me in my constituency and have talks with his noble Friend Lord Adonis, who also has ministerial responsibility for schools, so that we can make sure that each school in my constituency is at the heart of the community, is an extended school, and is able to contribute to the regeneration that is so desperately needed—and which is already under way—in Stoke-on-Trent.
I know that my hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in those matters, and that she has met my noble Friend Lord Adonis and senior officials to make sure that we spend well the £181 million that we have committed to secondary schooling in Stoke. I will, of course, be happy to meet her and to make sure that senior officials are working with her to ensure that we are investing that £181 million on the basis of having quality rather than mediocrity.
Is there not an enormous gap between what the Minister has just told the House and what his Department published in its document “Building Schools for the Future”, which said that in 2007, 100 school buildings would open, and in 2008, 200 school buildings would open? Will he confirm that those figures should be five school buildings in 2007 and 23 in 2008? Will he give the House an explanation for that extraordinary delay, and an authoritative time scale against which we can judge the Government’s performance in the future?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I gave evidence to the Select Committee on that very issue and was extensively questioned on it. We look forward to the Committee’s report. Building schools for the future is a major project on an unprecedented scale and we deliberately started in the most difficult areas, because those are the ones that need the investment the most. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and we have to ensure that we get the quality right.
If, as in Stoke-on-Trent, we occasionally need to reassess the initial plans in order to improve them, and therefore it takes a little bit longer to get them right, that is what we will do. However, 25 authorities have joined up or have completed procurement. Most of the wave 1 projects that have not yet signed up are near to financial close, with more than 50 more schools opening in the next two years.
Solicitor-General
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Youth Matters
Although I have not specifically discussed with the Home Secretary the document “Youth Matters”, I am aware of the programme and I meet him regularly at the National Criminal Justice Board meetings, where youth issues and wider issues are often discussed. The last meeting was on 27 February and the next is on 27 March.
Does the Solicitor-General share my concern at the growing antisocial behaviour in market towns such as Thirsk and the fact that few prosecutions are taken, especially in cases of the breach of an order or contract under the new antisocial behaviour regulations? Does he agree that rather than seek to prosecute, it would be better to intervene to take the children off the street earlier? What are the Government doing to stop truancy in schools, which can lead to antisocial behaviour? Why are there no prosecutions for breaches of those contracts, and what value do they have in the circumstances?
The aim is to change behaviour and therefore the approach taken is to prosecute where necessary. Some prosecutions do take place, but not unless they are necessary to change the behaviour. The Government’s approach is to ensure, through “Youth Matters”, the document that set out the youth strategy, that we put £115 million into developing youth activities, and also identify those young people who need to be diverted from what may well be antisocial behaviour. I know that in my own area in the village of Gouldon, the local community has got together to put in place packages of assistance for young people by creating pods and developing youth activities, and ensuring a greater police presence and CCTV cameras. It is possible for local people to put together packages to reduce the level of antisocial behaviour and ensure that young people are diverted away from criminal activity and directed towards more useful activities.
Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of the successes and failures of the intensive supervision and surveillance programme, which is very effectively managed in Staffordshire? If he has, what implications does that have for youth sentencing at the end of court cases?
Intensive supervision has been shown to have considerable merits in dealing with particular individuals who need that level of intervention. We are likely to see increasing use of that measure. The response by the criminal justice system to antisocial behaviour by young people will increasingly be directed to dealing with particular problems that they have. The more that we can tailor the intervention by the criminal justice system to the particular problems that individuals have, to divert them away from activities that cause difficulties, the better will be our opportunities to reduce the amount of antisocial behaviour.
Expert Witnesses
The straight answer is yes. A number of reviews are being carried out of the role of expert witnesses and some have already been published. There have also been several initiatives recently to improve the use of expert witnesses in criminal cases.
Does the Solicitor-General agree that the judicial system, in particular the Crown Prosecution Service, has a duty of care to ensure that expert witnesses are who they say they are? If so, what are his comments in the light of the recent bogus Dr. Morrison case, which has led to the need to review more than 700 cases? Many people may be in prison as a result of his so-called expert evidence, so what new measures will the Government put in place to ensure that expert witnesses have the qualifications they claim to have?
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Gene Morrison case is of serious concern. The police investigation into any miscarriages of justice is under way and my office is being kept informed about it. I think that case was exceptional, but it is one that underlines the importance to all parties of ensuring that they look critically at the evidence of expert opinion. A number of reforms are being made. New criminal justice procedure rules put in place last November are now coming into play; the post of forensic science regulator has been set up; and the Attorney-General’s review of shaken baby syndrome cases is under way and will have important recommendations. In accord with the view of the Court of Appeal—the recommendations of his honour Sir Igor Judge—new CPS guidance on the use of expert evidence will ensure that, whereas expert evidence has been wholly relied on in the past, it should not be in the future, and that corroborative evidence which is independent of the experts should be sought. That new approach will help to deal with some of the problems with expert evidence we have experienced in a number of cases in recent years.
At a time when criminal legal aid costs are under close scrutiny, will my hon. and learned Friend consider looking closely at the joint instruction of experts in criminal cases? Huge expenditure is incurred on expert witnesses and it is increasing at a rapid rate.
My hon. Friend is right; there is considerable expenditure in relation to expert witnesses. We need to ensure that cases are properly decided and experts are able to give their view, but that it is done in a sensible and cost-effective way. Following the recommendations, part of the guidance on expert witnesses is that they should be prepared to have peer review of their findings and that there should be exchanges between experts on either side of the case about the evidence they bring forward. We should attempt to ensure that, where possible, there is as much consensus as possible about the expert evidence that goes before a court and a jury. In that way, it is to be hoped that we will reduce the amount of time needed for expert witness evidence in court cases.
Is the Solicitor-General aware that real concern remains among both judiciary and practitioners about the length of time it frequently takes to obtain authorisation from the legal aid authorities to commission expert reports; about the delays in commissioning that often occur once authorisation has been obtained; about delays in disclosure of reports between the parties; and then about the Crown being able to instruct its own experts? Will the Solicitor-General discuss with the appropriate Departments and agencies what can be done to speed up the process of obtaining expert evidence, which, as he knows, also has an impact on the listing and expedition of trials?
It is the case that we need to ensure that court proceedings are speeded up more generally, not just in relation to experts. When we came into office it was clear that the courts system was struggling and unable to cope with the sheer volume of cases before the courts. Things have improved, but there is still a lot more work to be done. There are issues in relation to legal aid. We have to ensure that expert evidence is really needed before legal aid is granted and that there are proper exchanges and disclosure. The new guidance will enable the sharing of expert evidence, and exchanges between experts to take place, and I hope that that approach will result in less delay in the future.
Victim Treatment
The prosecutors’ pledge introduced in October 2006 makes a series of commitments about how prosecutors communicate with victims, with the aim of improving performance. At this stage, it is too early to assess the full impact of the pledge. The CPS has implemented management controls to seek to ensure compliance and the witness and victim experience will also provide some feedback on key elements of the pledge.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. He will know that the question was prompted by the experience of a friend of mine whose nephew was assaulted in a street in Slough. The case took more than a year to come to court and the prosecution eventually failed, in part because of a lack of confirmatory identification evidence. That showed me how devastating it is for the families of the victims of violent crime not to know what is going on. Can my hon. and learned Friend assure me that the prosecutors’ pledge will include better information for victims and their families while a case is being pursued and that lessons, such as that about identity parades, are learned and promulgated as a result?
I have had a similar case in my constituency recently. In a manslaughter case the family were not properly informed. There is a need to ensure that the CPS and other agencies deal with victims and families more effectively than they have done. The prosecutors’ pledge has only recently been introduced and it is about changing attitudes and behaviour and improving the way in which the criminal justice system operates by putting victims and witnesses at its heart.
My hon. Friend has let me know of the circumstances of the case that she mentioned. There are lessons to be learned on the identification issues, but the initial charging advice was provided by a Crown prosecutor who advised the police that, given the issues in the case, there was no requirement for a video identification procedure. However, subsequently that advice had to be looked at again. Lessons must be learned when the system has failed victims or their families, and it is necessary that the prosecutors’ pledge be delivered on. It is about changing and improving the whole way in which our criminal justice system operates.
Fraud Review
A national strategy to tackle fraud has been published today. We will create a national fraud strategic authority to help co-ordinate efforts to combat fraud. It will include a unit to measure the extent of large-scale and smaller frauds; a working party will develop a costed case for a national fraud reporting centre to take reports from victims and to co-ordinate information and advice on tackling fraud; and it will work closely with the police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
I am grateful for that reply. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that many businesses and trade organisations are concerned about fraud and, in particular, about the growth of internet fraud. Can he tell the House how those businesses and trade organisations can take part in the review with the organisations that he has just announced?
It is important that the private sector and, indeed, the public sector work much more carefully, and with the police, at not just seeking to catch criminals after they have committed an offence, but seeking to prevent crime and fraud from taking place. The fraud review sets out ways in which we can get the private and public sectors to work together with the police and the other agencies in developing a strategy to tackle fraud. The national fraud strategic authority will raise awareness among the public and seek to promote best practice in fraud detection and prevention. Individual institutions need to design systems that make fraud much more difficult to commit. There is a growing body of good practice in fraud management strategies and we have encouraged the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission to look at the strength of anti-fraud controls in the organisations that they audit.
I welcome the fraud review. I hope very much that issues such as plea bargaining and better management of fraud trials can all be looked at very carefully in the course of it. However, in view of the fact that the review is taking place and that it is likely that by next week the Bill that would remove the right to trial by jury in certain fraud cases will be defeated in the House of Lords, can I urge the Solicitor-General to use the fraud review to reconsider the position of wanting to get rid of the right of trial by jury in certain fraud cases? If this fraud review is properly carried out it will make such a measure even less necessary, despite the Government’s attempts at justifying it.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent. We need to tackle fraud and we have put in place a programme of three key areas that we need to deal with. We have put in place the fraud review and he has welcomed that. I assure him that we will look with care at issues such as plea bargaining. We have also put in place the new Fraud Act 2006, which he and I took through this House. That Act means that we are in position to have a modern legal framework to deal with fraud, but we also need to ensure that the procedures are right and that we get fraud trials right. That is why the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill is necessary. It is about ensuring that we get the courts into a position in which they can deal most effectively with fraud. This is a package in which we want all three measures—the fraud review, the Fraud Act and the Bill—put in place. His failure to support the Bill is regrettable, because it is part of the package that we need to deal with fraud.
The Liberal Democrats understand why the Law Officers may resist the request to reconsider the strategy on the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill this week, but will the Solicitor-General undertake that the specific proposal in the fraud review to have a financial court with dedicated judges who are experts will be seriously considered? That may be the answer to the question of how we get the right court and maximise the chance of success. Then I hope that he will respond to the request that the Bill be dropped and that the other proposals, which are much more effective and thought-through, be implemented.
The idea of a financial court needs to be looked at. We need to see how the court system as a whole would respond to that sort of proposal. On the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill, we need to have a court system that can more effectively deal with fraud. Our view remains that the Bill is something to which the Government are committed. We need to have a criminal justice system that is not only fit for purpose, but delivers effectively. I regret the hon. Gentleman’s failure to support that position. I understand his arguments, but I believe that the Bill is necessary.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the coming weeks?
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 19 March—Second Reading of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [Lords]. Followed by a motion to approve a ways and means resolution on the UK Borders Bill.
Tuesday 20 March—A debate on the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Wednesday 21 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
Thursday 22 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 23 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 26 March will be as follows:
Monday 26 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 27 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 28 March—Motion to approve a statutory instrument on casinos, followed by motions relating to House of Commons business.
Thursday 29 March—Motion on the Easter recess and Adjournment.
The House will want to be reminded that we will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Thursday 29 March and return on Monday 16 April.
I draw the House’s attention to a written ministerial statement that I made this morning about a small, but I hope helpful, improvement in the procedures of the House for the benefit of Members. We have agreed and I am proposing that when Ministers have already made reference to the fact that they will make an oral statement on a particular date, that notice will be included in the future business of the House and on the Order Paper itself, for the convenience of the House.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business and his written statement of today on the procedural change, which will definitely be for the convenience of Members of the House.
It has recently been discovered that Ministers have released documents relating to council tax revaluation under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that they had previously refused to release in response to parliamentary questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has raised the matter with Mr. Speaker, who is responding. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you have always been clear about Ministers’ duty to Parliament. The duty is set out in the ministerial code, which says:
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”.
Does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers have a duty to be more open with Parliament and the public?
This week, we have seen shocking pictures of the injuries sustained by Morgan Tsvangirai while in Zimbabwean police custody. I am sure that the whole House will be disgusted by his treatment and appalled by the wider crisis in that country, which is the direct result of the policies of President Mugabe. Two weeks ago, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Leader of House said that there was a
“need for a debate in Government time.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1074.]
May we now have an urgent debate in Government time on Zimbabwe?
At the beginning of their long friendship, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor fought many battles with old Labour to build new Labour. One of those was over nuclear disarmament. In yesterday’s vote to replace Trident, nearly 100 Labour Members rebelled against the Government. Indeed, one of the Chancellor’s close allies, the former Deputy Leader of the House, resigned over the issue. Not for the first time, the Government would not have carried their business without the support of Conservative Members. May we thus have a debate on the dwindling authority of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor?
Back in those good old days, the Prime Minister and Chancellor promised us that they would be “whiter than white”. On 25 April, Sir Alistair Graham’s term as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life comes to an end. It was the Prime Minister who decided not to renew his term, and it is the Prime Minister who has failed to appoint his successor. Sir Alistair says:
“this Government places a low priority on the maintenance of the highest standards of conduct in public life”.
May we have a debate on the future of that committee and on why the Prime Minister sacked Sir Alistair for doing his job?
This week, the Government published the draft Climate Change Bill, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor were playing up their green credentials. However, let us judge them by their record. Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) became Leader of the Opposition, the Chancellor had not made any major speeches on the environment. Since then, he has made three. On his watch, green taxes have fallen from 9.4 per cent. to 7.7 per cent. of his total tax take. And then there is his policy to provide home insulation: he announced it in 1995, scrapped it in 1998, and reannounced it last year. May we have a debate on the Chancellor’s environmental record?
With a Brown-Blair legacy like this, is it any surprise that Labour is turning in on itself? The Labour party is rebelling against the Prime Minister, the Cabinet is briefing against the Chancellor, and the people are turning their backs on all of them. Whenever the Prime Minister hands over to the Chancellor, is not the truth that new Labour is an old idea that has simply run its course?
Let me just deal with those points in turn.
The right hon. Lady makes a serious point about whether Ministers answering parliamentary questions should at least meet the standards set by the Freedom of Information Act. I cannot comment on the specific case that she raises because I do not know the circumstances of it. However, it is certainly the case that Ministers all strive to ensure that, at the very minimum, they are at least as forthcoming with the House in respect of the answers that they give as they would be required to be by the Freedom of Information Act. I will ensure that that is maintained. The matter is being discussed by the Procedure Committee, which is examining written questions.
The right hon. Lady asks me about Morgan Tsvangirai. I entirely share the utter horror of all decent people throughout the world at the way in which the thugs of Robert Mugabe have sought to use the truncheon, rather than debate, to determine the future of that once-wonderful country, which has collapsed into the worst situation of almost any African country that one can think of, because of the total mismanagement of Robert Mugabe. What I said two weeks ago is correct; I promise that the only issue is finding a date on which Foreign Office Ministers can be present for the debate, because they have travel plans—I know that it sounds slightly lame, but it happens to be true. I am sorry that we have not been able to find time, but we will continue to work on that.
Thirdly, the right hon. Lady referred to our debate yesterday. I should just say that it was actually my noble Friend Lord Kinnock who resolved the issue of nuclear disarmament for us, and there was much relief that he did so before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took over. It is true that the issue of nuclear disarmament and nuclear weapons has always been difficult for the Labour party. I take one view on the subject and some of my colleagues take another, but I do not think that a party should be criticised for agonising over what is unquestionably not just a defence and security issue but, in many people’s eyes, an issue of conscience and morality. I draw to the right hon. Lady’s attention the fact that although the numbers involved were slightly smaller, some rather senior people in the Conservative party rebelled against their party Whip, including the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
He suffers from the disadvantage of being wrong.
Well, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but the point is that we are talking about a man who, only a few months ago, was shadow Foreign Secretary and deputy leader of the Conservative party, and who has taken a completely different view on the issue. If the right hon. Member for Maidenhead wants to swap stories about divisions inside parties, I suggest that she tries to pull the beam out of her own eye before she examines the mote in the eyes of others; she ought to examine what happened upstairs in Committee with regard to the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Apparently—
Order. I must say that I am going to urge Back Benchers to be brief because there are two statements today, one of which will be made by the Leader of the House, so exchanging stories is not what I am looking for.
You are right to admonish me, Mr. Speaker, and it means that I can dispatch the next two issues raised by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead very quickly. Alistair Graham served his five years and we are grateful to him. I do not recall hearing similar complaints when Lord Nolan and Patrick Neill moved over to make way for their successors. As for the environment and the draft Climate Change Bill, I had wondered what the Conservatives would say about that terrific Bill. The answer is that they are saying virtually nothing, but are taking an awfully long time to say it.
May I welcome the announcement about the way in which Government statements will be dealt with in future? If the Leader of the House wishes to see evidence of Ministers failing to give answers, I refer him to the answer that the Secretary of State for Health gave to three specific questions that I tabled well in advance of Health questions this week. I did not get a reply to a single one of them; the responses were entirely evasive.
While the Leader of the House was away thinking last week, his then deputy, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), fielded my question about the medical training application service. He suggested that my idea that it should be suspended was “absolutely cuckoo”—he then flew the nest. If I am absolutely cuckoo, so is the entire British Medical Association, and so are junior doctors across the country. Will the Leader of the House look again at the issue? A review has been published, but there has been no suspension of the system that is causing so much damage to doctors’ careers.
Last night, a press officer announced that it was the Government’s intention to appeal against the administrative review High Court decision on pensions. That has not been formally reported to the House, but it will have profound consequences for pensioners who are still waiting for recompense. It also has consequences for the conduct of the Pensions Bill and for the way in which amendments are dealt with before Report. May we have statement from the Department for Work and Pensions on how it intends to proceed, so that it can allay the pensioners’ fears that they are again being ignored by the Government?
May we have a statement on the formal rebuke to the Government issued yesterday by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the discontinuation of the investigation into the al-Yamamah arms deal, and on the fact that the OECD is going to send investigators to question the Attorney-General about why the UK outlawed bribes of foreign officials in 1998, yet not a single prosecution has ensued?
Lastly, we anticipate that the Government’s response to the Lyons report on local government spending will be encompassed within the Budget statement and debate. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is not expected to participate in that debate, but the matter is of huge interest to people up and down the country who are worried about council tax bills and seek a fairer replacement, so it would be proper to have a full statement and, in due course, a debate on local government finance.
On the issue of Health questions, I need notice of the questions and sight of the answers. However, Ministers are making every effort to ensure that accurate answers are given within the due notice time. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a huge increase in the volume of questions—they have increased by 40,000 in two or three years—which places an unacceptable burden on everyone involved. It is bound to have an overall effect on the quality of answers, which is something that the Procedure Committee is trying to resolve.
On the medical training application service, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is under review, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced about a week ago. We are well aware of the problems that have arisen, and she has said that she will seek to tackle them. On the pension judgment, I can confirm that the Government are appealing that judgment, as we are entitled to do. The issue is not whether we were right or wrong to make the original decision, and of course, we understand the concern of pensioners who have lost part or all of their pension; we all have constituents in that position. However, if we are to try to recompense them fully—we have already achieved partial recompense—that entails a very substantial cost to the public purse, so the issue of fairness arises.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what the OECD said yesterday. He should be very clear that it has not reached any conclusion that the decision was incompatible with the OECD convention, and no other state has come out and said that they thought the decision was incompatible with it or that they would have reached a different decision. I have to say that I thoroughly object to the way in which the Liberal Democrat party seeks to damage the country’s reputation for probity and integrity across the world.
indicated dissent.
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that reputation is not one that we are protesting: it is confirmed by the rankings of Transparency International, which ranks us sixth in the world, only just behind Canada, Sweden and Switzerland, above Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United States, and well above France. He should take that into account and cease to damage our reputation.
Earlier, in Education and Skills questions, we spent about two minutes on the building schools for the future programme, which is the most ambitious programme of public sector investment to which any British Government have ever committed themselves—and all credit to the Government for planning it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the publication of the Stern review and the draft Climate Change Bill, we should consider seriously the environmental standards to which the new generation of schools will be built? Does he accept, too, that that issue affects every single hon. Member, and—
Order. That is a supplementary question.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the issue.
I failed to respond to the question that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the Lyons report. There will be plenty of opportunities in the Budget debate, if he is correct about the report, to raise the issue of the financing of local taxation.
This morning, I, with many others, attended at short notice the Delegated Legislation Committee debating the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Does the Leader of the House not accept that there is something wrong with proceedings if, a week after we discussed in the House the pre-eminence of the Commons in debates, such an important matter was dealt with in a Delegated Legislation Committee, which meant it was not possible for us to debate it extensively and vote on it in the Chamber? He will say that it is a matter for Front-Bench teams but, as the champion of Back-Bench issues in the House, does he not accept that we should have an opportunity to debate those issues properly? It is possible to be in favour of the principle, but worry about its impact, and we still do not have an answer to many issues surrounding adoption and education legislation. Will the Leader of the House champion Back-Bench issues and tell his colleagues that it is time to drag this matter back to the Floor of the House and debate it properly?
The right hon. Gentleman was leader of his party for quite a long period. He said that the matter was agreed by the Front-Bench teams, and he will know that it is very difficult to get the quart pot of demand for debates on the Floor of the House into the pint pot of available time. The matter was discussed in Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). It was a subject of considerable debate, as is demonstrated by the fact that the Conservatives split 3:2 on it. We always do our best to ensure that debates take place in the House, but sometimes that is not possible.
The Leader of the House will know of my enthusiastic support for the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. I still believe that it is vital to ensuring the availability of effective treatment and value for money in the NHS. Nevertheless, he will be aware of growing disquiet both among Labour Members and throughout the House about delays in the assessment of treatments and about some recent NICE decisions. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 1138?
[That this House notes that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued new draft recommendations for the treatment of osteoporosis; believes that this new draft represents some steps forward but regrets that many women aged under 70 who are at risk of breaking a bone due to osteoporosis still do not qualify for treatment; notes that the development of recommendations by NICE on the use of osteoporosis drugs is now into its fifth year, whereas recommendations for treatments usually take just one to two years; fears that as a consequence of this delay, existing mandatory recommendations are not being implemented while doctors wait for them to be reviewed; notes that there are 10.6 million women aged over 50 in the UK and that almost half of these women will break a bone during their lifetime mainly due to osteoporosis and that one in five men will suffer a fracture after the age of 50; believes that treatment at just 27 pence per day is cost-effective in preventing a broken hip which would cost the health service over £12,000 a year as well as resulting in huge personal and social care costs, and calls on NICE urgently to review its decision and allow preventative treatment to all patients at risk of fracture.]
The cost in hospital and social care of osteoporotic fractures is £1.7 billion a year, yet recent NICE guidance denies effective preventive treatment to people under 70. Will the Leader of the House make provision in Government time for a debate on the workings of NICE?
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I shall certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. On the question of a debate, I very much hope that he can raise the matter in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. There will be other opportunities, too, including Health questions, to raise it.
The reply from the Leader of the House on the Lyons report was perfunctory to the point of being epigrammatic. The rumour is that the report will be published on Wednesday, to be buried in the Budget. It is of great importance to millions of people, but it has been hugely delayed and, it appears, widely leaked. There is no earthly reason why it should not be published on Monday, when we are debating estate agents, or on Tuesday, so that the House has a chance to see its conclusions and, if it is debated in the Budget, to be informed. In any case, there should be a debate before the local elections, so that the parties can set out their stalls for the electorate.
I was not being perfunctory, but I was brief, because I had been admonished for being prolix. If the report is published with the Budget—I am not confirming that it will be—it will hardly be buried, as the Budget is the most observed moment in the parliamentary calendar. There will be ample opportunity, including a four-day debate on the Budget, for right hon. and hon. Members to express their concerns about or their support for it.
May I ask the Leader of the House to use his imagination to try to find a way of providing an urgent debate on Zimbabwe before the Easter recess and before the Foreign Secretary visits South Africa, as it is important that she give the South African Government a clear statement that the House believes that they are falling down on their responsibilities as the lead power in southern Africa?
I understand the frustration of everyone in the House, but my right hon. Friends in the Foreign Office are as frustrated about their diary problems, as they too want to ensure that the matter is debated. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that there are Foreign Office questions next Tuesday. May I tell her, as we have known one another for a very long time, that it is not lack of imagination that is the problem but the much more prosaic matter of finding a Minister whose diary fits both the requirements of the House and their overseas duties?
May I take the Leader of the House back to his earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)? This morning, in Committee Room 11, at least 10 Back Benchers were denied the opportunity to speak on the sexual orientation regulations. That highly contentious piece of legislation is wholly unsuited to the form of a statutory instrument. Next week, we will deal with a statutory instrument on casinos, of all things, on the Floor of the House, yet those sexual orientation regulations will be buried. Will the Leader of the House give us a clear undertaking that they will not be put through on a vote late at night, or on a deferred Division until, at the very least, the Easter Adjournment debate, so that the House can debate them on the Adjournment?
First, if the measure had been debated on the Floor of the House, it might easily have been the case that 10 hon. Members on either or both sides could not get in to speak, as there is great demand to participate in such debates. Secondly, the case for protection on grounds of sexual orientation was made and extensively debated during the passage of the Equality Act 2006, which is the substantive legislation that gave rise to the consequential statutory—[Interruption.] It is true. The debate today was on subordinate legislation, which is based on primary legislation. On the question how a vote is taken on the Floor of the House, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is in her place, and we will take into account representations that are made.
May we have a debate on the right to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal? The medal was awarded to all Australian, New Zealand, Fiji and British servicemen, but only the British have been refused permission to wear it. How can I justify that to my constituent Walter Stewart, who is asking for the right to wear the medal?
The honest answer is, with great difficulty. Some of us who have had to deal with similar questions have found the rules in relation to the wearing of overseas decorations quite difficult to comprehend. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister continues to take a close interest in the matter.
In my constituency is the Coventry road, on which on Saturday and Sunday nights there is racing. It is a road with an ordinary 40 mph limit. May we have a debate on why the Government have laws on antisocial behaviour that are unenforceable?
The hon. Gentleman always comes back for more. Two weeks ago he asked for a debate. I said that we could have a debate about the softness of the Liberal Democrats, who say one thing in their constituencies and do another in the House. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about antisocial behaviour, he should start voting for the effective measures that we have taken against it, and he should stop supporting the criminals, rather than the victims.
May we have a debate before the Easter recess on nurses’ pay? In Scotland nurses are being paid 2.5 per cent., according to the pay review. In England they are being paid 1.9 per cent. and being told that they are being paid 2.5 per cent. They are incensed by that. May we have a debate as a matter of urgency?
This is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. With devolution, it is inevitable that different Administrations will come to different decisions within a financial envelope provided by the United Kingdom Parliament. I note what my hon. Friend says about the concern of nurses in England, and I will pass on his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Does the Leader of the House accept that there is increasing concern about the proposal by the Lord Chancellor’s Department to gut the interior of Middlesex guildhall, which is one of the finest examples of Edwardian secular architecture in London, and also an important part of London’s historic heritage as the former home of the Middlesex county council, to make way for the venue for the new Supreme Court? Will he undertake that the Lord Chancellor’s Department will not proceed with plans to rip out the interior within two and a half weeks of the court’s closure on 30 March, and will take no action until the Constitutional Affairs Committee has held its proposed inquiry into the matter or there has been a debate in Government time?
The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are very strict rules in respect of listed buildings, for the interior of the buildings as well as the exterior. I am sure the Department for Constitutional Affairs is following those. Having spent many happy hours earning an honest penny or two in Middlesex Sessions across the road when I was a young barrister, I do not quite share the hon. Gentleman’s view about the architectural merit of the building, but that is a matter of choice.
May we have a debate on the definition of Britishness? My right hon. Friend may recall that when British Airways sought to get rid of its British identity, the then Prime Minister expressed her robust but effective views. Will he do likewise, in light of the fact that British Airways is attempting to get rid of its identity again, at a cost of hundreds of jobs at airports throughout the UK, and effectively to rebrand itself as London Airways?
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend and others, and I recognise the anxiety about job losses or unacceptable transfers. British Airways is of course a commercial organisation, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s remarks are drawn to the attention of those running the company.
Over the past three years in Northern Ireland, there has been an increase in health spending of about 15 per cent., yet despite that, only last week in the House an answer was given that waiting lists for hip operations have gone up by 100 per cent. The same is true for eye operations, and in my constituency ambulance services and local hospitals are being closed. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate in the House so that it can be explained how more money is being spent on the health service, yet service delivery is going down?
I do not accept that service delivery overall is going down. I accept that there are some changes year on year, but if the hon. Gentleman goes back to 1997, he will see that there has been a dramatic improvement in health delivery in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the Union.
May we have a debate on the draft Climate Change Bill—a radical piece of proposed legislation and the first of its kind in the world? Would it not be interesting to have the debate around the time when the energy and planning White Papers are produced? That is particularly important, given the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about green taxes. They are made up mainly of the fuel duty escalator, so if she is proposing to re-establish that, the public should be told.
That is a good idea, which we will bear in mind. We are also ensuring that the draft Climate Change Bill will be examined by an appropriate Committee of the House, with a debate afterwards.
May I reiterate to the Leader of the House the pleas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)? As one of the Members of the House who has consistently argued that the Government’s sexual orientation regulations will be a liberating force for millions of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in this country, I implore the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, to arrange for a debate on the Floor of the House on the matter next week, both because it is right that alternative points of view should be aired, and because those of us who believe in the regulations know in our heart of hearts that we will be strengthened as a result of hearing and rebutting the arguments against them.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot add to what I have already said about the matter, except to say that I know there was a vigorous debate upstairs, albeit limited to an hour and a half.
May we have a debate on the future of football? My right hon. Friend may have read recent newspaper reports claiming that the Football League is considering resolving drawn matches by penalty shoot-outs. Does he think that there are merits in that system and, if so, what lessons can he learn for resolving the future composition of the House of Lords?
There may be merits, but I am not sure what they are. I would be delighted to have a debate on the future of football, although I happen to think the much more important issue is to make sure that clubs, particularly premier league clubs, do not price themselves out of the market. I am glad that Blackburn Rovers is leading the way in that respect.
May I bring the Leader of the House back to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the successor to Sir Alistair Graham? In his efforts to be brief, he did not answer the question about whether a successor has been chosen and when the announcement will be made.
A successor has not yet been chosen. That was one of the complaints of Sir Alistair, but the matter is in hand.
In view of the negotiations that are taking place in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Northern Ireland Minister to come to the House and give us an update on how those negotiations are proceeding? Would such a Minister be able to confirm that the date of 26 March for setting up a devolved Administration will not be varied in any way by the Government?
I can confirm that. Any change to the 26 March date would require emergency legislation, and the Government have made it clear that there is no possibility of further emergency legislation in relation to the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland to extend the deadline.
On the sexual orientation regulations, I associate myself with the question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and the way in which he asked it. In urging the Leader of the House to think again about a debate on the Floor of the House, I assure him that the detail of the regulations was not debated in the proceedings on the Equality Act, because there was just a regulation-making power. There was no thought about issues such as exemptions for adoption. I urge him to recognise that a debate on the Floor of the House would expose the divisions in some parties in this place and, broadly speaking, the unity among Government Members and Liberal Democrat Members in seeking to have those freedoms for lesbian and gay people.
I note the strength of feeling on the issue by people who hold different positions on the merits of the regulations. With respect, I cannot add to what I have already said about the problems of programming business on the Floor of the House given the demands. However, I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
2012 Olympics
With permission, Mr. Speaker, it gives me the greatest pleasure to make a statement on progress towards the Olympic games and the Paralympics in 2012.
This will be the world’s greatest sporting event here in our country, but it will also act as a catalyst for the most ambitious regeneration programme in recent memory. That will include the largest new urban park in Europe for more than 150 years. There will be five new permanent sports venues and a number of temporary venues, which will be used around the UK after the games. The 1 million sq ft media centre for the games will provide in legacy a state-of-the-art business space. Four thousand homes will be converted from the village, and a further 5,000 will be provided elsewhere in the redevelopment. And there will be one of the largest shopping centres in Europe, which will involve an estimated £7 billion private sector investment. That money has been invested because we won the Olympic games.
Across the country, the games will inspire a whole generation of young people to play sport, volunteer in their communities and be proud of what their country has achieved. We chose to host the games at a site where the need was greatest and where the benefits would be most keenly felt. We chose east London, because of the challenge to regenerate one of the most deprived areas not only in the UK, but in the whole of Europe. The site of the Olympic park needs remediation before construction work can even begin. That work is well under way. Essential utilities for the area need to be installed. That work is also well under way.
Developing the Olympic village requires the largest number of homes ever to be built in one place, at one time, in this country. The planning for that work is on schedule. As the National Audit Office report in January set out, when we bid for the games, we estimated the cost of the Olympic park, infrastructure and an element for community and elite sport at around £3 billion, plus an additional £1 billion as part of the wider lower Lea valley Olympic regeneration. This made the total cost of preparing for the games and Olympic regeneration just over £4 billion. Those costs were net of tax and of wider security costs.
I made it clear to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 15 May 2005, which was before we won, that if we were successful, I would institute a detailed review of costs. That review began in early autumn 2005, after we had won the bid. The budget for every venue, every bridge and every facility on the park has been scrutinised. The Olympic Delivery Authority’s private sector delivery partner, CLM, has unrivalled expertise in advising five Olympic cities on their plans. CLM has made a detailed study of the site and all the attendant risks inherent in a project of this magnitude and tight time scale. The site master plan has been amended to avoid potential costs in the region of £600 million. However, other costs have been judged to have increased, as I set out for the Select Committee in November, resulting in a net increase of £900 million.
We will now set a budget for the ODA, the body established to manage the delivery of all the structural and regeneration elements of the games, and I can today confirm what the budget will be. The ODA will be given a budget to cover the construction costs as a whole of up to £5.3 billion up to 2012. That comprises £3.1 billion for building the Olympic park and venues—the core Olympic costs—£1.7 billion for Olympic infrastructure and regeneration linking the park to the rest of the lower Lea valley and a £500 million allowance for programme contingency, which represents 12 per cent. of the total programme contingency that has been allowed. I am placing a summary of the ODA 2007-08 business plan in the Library today as well as details of this investment.
Those costs, as in the 2004 bid, are net of tax. The ODA will pay tax, but the cost at around £840 million will be covered in full by the Government contribution. I can assure the House that the tax treatment of the ODA will have no impact on other funders. The Government have also decided that as the funder of last resort, it is prudent that a programme contingency should be held within Government under very tight conditions. This will be drawn on should the need be demonstrated, so as to ensure that the timetable is met and that quality is maintained. The level of contingency is £2.7 billion, of which, as I have said, £500 million will form part of the base budget of the ODA. Within that overall budget, we have also allocated a figure of £600 million for wider security, which is on top of the ODA budget for site security. This £600 million figure has fluctuated as assessments have changed and will obviously be subject to continued oversight and scrutiny in the coming months and years by the relevant Cabinet Committee, the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police.
Lastly, as we announced at the time of the bid, around £390 million will be invested in non-ODA provision, including in sport—for example, community coaches—and in the Paralympics. That figure was included in the public sector funding package, but it is not part of the ODA budget.
Let me turn now to how the budget will be funded. At the time of our Olympic bid, the lottery and the London contribution was estimated at £2.4 billion, and as I told the House on 2 February 2006, the Government will contribute a further £1 billion as part of our commitment to Olympic regeneration.
I can announce today that central Government provision will be £6 billion. This comprises the £1 billion already committed for Olympic regeneration, the funding of the tax bill, broader regeneration, infrastructure within the park, wider security and programme contingency. Without any further increase for London council tax payers beyond that already committed, or any increase in transport fares to fund the Olympics, the Mayor will over the lifetime of the Olympic programme be making a further £300 million available to help meet Olympic costs.
The lottery will make a further contribution of £675 million. This will mean a total contribution of £2.2 billion from the lottery, which is 20 per cent. of lottery income for good causes from 2005, when the Olympic lottery started, to 2012-13. In addition to the £410 million already confirmed, which will be shared according to the normal lottery shares, I propose to transfer after 2009 £425 million from the Big Lottery Fund and £250 million from the other good causes. No transfer will be made from UK Sport, which is responsible for preparing our sportsmen and women for the Beijing Olympics and the London Olympics in 2012. The decision to take a further share from the lottery has been taken only after very careful consideration, and implementation will take place only after full consultation about the implications with the lottery distributors and the other stakeholders.
The original memorandum of understanding made it clear that should we win the games, we would call on the lottery to help fund them. I believe that that principle is widely accepted. However, I am determined to ensure that this temporary diversion from the existing good causes to the Olympic good cause is done with the least possible disruption. I will continue to consult the lottery distributors about how best this can be done, but I assure the House that it is the Government’s intention that no existing lottery projects need be affected. We have also agreed with the Big Lottery Fund that resources for the voluntary sector will be protected and will, as it expects, continue to receive the £2 billion from the Big Lottery Fund between now and 2012. The decision on the lottery will be subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses in due course.
London 2012 will bring financial gain to London and, indeed, across the country. For example, land values in the Olympic park are expected to increase considerably as a result of the investment that we are making. In my view, it is only fair that the lottery good causes, having contributed to the Olympics, should share in any such windfall. The Mayor of London and I have agreed that we will rewrite our memorandum of understanding and put in place profit-sharing arrangements to enable the lottery and future regeneration needs of the local area to benefit from the returns on the investment that we are making in the Olympic park.
As I told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the NAO has agreed to work closely with us in scrutinising the budget from now on, and the team overseeing the project in the ODA has a world-class reputation. This makes generous funding provision for the project as a whole, of which £3.1 billion is the core Olympic cost, net of tax and contingency.
Only a fortnight ago, the International Olympic Committee said that it was “assured and impressed” by the work under way after its visit to London. The announcement that we make today means that it is full steam ahead for 2012. The London Olympics will change Britain for the better for ever. The fact of hosting the Olympic games is already changing lives and communities and building ambition. I commend that, and this statement, to the House.
I start by thanking the Secretary of State for her statement and for honouring her commitment to warn us last night that it was coming. Let me also place on the record my party’s congratulations to the organising committee, which announced Lloyds TSB as its first top sponsor yesterday.
I only saw the statement 20 minutes ago, but three indisputable facts stand out. First, if one adds together all the separate parts, the budget for which the Government are responsible has nearly trebled since the London Olympics Bill left Parliament under a year ago—[Interruption.]
Order. Members should let the hon. Gentleman ask his questions, whether they agree with them or not.
Secondly, as a consequence, in raiding the lottery for a further £675 million to make up the shortfall, the Government will penalise precisely the clubs and small organisations throughout the country that were supposed to benefit from the Olympics.
Thirdly, as the Secretary of State has given us only the main column headings, we do not yet have the full, open and transparent budget that was necessary to restore confidence in the financing of London 2012.
As time is short, I should like to ask the Secretary of State five questions. The first concerns disclosure. As a result of information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we now know that KPMG identified serious risks to the Olympic budget as early as October 2005, yet a month later the Secretary of State was still assuring the House:
“we believe that our budget is sound.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1224.]
The Minister for Sport assured the House—Members will enjoy this—
“I shall never forget the person who said, ‘Do not underestimate the budget. If you have to go higher, it will be seen as a failure so make sure your calculations are realistic.’”—[Official Report, 21 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1505.]
The Bill did not leave Parliament until March 2006—a clear six months after KPMG had first raised concerns. My first question for the Secretary of State is therefore this: when were she and the Treasury first aware of concerns that the original budget was not deliverable, and why did not she share those concerns with Parliament?
Secondly, on contingency, the requirement to add whole project contingency to the individual project contingency already built into the bid has added, as the Secretary of State told us, £2.7 billion to the Olympic budget. Why did the Treasury and the Chancellor fail to identify that cost when they signed off the original budget?
Thirdly, on tax, given that we lifted our structures directly from Sydney, where no VAT was payable, and that VAT was not payable for the Manchester Commonwealth games, why did the Treasury and the Chancellor sign off the bid budget, without VAT, before adding, as the Secretary of State announced, a further £840 million to the budget? Can she assure the House that this is, indeed, simply a case of transferring balances and that no tax money will actually be collected?
Fourthly, on the private sector contribution, the NAO report highlighted the fact that £738 million was to come from the private sector in order to reduce the need for public funds—and is, presumably, still part of the new budget announced today. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has so far refused to answer any parliamentary written questions on this issue, always merely saying that it will let me have a reply in due course. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain to the House how that figure was reached, and will she confirm that it is still robust? If it is not, further public money will clearly be required to fill that additional shortfall.
Finally, on the lottery, the Secretary of State has announced that she will raid the national lottery for a further £675 million to pay for the Olympics. Despite the fact that
“enabling young people through sport”
was one of the key elements of the bid, the element of funding for sport that comes through the lottery has now been cut from the 25 per cent. that was originally proposed when the lottery was set up to about half under today’s proposals—a point consistently made by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. Can she confirm exactly what percentage sport—and, indeed, heritage, the arts and the Big Lottery Fund—will get under these new proposals, and, crucially, what assessment she has made of the financial impact of this in each and every constituency throughout the country?
Many Members in this House supported the Olympics and support them still. My party is among them. However, this statement confirms that the cost has almost trebled in the year since the Bill left Parliament and that the lottery will bear an extra £675 million shortfall. One of the key drivers for that is that the Treasury and the Chancellor signed off the original budget but failed to allow for VAT, at £840 million, or for contingency, at £2.7 billion, which they have now added to the bill.
The key thing now is for the Government to put a full, open and transparent budget in the public domain so that everybody knows who is paying for what, and when, and then to stick to it. That will do more than anything else to restore public confidence in the London 2012 Olympics. If they do not do that, I fear that the Secretary of State, or her successor, will be standing in front of us a year from now to admit that costs have risen further.
The hon. Gentleman must work harder to persuade not only the House but the country that the Opposition are behind the Olympics instead of taking every opportunity to undermine the excellent work that is being undertaken not only in London but throughout the country to support the games.
Let me deal with the specific questions. As I took care to set out in my statement, I have referred at every stage—before and after we won the bid—to the cost review that is under way. The hon. Gentleman must understand the scale and complexity of reviewing not only the time scales but the contractual expectations and other management aspects of every single project. That is why we have a world-class delivery partner, which has undertaken that work for us. Similarly, I signalled that the cost review, which was begun almost immediately after we won the bid, would be necessary before we became the host city.
On the prudence of a programme contingency, VAT and other provision that the Government are making, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the clear distinction between the budget for the ODA, which I set out today—the money we expect it to spend—and the funding provision to safeguard the project against any as yet unforeseen risks. That is a clear distinction.
There is a specific reason for Manchester’s exemption from VAT. The Commonwealth games operated on a host city basis and local authorities are exempt from paying VAT.
We have now allowed for private sector contribution in the budget, but on a pessimistic basis against the full expectation of what might be raised from that sector. Negotiations are under way all the time with different private sector partners, so it is possible, but not certain, that that may change. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about private sector investment in the Olympic park, I refer him to the confidence that Westfield has shown in investing in the largest retail park at Stratford city and residential development because of the Olympic games.
Let me deal with the point about raiding the lottery. Such criticism is hard to take from an Opposition who made a manifesto commitment to wind up the Big Lottery Fund, which they are now defending, and conduct some sort of moral audit of grants that it made. Nothing has done more to galvanise sport and ambition among young people in this country than the prospect of London hosting the Olympic games. We are guardians of that ambition. Despite the knocks from the Opposition, we shall continue to be so.
We remain delighted that London won the right to host the 2012 games. The involvement of Lloyds TSB is clearly great news. Properly managed, the 2012 games will bring huge and lasting benefits to all parts of the country. Sadly, today’s statement and the chaos that has surrounded the past 12 months and more calls into question the Government’s ability to provide that proper management. Why has it taken so long to resolve some of the most basic issues?
Was not the Select Committee right to express surprise that the VAT position was not established from the start? Why has it taken so long to resolve the overall contingency? Were not the Treasury Green Book requirements known all along? How will the Secretary of State square the contingency figure with the comments of the Mayor of London? When asked about a contingency of 60 per cent., he said:
“There are no circumstances on earth under which I will agree… to a contingency of that size.”
What confidence can anyone have when the management costs of building the Olympic structure have leaped from approximately £16 million to nearly £400 million? Surely the Select Committee was right to say that cost control procedures were not fully thought through when the bid was submitted.
How can the Secretary of State have miscalculated by nearly £700 million the contribution from the private sector towards the building costs? How are the public to react when different members of the Olympic board, which is meant to be in charge of the enterprise, say different things? For example, when, in November last year, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that costs had risen by £900 million, why did the Mayor—another member of the board—say that the original figure was still the right one?
In the Secretary of State’s statement to the Select Committee that referred to £900 million, she also said,
“let me be absolutely specific about that: we are not talking about regeneration; we are only talking about the Olympic Park”.
A day later, the Mayor stated:
“The big extra costs we’re talking about are not to do with the Olympic games; they’re to do with what we do with the land around afterwards.”
Who are we to believe?
The Chancellor must rue the day when he said:
“Britain works best when Britain works together and there is no better example than our preparations for the Olympic games.”
Far from working together, the past 12 months have been characterised by chaos, confusion and in-fighting of epic proportions.
Now we have a new set of figures. The Secretary of State says that the Government are working closely with the National Audit Office. Will she confirm that the NAO has verified the new budget? Will she agree to present regular reports to Parliament for debate in Government time so that we have a regular opportunity to scrutinise the progress of the Olympics?
Will the Secretary of State reconsider her plans to make a further raid on national lottery good causes? Surely she realises that the benefits of hosting the 2012 games rely on legacy. A new hit on the lottery of the extent that she proposes represents a cut of £1 million to every constituency in the land. The very projects that would help secure lasting benefits in those constituencies are now under threat, as will be the good will that currently exists towards the games.
Today’s statement is a sad indictment of the Government’s ability to deliver the best ever games on time and, above all, on budget. The confusion, in-fighting and, above all, writing of blank cheques must end.
That is a rant worthy of Victor Meldrew that does not take us any further on. If one believes everything that is written in the papers—the work of our dear friends the journalists who watch our work—rather than working through the solutions to difficult problems, I suppose one feels that one can justify such a rant. I have always invited the Opposition parties to be part of the plans to develop the games and to champion them and young people’s ambitions. Yet they default at every turn to a position of point scoring, party political advantage, allegation and slur. The Olympics will be legacy games. One can build temporary structures in any part of any city and host Olympic games. The games that we host will create a legacy in one of the poorest parts of our country. My Labour colleagues and I celebrate that as an expression of why we are in politics.
May I caution the Secretary of State not to treat every question that raises an important issue as meaning that people oppose the Olympic games?
Will she give a commitment that not one single grass-roots sports project in constituencies will be cut as a result of the move from lottery money at the grass-roots? What will happen if the public suddenly change their minds and stop buying or buy fewer lottery tickets?
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and I welcome her support for the Olympic games. It is absolutely right that the decisions, costs and every aspect of the Olympics should be subject to scrutiny. I have set out today as best I can both the consequences of a further take from the lottery and the safeguards that we are extending. I have made it absolutely clear that it is not the Government’s expectation that any current lottery-funded project should see its funding either cut or withdrawn as a result of the Olympics. The problem, of course, lies with giving an absolute blanket assurance in respect of hundreds of thousands of lottery projects throughout the country, as some may close for reasons quite unrelated to the Olympic games. My assurances about lottery-funded projects have been put on the record in the House today and I am absolutely sure that all hon. Members will come back if they find the consequences in their constituencies to be any different.
Is the Secretary of State aware that today’s announcement that another £675 million has been taken from the lottery on top of the existing £1.5 billion will be greeted with dismay by arts and heritage organisations, charities and grass-roots sports? Will she accept that that makes it all the more imperative that those causes should not suffer a double hit with an announcement of a cut in direct grant funding as a result of the comprehensive spending review? Can she give the House an absolute guarantee that this is the final figure for the call on the lottery, and that if there are any further increases in costs beyond the figures announced today, they will not be taken from the lottery but met by the Treasury through central Government expenditure?
I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, this is intended to be the final lottery contribution to the costs of the Olympic games between now and 2012. Secondly, we should not forget that a major part of the Olympics and Paralympics will be the cultural Olympiad, which starts next year when London becomes the host city and Liverpool becomes the capital of culture. There is not a single aspect of our heritage, our culture, our community sport or our national life that cannot be enriched by our hosting of the Olympic games. Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the comprehensive spending review, but without wishing to be coy, I am sure he will accept that that is an announcement for the Chancellor, not for me.
I welcome this pinning down of the finances—[Interruption]—particularly the money that is already being spent in my constituency. I also welcome the commitment to fund the broadcast centre—a proper legacy for jobs and business in Hackney. Will my right hon. Friend tell me and the House what work she and other agencies are doing to ensure that the money that she has unveiled and discussed today is recycled so that local and UK businesses are in a good bid position—ready to bid for the contracts that will come up? That will help to ensure that the money is invested in jobs and businesses in the UK, east London and London as a whole.
I thank my hon. Friend for her work to support the Olympics in her own constituency, which will ensure that her constituents benefit from the job and training opportunities as well as the sporting opportunities that will arise from hosting the games. It is well known that 12,000 or so new jobs will be made available and the commitment to pre-volunteering is also important, because some socially excluded people in the Olympic boroughs will have the opportunity to get into work and to acquire the skills that will keep them in work. That will stem from their volunteering in the run-up to the games.
My hon. Friend has made a very important point, because part of the legacy of the games will be world-class facilities and a new urban park in one of the poorest parts of the country. Another legacy is just as important to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of other colleagues with east London constituencies—the prospect of new jobs and new skills in a part of London where unemployment is significantly higher than in the rest of the country.
May I gently say to the Secretary of State that it is possible for an east London MP to be in favour of the Olympics and also utterly astonished at the change in the budget figures announced today, which will so affect my constituents? May I, without any ranting, simply ask her to answer the following questions? First, will she now guarantee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) requested, that there will be no further increases in demands on the lottery fund? Secondly, will she also guarantee—the Secretary of State will forgive me for not trusting the Mayor, as she may do—that no further demands will be placed on council tax payers in my constituency?
On the first question, I have said clearly that there will be no further call on the lottery between now and the Olympic games in 2012. On the second, the Mayor has also made it absolutely clear that he does not expect to levy further council tax increases on Londoners.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and I would like to say how important it is to keep stressing the part of the Olympics that money cannot buy—not just the legacy, but the hopes, aspirations and dreams of many young people, especially in my constituency of Brent, South. I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the opening of the Willesden sports centre. We hope that at least five to 10 of those young people will be able to compete and win medals in the games. It is also important to stress that some of the Olympic games will come to Wembley stadium—[Interruption]—and I would like to tell the House that that will be opened on Saturday. As I said at the outset, it is so important to stress the aspects that money cannot buy.
I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend. The ambition of the young people now training at the Willesden sports centre to win medals at the London Olympics is unequivocal. All power to their success. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say, despite all the cynical barracking from Opposition Members, that Wembley stadium will be one of the finest in the world. It will host the football events in the 2012 Olympics.
We all regret that the Secretary of State has had to come back to the House as she has. In all honesty, I suspect that on 5 July 2005 she did not expect us to win the Olympic bid; hence the budget was much slacker than it otherwise might have been. She rightly points that there has to be legacy, and that providing a catalyst for regeneration is the raison d’être of the Olympic games. We all know that it will be a spectacle and a great sporting success in 2012, but without that legacy it will have been a wasted opportunity. My fear is that with the budget now set at £6 billion—much higher than the original budget—it is the regeneration that will be lost if costs continue to spiral as they have. Will the Secretary of State—
Order. A question can be inferred from what the hon. Member has already said.
I think that we should ask for a declaration of interest from Conservative Members before every contribution, if what they really mean is that it would have been better if we had not won the Olympic games bid. [Interruption.] To deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point, yes, legacy is absolutely—[Interruption.]
Order. There may be tensions in the House about this issue, but the Secretary of State must be heard, as must every hon. Member who is asking questions.
The hon. Gentleman’s question is specifically about legacy. The investment in regeneration and Olympic infrastructure in and around the Olympic park is precisely about legacy, because the sporting venues that will be built will be used for decades to come—long after the 60 days of the Olympics and Paralympics. That is one of the reasons why we should look at this not just as a cost but as an investment in the quality of life of those communities for decades to come.
A key aspect of the legacy is that it will bring into beneficial use a huge area of land in east London that is very close to the City, but hitherto could not be used because of its highly contaminated nature. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State mention profit sharing in relation to the added value of the site. Does she intend to return to the House with more details of those profit-sharing arrangements? If not, will she ensure that there is another opportunity to examine how the profit will be shared between regeneration projects and returns to the lottery fund?
I will of course provide the House with details of the redrafted memorandum of understanding between the Mayor of London and me, which will set out how the profit sharing will work.
Will the Secretary of State, as a fellow London MP, concede that additional money will now have to come from London taxpayers, despite the agreement that there should be no increase in the Olympics tax? The £300 million that needs to be found by the Mayor will have to come either from a reprioritisation of his budget or from an increase in that other element of council tax, the main council tax itself. Will not additional money also have to come from London taxpayers through the so-called profit sharing, bearing in mind that the London assembly had previously been assured that all the money coming from the increased value of the land would be secured by the London Development Agency? Now that extra money is to be taken away from Londoners.
Let me deal specifically with that point. The intention will be to return to the LDA the cost of the land that it has acquired for the Olympics. Any profit resulting from the sales will be shared between the lottery and the regeneration of the east end.
As a number of Members have already pointed out, what is unique about these Olympics is the legacy and regeneration benefits. Regeneration is critical to the area, which is one of the most deprived parts of the country. It will involve 9,000 homes, a shopping centre and a media centre—and I could go through all the benefits and additional jobs that have been mentioned. I understand that the infrastructure costs have risen from £1 billion to £1.7 billion. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much of that increase is due to inflated construction costs, and how much will be additional regeneration benefits that will link not only the five boroughs but the rest of London and the rest of the country to all the benefits that the Olympics will bring?
In relation to construction costs, when I appeared before the Select Committee on 21 November I made it clear that we had revised the estimate of construction inflation from 5 to 6 per cent. and that we had allowed for the cost resulting from that. My hon. Friend has been an incredible champion of the Lea Valley athletics centre, which is a state-of-the-art world-class training facility just up the road from Stratford. That is a good example of how regeneration can be brought to a deprived community through world-class investment in sport.
Will the Secretary of State accept that many people in London will regard the suggestion that Manchester is a different kind of host city from London as the biggest load of baloney yet to come from her Department on this subject? Given her announcement that the memorandum of understanding between herself and the Mayor is to be rewritten, will she undertake that it will spell out specifically that there will be a binding cap on council tax increases for Londoners, and that it will give a specific indication of how much money will be given away by the London Development Agency to the rest of the country through the percentage of the profit to be transferred out of the LDA—
That’s a vote for Paris.
That is right: that was a vote for Paris.
I want to deal with the matter of VAT status. The city of Manchester ran the Commonwealth games, and it was therefore exempt from VAT. London is constituted on a different basis, as it is making a contribution to the cost of the games. I, too, am a London Member of Parliament, and I do not think that those of us who represent London constituencies need a binding cap on the take from the council tax, because we know precisely—and are sensitive to—the views of our constituents. I am quite sure that the rewriting of the memorandum of understanding between the Mayor and me will reflect that.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her assurances about the position of London council tax payers. However, there is a concomitant concern that a loss of other resources might occur. We shall have to return to that issue over time. Will she give me an assurance that in the search for private sector partners—especially sponsors—to fund the games, regard will be given to those whose commercial activities conflict with Government health priorities, particularly those in the fast food and food processing industries?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I would like to remind him of the scale of private sector investment that has already come into London as a direct result of the games, and of the potential tourism dividend, which has been estimated at between £1.4 billion and £2 billion, 40 per cent. of which is expected to be enjoyed not by London but by the rest of the country. I understand what my hon. Friend’s question about private sector partners is getting at, but a number of the sponsors are nominated and contracted by the International Olympic Committee rather than directly by the host city.
The Secretary of State should be aware that people in my constituency in west London will be profoundly sceptical about her statement that the Mayor does not expect to increase the council tax for London beyond current commitments. I want to ask her a simple question: can she guarantee that my constituents’ council tax will not rise beyond current commitments?
The decision about council tax is a decision for the Mayor. It is not a decision for me as Secretary of State and Olympics Minister. I have set out for the House this morning the budget for the Olympic Delivery Authority and I have indicated the scale of the wider funding provision. There is a memorandum of understanding, and the Mayor has made his position very clear. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this point—which, again, I take as a vote for Paris—he should take it up with the Mayor.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that some members of the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, will be devastated by the fact that she has set this budget today, because it takes away the one weapon that they had with which to attack the 2012 Olympic games? Does she share my frustration that some of the wider benefits of the games—the regeneration, the improved transport infrastructure, the housing—have been included in the public perception of the costs of the Olympics, which takes away from the perception of the huge benefits that we will see in London?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message not only for London Members of Parliament but for those representing constituencies up and down the country is that there will be opportunities for all their constituents, and they can help them to achieve them. So the responsibility also lies with them. My hon. Friend referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and I would remind him that we welcome the National Audit Office report on the Olympic games. In presenting the budget and the wider funding provision today, we have addressed the outstanding risk about which the NAO expressed concern, in what was overall an extremely positive report.
Hear, hear!
Yes, it is good to have a non-London Member asking a question about the cost of the Olympic games. The cost will be borne equally by my constituents, who receive as much national lottery funding as anyone else. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what assessment she has made of the impact on the sporting bodies, especially those outside London, that will now lose their budgets because of this extra raid on the national lottery of £675 million? Who will be the losers? The Government will get a gold medal for the biggest increase in the cost of an Olympic games ever. The Olympic rings are hanging like a noose over future generations, who will have to pay the huge debt that the Government have created. They have completely lost control of the financing of the Olympic games.
Order. I do not want non-London Members to suppose that they must speak for longer than London Members. I am trying to allow every Member who wants to speak to do so. Another important statement and then a debate on higher education are to follow, however, so I would appreciate short questions and concise answers.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I fear for the health of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) when he rants as he does. Briefly, the answer to his question is that the lottery is not the only source of money for sport in this country. That is why so many more young people have been taking part in sport and so much more has been achieved. Sport has been enjoying an unprecedented level of investment, and we need that to continue.
Dick Pound, who was on the International Olympic Committee for 20 years, said that the bid books were the best piece of creative accounting he had ever seen. Given the legacy of Atlanta, Sydney and Athens, we should not be surprised to know that, by and large, the figures double. I ask my right hon. Friend to step back from the lottery £625 million. I sit on the South East England Development Agency and Kent county council Olympic groups, and we need a challenge fund to bid for elements of the Olympics in 2012. Therefore, if she is going to take some of the lottery money away, will she reconsider the 12p in the pound that the lottery takes in tax and use that 12p, not cuts in the lottery, to resolve the dilemma?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party group on the Olympics. As I always say when he raises this question, lottery duty is a matter for the Chancellor.
During those heady, euphoric, nonsensical days when London was first awarded the Olympic games, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru were alone in warning of the spiralling costs and highlighting the threat to our national lottery, while the other Opposition parties were compliantly silent. Surely it is not credible or realistic to suggest that further raids on the lottery will not result in real pain. Why should grass-roots sports and good causes in my constituency lose out to pay for the regeneration of east London, when the London taxpayer will not pay a penny more?
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman supported the idea of the Olympic games in London or in Paris—but perhaps he does support the prospect of holding the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I welcome the support in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the London Olympics. Young people in those countries will also be beneficiaries of the unprecedented investment in sport.
It is the duty of every Member of the House to scrutinise budgets and make sure that we get value for money, particularly with expensive schemes such as the Olympics. What the Opposition have shown, however, is that they know the cost of everything and the value of absolutely nothing. Over the past two generations, the affected part of east London has seen factories, docks and, south of the river, the Woolwich arsenal close. Is not two thirds of the budget announced by my right hon. Friend for infrastructure and regeneration? If what we have heard in the Chamber is the sort of publicity that the Olympics is going to get, it is important for the Olympic movement to make every community a part of the games, to overcome the penny-pinching and negativity of Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To sound a note of warning to the Opposition, I remind them that public support is with the Olympics. In every school in this country, young people are counting the years and the months until the Olympics. The Olympics have lifted prospects, ambitions and aspirations, as more young people take part in sport. The approach of the Conservative party is to say that it is a great supporter of the Olympics, but then to seek to destabilise, carp and criticise at every turn.
It is possible to be in favour and yet express concern. Is the Secretary of State aware that all those who are concerned about arts and heritage matters, for which she has national responsibility, fear a destructive distortion in her budget over the next five years? They fear that she will go down in history as the most expensive lady since Helen of Troy, whose face launched a thousand ships—and those, at least, were operational.
The hon. Gentleman, who has a proud and distinguished reputation for representing the heritage in this House and beyond, is being a touch apocalyptic. The Government welcome scrutiny of everything that we and our associated partners are doing in relation to the Olympics. We deplore, however, the cynicism that undermines the optimism felt by young people up and down the country.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will she ensure real engagement with local communities through the nations and regions group, so that all communities outside London can see the benefits of the games, especially in increased participation in sports, which I believe will be one of the strongest legacies of the games?
My hon. Friend has set an example in her constituency for how enthusiasm for the Olympics can be brought together through local organisations, sports clubs and local sponsorship. I hope that Members from both sides of the House will rise to that challenge. She is absolutely right that sustaining public confidence and support for the Olympics means making clear the benefits that will come to towns, cities and communities across the United Kingdom. That is what we want to achieve.
The Secretary of State should apologise to the House for presiding over such a shambles, allowing costs to spiral out of control by so much so quickly, and expecting good causes and charities in our constituencies to bail her out. How much confidence can we have in the new budget, given that there are another five years to go until the Olympics? If she has not already been sacked, will she resign if she has to come back and demand more money for the games?
I wonder what young people who may read or watch this debate at home—if they have nothing better to do—must make of the Conservative party’s attitude. [Hon. Members: “Scrutiny.”] Scrutiny is absolutely fine, but cynicism is not. Of course we will continue to be scrutinised, to explain and to justify, but I will never apologise for having had the vision and confidence to bid for the Olympic games and, against all the expectations of the nay-sayers, win it for London.
With more than 40 major construction contracts likely to employ more than 20,000 people, many of whom will come from the west midlands, does my right hon. Friend agree that framing the contract is now vital? What the construction industry needs is certainty about who—preferably, a single organisation or even a named person in that organisation—is making the decision. Does she further agree—
If there were an Olympic sport for—
Order. The hon. Gentleman should know to sit down as soon as I rise to my feet. He had a good ration.
To focus for a moment on procurement, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Olympic Delivery Authority has already published its principles for good procurement, which laid heavy emphasis on the importance of sustainability for the games. Yes, the governance procedures are clear and robust, precisely as is necessary to ensure that the project is delivered on time and with proper cost control.
I was delighted to hear the Minister talk of opportunity. I am also delighted that in Northampton my colleague the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and I are working together so closely to ensure that we exploit all the opportunities. I pay tribute to her energy and dedication in that regard.
As the Minister will know, the development of Crossrail may take place at the same time as the development of facilities for the Olympic Games. That will involve an enormous amount of resources, which will be focused on London. I am concerned about how the rest of the country will be affected, and I therefore ask whether any assessment—
Order. That was a good ration as well.
I think that we should hear it for Northampton! My admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is undimmed on learning of the steps that she has taken. As for Crossrail, decisions will be made in due course, but I have always made clear that there is no reliance on Crossrail for the Olympic transport plan, which is very well advanced.
Will my right hon. Friend assure us that if lottery money is to be diverted, she will begin with the arty-farty projects? I am thinking, for instance, of the £2 million that we gave the Churchill family for paintings that 95 per cent. of the British public have never seen and have no desire to see. Will my right hon. Friend also assure us that the construction contracts will be given to British companies employing British-registered workers, complying with British employment law and using British products?
I can tell my hon. Friend that the ODA takes what he said in the second part of his question very seriously. As for the first part, without substituting my judgment for that of the distinguished lottery distributors, I remind him of the safeguards that the settlement provides for the voluntary and community sector, which the lottery enables to play a vital part in the life of communities throughout the country.
May I make the Secretary of State an offer which I hope she will not refuse, and which may even cheer her up? Would she like to come to the midlands with me this weekend? If she does, she will see that construction there is delivered at about 25 per cent. of the cost of construction in London. If this really were a national rather than a London Olympics event, there would be far more building in the regions, which would solve some of the problems that the Secretary of State faces today.
I can resist the hon. Gentleman’s invitation, because I was in the midlands yesterday or the day before, and while I was there, I was told by the Olympics director of Birmingham city council that the American track and field team would be based in Birmingham in the run-up to the games. There have been some 700 expressions of interest in hosting preparation camps, and the midlands are getting in early to ensure that the benefit of the Olympics will extend to Birmingham.
Political Parties (Funding)
With permission, I shall make a statement about the report of the review of party funding by Sir Hayden Phillips entitled “Strengthening Democracy: Fair and Sustainable Funding of Political Parties”, published earlier this morning. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.
In a written ministerial statement this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thanked Sir Hayden, on behalf of the Government, for his hard work over the past 12 months. In the course of his review, Sir Hayden received submissions and held discussions with representatives of all the major political parties, as well as consulting the public, the Electoral Commission and various academic experts.
Sir Hayden's report identifies important principles that could form the basis of a lasting settlement of the party funding system. However, as Sir Hayden himself concedes, a number of practicalities remain to be worked out and will require further discussion between the parties. We will play a full and constructive part in those talks.
The issue of party political finance and spending is central to the debate about the health of our democracy. There is a keen public interest in securing lasting reform in a way that curbs wasteful spending, does not gratuitously advantage one party at the expense of others, and does not interfere in the internal structures of any political party.
If the various political parties can agree on a reform package that meets those objectives, we will have a funding regime that will increase public confidence in the probity of the democratic process and help stimulate grass-roots renewal of our parties.
The most compelling need identified by Sir Hayden is the need to end the political spending “arms race”, which has seen expenditure spiral upwards even as party memberships have declined. In the 1997 to 2001 Parliament, the Government, with all-party support, sought to tackle the problem of excessive spending with what became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Act reflected key recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Patrick Neill QC. It introduced a national limit on campaign expenditure, created the Electoral Commission, and made the funding system more transparent by requiring that all donations above £5,000 nationally and £1,000 locally be made public.
We all believed that through the introduction of those limits and that transparency, public confidence in the system could be assured; but the recent revelations about unpublicised loans to parties by individuals, resulting from a loophole in the 2000 Act, have clouded that transparency. In addition, the line between local and national spending has become blurred by developments such as political campaigning facilitated by the internet, and other advances in telecommunications. As a consequence, a modest relaxation of spending controls at local level in the 2000 Act has been exploited to an extent far beyond what was intended in the legislation.
Sir Hayden draws attention to the fact that spending by the two main parties in the 12 months before the last general election—in 2005—rose to £90 million, up nearly 40 per cent. on the £65 million spent during a similar period in 2000-01. He must be right to say that the 2000 Act
“sought to control the level of spending, but it has proved inadequate to the challenge”.
The immediate problem of transparency in relation to party loans has been resolved by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which requires that loans be publicly declared in the same way as donations. However, in his report Sir Hayden advances proposals for further reform. Crucially, he shows support for the principle of continuous spending limits at local and national level. He also proposes tighter controls on third-party expenditure, and a reformed Electoral Commission with the power, capacity and practical experience to perform its role as an effective regulator.
The importance of effective spending limits cannot be overstated. As the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs observed in its report “Party Funding”, published in December last year, the United States offers an instructive example of what can happen when political spending is left unchecked. The Committee said that in 1976, the total cost of all United States elections was $40 million. By 2004, the cost of federal elections alone had risen to $3.9 billion, 97 times higher.
Sir Hayden also recommends the introduction of caps on donations. All three main parties agree in principle that there should be some form of donation cap. The Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended a voluntary arrangement. We believe that that would work, providing enough flexibility for the different structures and traditions of the various parties to be respected.
Sir Hayden offers welcome backing for the judgment of the Constitutional Affairs Committee that
“any move to change the nature of party funding must not stray into prescriptive devices to require political parties to organise internally in ways that violate their democratic relationships with other institutions”.
Finally, Sir Hayden recommends the introduction of a higher level of state funding for political parties. The Constitutional Affairs Committee reached a similar conclusion, but recognised the need for further debate about the values and principles that should govern such funding. As a 1976 report on party funding—by a committee chaired by the then Douglas Houghton—showed, there has long been a degree of state funding in United Kingdom politics. All political parties have the opportunity to claim free television and radio broadcast slots, along with free postage. Since the 1970s, the provision of Short money and Cranborne money has given millions of pounds of state aid to the main Opposition parties. That funding has increased more than threefold since 1997. In 2006, the total amount of Short money was £6.3 million, with more than £4 million being paid to the main Opposition party.
The Neill committee noted in its 1998 report that the arguments for and against state funding were “finely balanced”. Although Neill did not recommend a major extension, his committee concluded:
“We can envisage circumstances in which substantially increased state funding of the political parties—including the funding of their general activities—might become imperative.”
Sir Hayden concludes that those circumstances now exist, and he has put forward proposals for increased state funding based on electoral support and the recruitment of members.
Our democracy could not function without the organisation of political parties of all political shades and opinions, and the platforms for debate and the exploration of ideas which the political parties provide. Their work, and in particular the work of party foot soldiers who devote time and energy to their cause, is fundamental to the health of the democratic process.
In order for them to command high levels of public support, the funding arrangements for political parties must be fair and transparent. Through earlier legislation, Parliament has taken significant steps to put such a system in place. Sir Hayden Phillips’ report has identified areas for further reform and some key principles. The task now for the political parties is to work on the practical arrangements of achieving a fairer, more sustainable and more transparent funding regime. The public would expect nothing less.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving me advance sight of his statement.
We welcome the publication of Sir Hayden Phillips’ report. We accept his main recommendations. We want to have cleaner and cheaper politics, and we want to work with the other parties to achieve that goal. However, if cleaner and cheaper politics is the goal, we start a long way from that point. The cash for peerages scandal has pushed the public’s estimation of politicians to a new low. This issue is not just about our vanity, nor is it just a joke that can be easily written off. Public cynicism about our political process is deeply damaging to our democracy, so will the Leader of the House agree to hold cross-party talks on Sir Hayden’s recommendations as soon as possible?
There is much to welcome in Sir Hayden’s report. We support the moves towards a long-term cap on donations to political parties and a reduction in the general election campaigning cap, and we are happy to discuss spending caps on all year round non-election campaigning and proposals for tighter controls on third-party expenditure, greater transparency on donations, such as those by unincorporated associations, and new powers for the Electoral Commission. Does the Leader of the House share our support for those proposals?
Sir Hayden suggests that it might be desirable to control local campaign spending outside election times, but he rightly notes the difficulties in putting that into practice, such as the variance of constituency boundaries according to the type of election, the practice of targeting marginal constituencies which is inevitable in our electoral system, and the fact that local party officers tend to be volunteers. Despite our scepticism about the need for local limits, in order to secure agreement we are prepared to consider them, but subject to one condition: that any caps imposed at local level do not entrench incumbency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to that?
It has long been the position of the Conservative party that in order to restore public trust we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions. I am glad that Sir Hayden has reached the same conclusion. Does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Hayden’s proposal that caps on donations should apply across the board—to individuals, businesses and trade unions?
Sir Hayden’s report suggests that, despite the cap on donations, trade union affiliation fees could count as individual donations on the condition that
“it is possible to trace payments back to identifiable individuals”.
Does the Leader of the House agree that any such system must be free from abuse? Does he agree that if affiliation fees are to count as individual donations it is imperative that individual trade union members are able each year to opt in to political funds, rather than being left to opt out, as is currently the case? Given that more than half of all union members who pay affiliation fees do not vote Labour, should not members who opt in to political funds be able to choose annually to which party their fees should go?
These are very important questions because it is, of course, Labour’s financial links to the trade unions that have prevented reform until now. [Interruption.] The party’s national executive committee recently pledged to “vigorously oppose plans” for an across-the-board cap on donations, saying that
“the Labour Party cannot accept a statutory uniform donation cap…It would also undermine the Labour Party federal structure and seek to amend a system of Trade Union contributions”.
However, as Sir Hayden says,
“a limit on donations need not...challenge the Party’s constitutional relationship with the trade unions”.
Does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Hayden? Three quarters of Labour’s donations—some £8.5 million per year—come from the unions, and there is another £8 million per year in affiliation fees. Is it not the Labour party’s constitutional relationship with the unions that is threatened by funding reform, and what it is particularly worried about is its financial relationship with the unions?
Sir Hayden is clear that there should be no new state funding of political parties until an agreement is reached on all aspects of reform. We agree. There should not be a single extra penny of state funding until there is a cap on all donations from individuals, companies and trade unions. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be no more state funding until that is the case? Does he also agree that any new state funding must promote democratic engagement? As the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Constitutional Affairs Committee have each concluded, that could be done through tax relief on small donations and matched funding for non-taxpayers.
We need to reform party funding if we are to get cleaner and cheaper politics, and we need cross-party consensus if we are to reform party funding. Sir Hayden’s report, published today, is a very good starting point for cross-party talks. The principal block to reform remains the Labour Party’s relationship with the trade unions. This Government came to power promising to reform party funding to end sleaze. I am sure that in new Labour’s old days the Prime Minister and Chancellor would have wanted to be bold by ending the unions’ financial grip on their party. That is the key to achieving consensus on party funding, so will the Leader of the House now accept that challenge?
Of course we would like the all-party talks to take place soon, but I must say to the right hon. Lady that they will have to take place on the basis of what is actually in Sir Hayden Phillips’ report, rather than on what she wishes was in his report.
The right hon. Lady talks about state funding. Sir Hayden proposes that that must be linked to other changes, and of course we accept that. There is a big issue, which the Constitutional Affairs Committee raised, to do with ensuring public consent for the idea of extended state funding—it is not that there is no state funding at the moment; it is about extending state funding.
I wondered how quickly the right hon. Lady would try to turn the issues covered in the report to suggesting that the big problem was trade union funding, and it certainly did not take her long. It is simply untrue that Sir Hayden anywhere says that the “principal block”, to use the right hon. Lady’s phrase, to solving the problems is the issue of the trade unions. More to the point, she knows that, in all this public concern about some aspects of trade union funding, there is absolutely no evidence—not a scintilla—of any problem in respect of funding by the trade unions. She also knows that her party went through a series of so-called reforms of the method of the trade union political levy through the 1980s and up to 1992, and that in 1998 the Neill committee reported that there was no evidence that there was a case for any further reform. The Conservative party said in its evidence to the Neill committee:
“The question of trade union funding of parties is not a matter of direct concern to the Conservative party. We recognise the historic ties that bind the trade union movement with the Labour Party.”
It was content to accept the evidence that there was no case for further reform, given the fact that the Conservative Government of Margaret Thatcher had introduced a series of reforms that sought to change and undermine our system of party funding, but—consistent with their usual practice—never touched their own system.
We will have talks, but I cannot think of any one occasion in the past 50 years when the Conservative party has taken the initiative to try to clean up party funding. As recently as 5 March—[Interruption.] It has not done so when it has been in government. Of course, Conservatives will say things in opposition, but they did nothing between 1951 and 1964 or between 1970 and 1974, and the only thing that they did—although it was a big thing—between 1979 and 1997 was to seek to undermine another party’s finances while their own were maintained.
The proof of that comes from Lord McAlpine, who for a long time was the Conservative party’s treasurer. He said in his memoirs “Once a Jolly Bagman”:
“Personally, I do not think that we ever should have shown how we spent our money. The Conservative Central Office is not a charity dedicated to helping the sick and the suffering”.
He also said:
“There was a black hole in the Party’s finances…The solution was easy: we gave up publishing accounts.”
That is the approach that the Conservative party has always adopted. It has to be dragged kicking and screaming towards any sort of transparency.
Even at the last election, and notwithstanding the Conservatives’ subscription to the principles of the 2000 Act, they were up to it again—using front organisations such as the Midlands Industrial Council and other bodies to evade and avoid the principles to which they had signed up. I am glad that there has been a rapid Pauline conversion today. Only two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the chairman of the Conservative party, said in a published interview:
“Let’s be quite clear: the reason party funding needs reform is nothing to do with how much is spent.”
That is the real position of the Conservative party. We will go into these discussions hoping to seek agreement. I just hope that the Conservative party does the same.
I have to say that the opening exchanges do not immediately instil confidence in consensus being reached.
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and welcome Sir Hayden’s report. We support the principles that he so clearly sets out, as we also welcomed the report by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which preceded it. Sir Hayden correctly identifies the lack of public confidence in the party political process, and that is partly fuelled by factors such as the cash for peerages allegations, the loans scandal and the perceived influence of big donors, as well as increasing resentment of the spiralling costs of campaigns. Parties say that they have little cash to spend, but spend more and more on national campaigns.
When Sir Hayden says that nothing should be agreed until everything is agreed, that must be right in the case of the contentious issues, but does the Leader of the House agree that there are several non-contentious matters in the report—such as strengthening the policing role of the Electoral Commission—that can proceed forthwith and do not need consensus to emerge on everything else in the report?
Now is the right time for all parties in the House to engage seriously in a constructive way on the outstanding issues that Sir Hayden identifies. I suggest to the Leader of the House that three issues are outstanding on which it will be difficult, if not impossible, for us to reach agreement. One has already been clearly identified in the opening exchanges: the limits on individual donations. We have always strongly supported the view that there should be a limit on individual donations, but does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Hayden when he says that the principal defence against avoidance will be public opprobrium? Does not experience suggest that public opprobrium is insufficient and that we need statutory support and clear regulation if limits are to be introduced?
The issue of the trade unions is important in terms of public perception and the discussions that we must have. I understand some of the reservations that the Labour party has on the issue, but I do not believe that it is impossible to reach a solution that takes account of those concerns and, at the same time, produces a binding limit on individual donations.
The second issue is the limit on campaign spending. Is it not outrageous that in individual constituencies, particularly marginal ones, we have a gross, continuing and routine abuse of the spirit of electoral law by the application of massive expenditure from central sources in campaigning in order to affect the result without it appearing on the accounts of individual candidates? Does not that need to be addressed, and as a matter of urgency?
The third issue is perhaps less difficult, but it is the linking of future funding to membership. I strongly support the view that we should encourage local engagement, but I can see serious difficulties in defining membership and avoiding abuse of that process if simple membership of a party leads to the unlocking of state resources. We need to reach consensus on that.
I hope that we can now proceed from the basis of a firm starting point. I wonder whether Sir Hayden will be involved, given the work that he has done so assiduously over the past year, in the cross-party discussions which now need to take place. We need good will and determination on the part of all parties if we are to produce a system that is transparent, fair and restores public trust. No party should have a veto on the grounds of partisan advantage, but nor should any party’s legitimate concerns be ignored. This work is essential and urgent.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive response to this issue. I think that he has answered his own question about whether anything can be agreed until everything is agreed. In the end, this House and the other place have to make decisions, and he described the process appropriately: no party should have a veto on sensible reforms that are likely to carry public support, but at the same time the discussions and any agreement that can be reached have to take account of the legitimate interests of all the parties. That is an important point for the Conservative party to bear in mind.
I say to the Conservatives seriously that they need to reflect on the point that I made earlier, which is that they have never introduced any changes in the financing regime that have adversely affected them. They have sought to change the regime that affects us, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was at it again today. She was trying to return to the opt-in arrangements in the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. Not even Margaret Thatcher tried that on. Of course there has to be a level playing field, but that requires effective spending and donation limits. I concede that the Liberal Democrats have been consistent about the issue.
It is worth pointing out that when the Liberal Democrats advanced the proposal for donation limits in 2000, I said from this Front Bench that I did not think that they were necessary. So did the Conservative party. Indeed, that remained the official position of the Conservative party until very recently, because in November 2005 the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who was a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman at the time, said in a debate on the issue that the argument about caps on donations was
“a sideshow in the debate.”—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 17WH.]
It is worth reflecting on how much the Opposition have had to move, because until recently they thought that donation caps were a sideshow and spending limits were not the issue. We look forward to movement on their part. Discussions must take place on what Sir Hayden says, not on the basis of a partisan interpretation of what he does not say.
My last point on the issue of trade unions is that there may have been a public perception about trade union funding, but it was completely dispersed by changes introduced both in legislation and by us. All opinion poll evidence shows almost zero concern about trade union spending, because it is the most transparent arrangement. Interestingly, the Better Regulation Task Force said that there is too much regulation of trade unions in that respect, not too little, and the assiduous certification officer said that there have been three complaints—only three—about the operation of the levy since 2000. Two of them were withdrawn and one rejected.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he agree that the central issue the electorate expect us to deal with is the question of both national and local spending limits? That is the driver of dodgy practices such as the Midlands Industrial Council, which we have come to know only too well, and the dining clubs in the House of Commons. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the basic reality is that the role of trade unions in relation to donations has been transparent and open? It is there for people to see. We can always put our record in comparison with that of the Conservative party: ours is one of honour.
I accept that. We changed the law on local spending in 2000. I was the Minister responsible—I put my hand up to that. We thought it would make the system as controlled but more transparent. However, it failed to do that. I accept what the right hon. Member for Maidenhead says about the need for regulation that does not deny the reality that elections are principally fought in marginal seats—of course that is true—and which takes some account of the so-called incumbency factor, although it affects different parties at different times and I do not recall its being mentioned often between 1979 and 1997, but there you go—here you go. The reason why those proposals, which emanated from the 1998 report of the Neill committee, have not worked is that there used to be a clear distinction in practice between national and local spending, but because of things such as call centres and personalised mailing the division between national and local spending has become almost non-existent. That is why we need both national and local controls on spending, for which Sir Hayden provides strong support in his report, and they should be pretty continuous.
May I welcome Sir Hayden’s report and the fact that it follows closely the lines of the Select Committee’s report? Does the Leader of the House recognise that the Committee believes unanimously that there should be voluntarily agreed binding limits on all large donations, whether individual, corporate or trade union, and a cap on all party spending, including spending outside the election period, as a precondition for more state funding? Does he realise that all the parties will have to move on from past positions? We found it was possible to do so when we saw how successfully Canadian parties had adapted to quite fundamental change that still enabled them to preserve their trade union links or their ability to engage with the electorate. Surely, the taxpayer cannot be asked to pay the parties more money unless they carry out reforms to remove large paymasters.
I accept that we all have to move on, and we are ready to do so in the spirit set out in Sir Hayden’s report. I commend the report and, for the avoidance of doubt, point out that—I think with the acknowledgement of the Constitutional Affairs Committee—I delayed publishing the Government’s formal response to the Select Committee report because we wanted to wait for Sir Hayden’s response. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman accurately quotes the recommendations. The only thing I would say is that they were relatively general; the issue now is to try to pin down those general propositions, which we welcome, into propositions that can be the subject of legislation.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative parties all round the world constantly conspire to try to keep trade unions out of politics because they fear working people engaging in the political process to advance their interests? In his talks with the other parties, will he make it clear that the democratic involvement of trade unions in the Labour party is not on the table for discussion?
Yes I will.
I thought the statement of the Leader of the House was not in the real world when he suggested that there was no longer any public concern about trade unions. The trade unions are about to have a large say in the appointment of the next Prime Minister, and they will almost certainly be the main, if not the only, funder of the Labour party at the next general election. Will the Leader of the House answer a specific question that he did not answer when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked if he agreed with Sir Hayden’s conclusion that
“a limit on trade union donations”
and affiliation fees
“need not…challenge the party’s constitutional relationship with the trade unions”?
It need not, but that requires a certain spirit of consensus from the main Opposition—the spirit that informed the hon. Gentleman when as a member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee he signed up to its report. It is not the trade unions as corporate bodies and their national executives that play a part in the election of the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party; it is 3.5 million levy payers—ordinary people across the country—who in a secret postal ballot, supervised by an external independent body, will have that right. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that those 3.5 million people, who voluntarily pay the political levy, should be denied that right?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Hayden Phillips was given that job in the aftermath of cash for peerages, starting with the Tories way back in at least 2001—as far as we know—and then encroached on by us, the Labour party? Will he also confirm that when deciding on Hayden Phillips to do that job there was not reference at any time to examining the trade union movement? Is it not ironic that despite all the big business money, and the Swiss roll-over for the Liberal Democrats, we find ourselves here in the House discussing a report from Hayden Phillips about clean money from the trade union movement that is balloted for every few years, while the Tories and the rest want to imagine that big business has played no role whatever? There should be no cap on the trade unions; the cap should be on the spending. In terms of equality, we should decide on a national spending cap of about £10 million—equivalent to the amount a party would spend in every constituency it contests—
Order. I think that is plenty.
My hon. Friend’s recollection of the history of the establishment of the Hayden Phillips inquiry is entirely right; at the time, there was not a single mention of problems with the trade unions, because there is no problem with the way that trade unions have been making contributions towards the Labour party. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) asked me about the matter when I gave evidence to the Select Committee and I invited him to provide even a sheet of evidence that suggested any concern that the current, highly transparent, highly regulated system in respect of trade unions was operating inappropriately. None was forthcoming. The Conservative party has been unable to produce such evidence; nobody has been able to produce it. The Department for Constitutional Affairs cannot and neither—as I confirmed to the Select Committee—has the Electoral Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is entirely right to say that what the Conservative party are trying to do is on the one hand say, “Yes, we’ll take part in talks,” while on the other trying to shift the issue in a rather blatant and obvious way from the real problem, which is the over-reliance by all three parties on single, large donors—with the inappropriate and completely opaque influence that can bring—to trying to suggest that the trade unions are the bogey. I am afraid that is the old Conservative approach, and they will have to wrest themselves away from it if they want consensus in the talks.
The Leader of the House, in rightly commending the review, said that the conclusions would be underpinned by the creation of a level playing field to which we would all agree, so may I ask him to turn to local funding? By allowing all of us to have up to £10,000 extra a year as a communication allowance and allowing some of our incidental expenses to go towards campaigning effectively in the constituency, do not we put those who are not incumbent at a disadvantage? When he reaches the conclusion of his all-party discussions, it must be right that other parties in a constituency should be able to spend the same amount as the incumbent Member.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a debate on the recommendation of the House of Commons Commission in respect of the communications allowance. As he will see when the report is put forward, that is about communicating in respect of our parliamentary duties and it actually proposes tightening up considerably the way in which the existing incidental expenses provision is currently used and restricting the amount that can be spent on franked envelopes from no limit at the moment to one that Mr. Speaker will set at £7,000. Yes, some additional funding will be provided for communication by Members of Parliament and all the evidence suggests— it is not a party issue at all—that that is necessary if we are to inform our electorates better. However, that will take place in more strictly controlled circumstances.
I do not want this issue to be thrown across the Chamber, but if we are talking about the amount of money that is spent locally, it has to be said that even the communications allowance will pale into insignificance compared with the amount that Lord Ashcroft is already spending and spent at the last election. He made a significant speech the other day in the other place in which he set his face against any idea of spending limits, and said that parties want to spend whatever they can. He reinforced that view in an aptly entitled book on the 2005 elections called “Dirty politics, Dirty times”.
There is a great deal to welcome in Hayden Phillips’ report. I agree with my right hon. Friend that what most damages the public perception of British politics is the suggestion that the main political parties to a greater or lesser extent are in hock to a handful of extremely wealthy individuals. As regards the political levy, does he agree that 3 million to 4 million people paying £3 or £4 voluntarily a year is the nearest thing that we have to mass politics in this country and that we ought not to throw it away lightly?
I agree with both my hon. Friend’s propositions. On the political levy, I want to say that the proportion of members of trade unions that are affiliated to the Labour party and who pay their political levy varies. It was 80 per cent. a few years ago; it is currently 90 per cent. The number of individual trade unionists who pay varies and there is a change year on year. What that shows is that trade union members are well aware of the fact that if they pay the political levy and their trade union is affiliated to the Labour party, part of the money—part only—will go to the Labour party. It is transparent and highly regulated in a way that much else in the current political funding regime is not.
Has not Hayden Phillips done an heroic job in narrowing the gap that existed between the parties a year ago and in setting out some general principles on which we should all agree? However, there is still a gap that we need to address. Of course, Opposition Members should listen to the legitimate concerns expressed by Labour Members, and some of them have been aired in this exchange. However, can the Leader of the House for the third time try to answer a question that has been put to him—whether he agrees that a limit on donations from trade unions
“need not challenge…the Party’s constitutional relationship with the trade unions”?
Is his party interested in pursuing what, on page 10 of the report, Sir Hayden regards as a “reasonable outcome”?
I thought that I had answered the question, and I apologise if I have not. Of course, the limit need not challenge the relationship—some suggestions are set out on page 10—but that depends not just on us but on the Conservative party. This is not a symmetrical issue. The Conservative party has issues with us and we have issues, as it were, in the other direction. [Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful, if the right hon. Member for Maidenhead will stop muttering.
I understand any Opposition party’s concern about incumbency and I obviously appreciate the fact that under our system—indeed, under virtually any system that we can think of—elections are fought out in marginal seats. Sir Hayden understands that and he has come forward with suggestions that try to take account of the fact that, as we all know, in safe seats the level of expenditure both at an election and well before it is very different from that in marginal seats. If there are to be limits, however flexible they are, they have to apply everywhere.
Sir Hayden Phillips was given the impossible task of seeking consensus where no consensus exists and he has performed that task heroically. He now says that we have to move on to further inter-party talks to resolve the real issues at stake. However, he says that that will be accomplished satisfactorily only if there is independent oversight of such talks. What is my right hon. Friend’s view of that?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the written statement that he issued this morning to accompany the publication of the report, has already welcomed Sir Hayden’s offer that he might chair those further discussions. We will discuss the modalities of the discussions; none of us wants to waste Sir Hayden’s time. My feeling is that we will probably wish to see some staff work and work by the three parties directly, as well having Sir Hayden chair some of the talks. However, I also endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that if this is going to work, no party should have a veto and all parties should take account of the legitimate interests of the other parties round the table. That is the only way forward. However, in the end, the House will have to make its own judgments.
Sir Hayden Phillips says that the practicalities have yet to be worked out and he refers to the three main parties. I would argue that that is perhaps an oversight. If yesterday’s edition of The Times, with its headline “Nationalists set for stunning victory in May”, is to be believed, the Scottish National party would become Scotland’s biggest party. Given the cash for peerages scandal that the SNP played a modest part in exposing and the exploitation of the loopholes in the 2000 Act, we are where we are. However, with the special situation in Scotland, should the SNP not be involved? Sir Hayden has said that he wants this process to be fair and transparent, and I would put the emphasis on fairness.
I am happy to talk both to Sir Hayden and to representatives of the hon. Gentleman’s party and Plaid Cymru about how they can be involved in the talks.
A good deal of the spending nationally at election time on posters, for example, is, as we all know, a complete waste of time and has no effect on the result. However, does my right hon. Friend not agree that having a firm legal limit on local spending but no limit during elections makes a mockery of the legal limit, especially since so much of the money is donated between elections by secretive, anonymous business organisations accountable to no one?
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of Sir Hayden’s important recommendations is that the loophole that allowed secretive third-party organisations, such as the Midlands Industrial Council and many others, to fund the Conservative party should be plugged, so they are subject to the same rules on transparency as political parties.
The amount of money spent by my political party on the last two general elections should serve as a powerful corrective to any notion that it is of any value whatsoever. If there are to be local limits, does the Leader of the House agree that there should also be rather more rigorous scrutiny of the existing rules about how allowances are spent locally?
The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself, but I note that he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, so his view makes a refreshing change. I agree with him. Many wise souls in the Conservative party as well as in our party believe that an awful lot of the money that is spent—£90 million at the last election—is wasted.
To pick up a point that has just been raised with me, I think that there is a case for examining whether voluntarily or by regulation we ban the use of posters. As far as I can tell, the only people who benefit from the posters are those who have the poster sites. The number of so-called salients and members of public who take any notice of them has dropped. Just as we are banned from advertising on television and radio, it would be a huge relief to us, and moreover to the voters, if they did not have to suffer the visual pollution of posters from all three parties, particularly in marginal seats.
rose—
Order. If the Leader of the House promises me that he will be very brief in his answers, I will try to call all Members who are seeking to question him.
Given that every trade union member can trace back their donations made under the trade union levy through headquarters accounts and given that those accounts are properly audited by external bodies and have the oversight of the trade union commissioner, is it not a reasonable proposition for those donations to be counted as individual donations?
That is one of the suggestions made by Sir Hayden, and one that we must take account of in the discussions.
Following the theme of the contributions from many Labour Members about caps on spending, does my right hon. Friend agree that having much lower levels of spending, rigorously enforced, with severe criminal penalties, would solve all the problems? Lord Ashcroft could keep his money and stop trying to buy elections for the Conservatives.
I agree. If one compares the examples of Canada and the United States, there is no question but that it is the arms race on spending that is the mother and father of the current problems.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the discussion on trade unions needs to be put in context? Since 1906, only one segment of our society has been restricted in the political donations that it can make: the trade union movement. As he has quite rightly pointed out, in 1992 that was strengthened even further. During a temporary absence from this place, I was responsible for the second round of political fund balloting for about 5 million levy payers. Does he agree that further restrictions and a further regulatory burden placed on unions would be unfair and, further, that the focus is being shifted away from where it should be: the excessive spending, particularly at a local level?
I agree with my hon. Friend. It seems to be a temptation in the bloodstream of the Conservative party to attack the funding of the Labour party.
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the Hayden Phillips report that it is now in the public interest to have rigorously enforced expenditure caps in order to deal with the huge escalation in expenditure on elections, which is against the public interest and threatens to take us in the same direction as the United States? Following his comments on the potential banning of the use of poster sites, does he agree that allowing—as they do in the midlands and in Northern Ireland—political parties to put up much cheaper posters on lamp posts achieves the idea of telling people that there is an election on? That should be allowed.
I agree with my hon. Friend’s first point. [Interruption.] Personally, although this is subject to immediate disagreement on the Front Bench, I also agree with her second point. I am envious of the way in which the west midlands handles the matter. It is a good idea and, of course, it is cheap.
What does my right hon. Friend think that the time dimension on all this is? There are those of us who have always believed that the great boast of British politics is that we do not spend much money. Clean politics is cheap politics. What worries me is that in some constituencies at the moment, as we all know, the Ashcroft money is swashing about. It is pouring in. We know that that is not really what most sensible people on the Opposition Benches want either. Often, it swashes around with particular kinds of Tories, not the average Tory.
We want to move as quickly as possible. We know that there is deep anxiety in the more sensible parts of the Conservative party about the fact that Lord Ashcroft is trying to buy up part of that party.
Sir Hayden has now completed his task and, whether he was within his remit or not, that work is done. However, Sir Hayden does not have the monopoly on good ideas for party reform. There are other academics in the country who have come up with alternative, but similar proposals. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the work of Professor Keith Ewing, and perhaps if we are taking this further, to try to include other academics in our further deliberations?
Sir Hayden would not suggest that he has a monopoly on good ideas and of course we are ready to take account of any sensible suggestions.
In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I urge him to bring forward a Bill as soon as possible to deal with the Ashcroft loophole, if necessary ahead of the party talks? It is imperative to deal with this matter well in advance of the next election. Will he also reject the view of the Phillips report and of the official Opposition that the same donations limit should apply to individuals and to organisations? Many other countries have different donation limits for individuals and organisations and it would surely be an interference in the Labour party’s constitution if the measure was imposed on us. May I also—
Order. I heard one “also”; the second “also” gives a warning sign.
My hon. Friend has taken a long interest in this matter, and moved provisions relating to donation limits in the proceedings on what became the 2000 Act. Sir Hayden makes a suggestion about the way in which the current levy paid by 3.5 million trade unionists should be treated for the purposes of any changes. On having legislation in bits, I think that, in the real world, we need to see whether we can reach agreement on a comprehensive package.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is possible to resolve the issues concerning the input of money into local political activity that Sir Hayden Phillips sets out in his report? Does he consider that the Electoral Commission could play a substantial role in auditing and maintaining those arrangements, as Sir Hayden Phillips mentions? Does he consider that, among other things, the addition of commissioners with a political background and understanding to the Electoral Commission would be helpful in that respect, as Sir Hayden Phillips also mentions in his report?
Yes. Sir Hayden makes some important recommendations, which I think are already agreed between the parties, for major reforms to the Electoral Commission, to make it, as he says, smarter, to separate its educative role, and to make it better at regulation. Crucially, not only the Constitutional Affairs Committee and Sir Hayden Phillips, but the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have all recommended that there have to be people among the commissioners who understand how political parties operate and who have experience within parties.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the spending of tens and tens of thousands of pounds in individual constituencies for the sole purpose of electing a single candidate is a real threat to a democracy and little more than an attempt to buy votes and seats? Will he therefore give his support to Sir Hayden Phillips’ recommendation for continuous spending limits at a local as well as a national level and work with the Opposition parties to try to find a way of making sure that the limits are both practical and enforceable?
I do agree with my hon. Friend and Sir Hayden Phillips’s report provides a way through, taking account, as I have said, of the fact that, inevitably, more money is going to be spent in marginal seats—but it need not be ridiculous sums more.
Next Tuesday there is yet another dinner of the United and Cecil club expressly to raise money for Tory marginal seats. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the names of the donors at those dinners, which are not on the public record, should be made transparent and put on the public record?
Yes, I do. Some £105,000 has been raised in the last two years. That is in addition to the £1.4 million that has been raised by the Midlands Industrial Council.
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), that there should be full transparency of donations? That includes fundraising front organisations, such as Conservative patrons clubs and the United and Cecil clubs. There should be a legal obligation on those organisations to publish accounts of who gives them money and who attends the fund-raising dinners they hold in this place.
Yes, I do. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidenhead is chuntering about this. She is ever anxious to impose further regulation on the trade union movement—it has been the subject of a century of further regulation by the Conservative party—but not to examine the problems in her party and the lack of transparency that has always been a feature of Conservative party funding.
Higher Education
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I am pleased to have this opportunity today for what I hope will be an informed debate about widening participation in higher education, which is rightly at the centre of the Government’s efforts to expand opportunities and life chances. As Members of Parliament, many of us will have direct experience of going to university, either as students ourselves or by having a graduate in the family. Many, like me, will be first in our families to have gone to university. I grew up in a council house and went to a comprehensive school. Without having gone to university, my life would certainly not have developed in the way that it has. I certainly do not believe that I would be standing here today as Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning.
The Government are strongly committed to ensuring that every student across all the socio-economic groups who wants a university place, and has the necessary talent and commitment, can get one, so that regardless of their background or financial position, they too can experience the challenges and benefits of study in higher education. We strongly believe that that objective is critical to the continued economic success and social well-being of this country. However, that opinion is not universally accepted. We sometimes delude ourselves into believing that we have achieved a consensus on the issue in this country.
I fear that there is still a strong body of opinion, which is most notably featured in the pages of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, that continues to argue against increased and widened participation in higher education. The opposition centres on the view that if more people are going to university, that, in some sense, devalues the degrees that are awarded. People say that quality will decline and that the Government will be interfering in admissions and fair access, and that, as a result, people from higher income groups or independent schools will miss out. I wholly reject the view that to validate one’s educational success, one has to see others fail. Frankly, such a view has held this country back for far too long.
Educational success should not be restricted to the privileged few. Increasing access to, and widening participation in, higher education is not in any sense about denying people from higher socio-economic groups or independent schools the chance to progress. It is, however, about helping everyone, whatever their background and circumstances, who wants an independent future through higher education to fulfil their potential.
I am sure that we all agree that we do not want to restrict access to further and higher education. However, does the Minister agree that one of the dangers of the way in which the Government are pursuing their policy is that they are giving the impression that the only way in which to succeed in further or higher education is to go to university? It is important to talk about a broad range of educational options that might be suitable for some, but not others.
I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman. It is not the Government’s policy to present university as the only route to educational success. One of the Government’s achievements over the past 10 years of which I am most proud is the tripling of the number of apprentices in this country. However, it is exceedingly difficult to get journalists and the national media interested in that issue. We need more people to be educated at all levels, and that certainly includes apprentices and people going through school, further education and, indeed, university.
We must be clear that ensuring that people have such an opportunity is an economic and social necessity. Failure in our education system, whether through illiteracy, high drop-out rates or an unskilled work force, breeds wider failure in our society and economy. In many senses, this is a fundamental economic imperative. I strongly believe that being a global economic leader demands a skilled and educated work force who have not only the right skills, knowledge and experience, but the ability to update them in the face of phenomenally rapid change. That change is very significant.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in acknowledging the great work that the Open university in my constituency has done for the past 30 years or so. Given that many people are considering part-time higher education, what does he propose to do to ensure that there is a level playing field for those in part-time and full-time higher education?
I am certainly happy to celebrate the achievements of the Open university, which was one of the finest creations of the previous Labour Government. The Open university was among the bodies that strongly welcomed the 27 per cent. increase in the part-time student grant that I announced last year. Indeed, the significant increase in the access to learning funds from some £3 million to £12 million has been a really important step forward that we should celebrate. The increase gives the Open university, Birkbeck and other institutions a real opportunity to thrive.
I was talking about the rapid rate of change. There is research showing that of the 12 million jobs that were expected to become vacant in this country between 2004 and 2014, 6 million would be in occupations that were most likely to employ graduates. Employers value graduate skills immensely. Over the course of a working life, a graduate, on average, earns over £100,000 more, net of tax, than someone with just two A-levels. The latest Universities UK report on the economic benefits of a degree confirms that graduates, on average, earn more, and are more likely to be in a job, than people without degrees. It also shows that higher education is likely—we should promote this very strongly—to be the best investment that a student will ever make. In addition, the report confirms that the graduate earnings premium is holding up well.
How does that £100,000 premium, which is an average, compare with the figure that was cited in the last Parliament—before I was a Member of the House—when the Bill that became the Higher Education Act 2004 was being considered? I think that the figure cited in 2004 was about four times that amount. Does the Minister think that if the research that is available now had been available then, the top-up fees Bill would have gone through?
If the hon. Gentleman had done his research a bit better, he would be aware that the £400,000 figure was the difference in earnings between a person with a degree and someone with no qualifications. The figure that I am citing is the difference in earnings between someone with a degree and a person with just two A-levels. The figures are not comparable. The body of evidence suggests that the graduate earnings premium has not declined as we have expanded participation in higher education.
One aspect of what the Minister just said was puzzling. According to Universities UK, nearly everyone with two A-levels or better goes on to higher education. The figure that he cites must therefore be calculated from a low statistical base.
That demonstrates that a little research can go an awfully long way towards misleading people. It is not the case that virtually everyone with two A-levels goes on to university. The figure that I am citing is robust. There is a sustainable graduate earnings premium. If hon. Members wish to try to decry that notion, they are doing a disservice not only to their argument, but to the young people throughout the country whom we need to inspire to participate in higher education.
There is an international dimension to the debate. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development show that there is a clear relationship between the number of graduates in the economy and increasing rates of growth in gross domestic product. Emerging economies such as India and China are developing large reserves of talent with people who are highly skilled and ready to reap the rewards of globalisation. Countries such as China and India are certainly not having navel-gazing debates about whether to expand higher education; they are just doing it. That should give us a strong pointer in the right direction. Unless we face up to the challenges that arise from the changes that are taking place around the world, and do more to educate people right through the system to higher levels, we will be blown away by the global competition.
Given the challenges that we face, what have we actually done? Increasing and widening participation in higher education is a good social policy and an invaluable economic policy. To make it a reality in this country, the Government have rightly focused on attainment, aspirations, applications, admissions and affordability, which involves delivering high-quality education to enable people to gain higher education entry qualifications; increasing people’s knowledge and understanding of higher education so that they see it as a possible and realistic option; encouraging young people to apply to the institution and course that best suits their potential and ambitions; ensuring that higher education institutions are fair, transparent and professional in the way in which they make their admissions decisions; and addressing perceived financial barriers that might deter young people from poorer backgrounds from going to university or college, or delay their going there. Through pursuing those changes, we have made a real difference.
In 1997, less than 82 per cent. of young UK higher education entrants came from state schools. Some 12 per cent. of higher education entrants came from neighbourhoods that were known to have a low proportion of young people in higher education. By 2004, the number of young UK higher education entrants from state schools had risen to nearly 87 per cent., with almost 14 per cent. of higher education entrants coming from neighbourhoods with little participation in higher education. We have certainly got more to do, but I believe that we are moving in the right direction. Overall, the number of UK students in higher education, as measured by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, has risen from 1.8 million in 1997-98 to 2.2 million in 2005-06. For those undergraduate students for whom HESA has social class data, the proportion from lower socio-economic groups has risen from 30.8 per cent. to 31.5 per cent. since 2002-03.
I have listened to the figures with interest, and particularly to those for before 2004, but according to the Government’s own figures, only a fifth of those going on to higher education are from the lowest socio-economic groups. We have not yet felt the full impact of top-up fees; when will the Minister publish those figures, broken down by demographic group, and what will he do to get more than a fifth of those from the lowest socio-economic groups into higher education?
I believe that I am right in saying that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service published the breakdown by socio-economic group when it announced the January admission figures in February, but I certainly agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says. We have made progress in widening the participation of people from lower socio-economic groups in higher education, but I am the first to admit that we have a great deal more to do. The system that we have put in place really does help young people from such backgrounds to move forward, but we need to do a great deal more genuinely to encourage them.
On that point, does my hon. Friend know whether UCAS still levies a charge for providing the information that it compiles to local Aimhigher partnerships? If it does, does he not think that that is unacceptable, and that the information should be made available, as of right, to the Aimhigher partnerships?
I am genuinely not aware of the detail on that issue, because UCAS is separate from the Government, but I will look into the matter. On the face of it, I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s point; the data ought to be available as widely as possible, and should particularly be available to Aimhigher partnerships.
My hon. Friend is right to say that a general breakdown of data has been provided, but there has been no disaggregation of the data by university. One of the main arguments put forward by those of us who opposed variable tuition fees concerned the possible deterrent effect on people from poorer backgrounds, and we were also concerned that they might consider choosing cheaper universities. We need that data, and I would be grateful if the Minister published it. We have had only two years’ worth of data, in which the figures were up and down. May I just quote Ivor Crewe, who was one of the main supporters of tuition fees—
Order. Not in an intervention; that would be extending it much too far.
Order. This is not Question Time; this is a debate, and the Minister must be given a chance to respond to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly).
If I may, I shall respond to the point that has been raised, and then I will happily take other interventions. One of the benefits and challenges of our higher education system is the fact that the Government are not directly responsible for the compilation of all statistics. A number of issues are dealt with by UCAS. I do not believe that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) is borne out by the evidence that I have seen, but I agree that thus far, nationally, the evidence on the proportion of people from lower socio-economic groups going to university under the new system is encouraging. However, we need to see that information on a university-by-university basis as quickly as possible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was merely trying to help my hon. Friend the Minister to answer an earlier intervention. On the breakdown of the figures, we really should make it plain to those who opposed top-up fees and variable fees that applications are up by 6.7 per cent. in England, but down in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. That is a success story, but some on the Liberal Democrat Benches will still not even talk about those facts.
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. He anticipates what I shall say towards the end of my speech—I always thinks that it helps to leave the best news until last. I will come back to that issue, but he is fundamentally right.
The Minister faces many challenges in Harlow in Essex. This year, there was a rise of 5 per cent. in the number of applications to Essex university, but Professor Ivor Crewe has said:
“We may be getting a slightly different social composition with fewer students from working-class backgrounds”.
The rise is fuelled by greater numbers of middle-class applicants.
I genuinely do not believe that there is national evidence that backs up my hon. Friend’s claim, but I agree that we need to see a breakdown of the figures, university by university, as quickly as possible. On the general trend in applications, the point that he tries to make is not borne out by the evidence. If we look at the first year of the operation of the new fee system, we see that there was some variation, both upwards and downwards, but it was difficult to detect a pattern in the kinds of institutions affected, and in what was taking place. We need more information, and we need to get it as quickly as possible.
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I will make progress.
I thank the Minister for giving way again. When he gets to the end of his speech, will he take into account the fact that far more children—almost 18,000 more—were born in 1988-89 than in 1986-87? If we compare the figures for those two years, taking that into account, the picture is not quite as rosy as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) suggests.
Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, he too anticipates a point that I was going to make later on. Desperate people searching around for a fig leaf to justify their continued opposition to fees have come up with that argument, but if we consider the applications for 2007-08, we see that the increase in the age cohort was about 0.8 per cent., but there was a 7.1 per cent. increase in student applications in England.
indicated dissent.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is right, and the upward trend in applications is moving significantly ahead of the demographics.
On that point, and to put in context the Liberal Democrats’ attempts to undermine the progress that has been made, is it not the case that the figures that we are talking about relate only to full-time undergraduates, who account for about 55 per cent. of all university undergraduate admissions? To see the complete picture, we need to consider what is happening elsewhere, where there has been an amazing expansion in part-time education. Part-time undergraduate applications represent about 45 per cent. of all university undergraduate applications.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and one of the frustrations in this debate, when variable fees—
Order. The hon. Gentleman is turning away from the microphone, and I have already been told that he is going off-sound, which I am sure is not what he wants.
I am off-sound rather than off-message, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My apologies for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) makes a pertinent point, because one of the frustrations in the debate about variable fees and their introduction concerns the obsession of the opponents of variable fees with focusing on full-time students instead of on the many thousands of other students who are rightly accessing higher education.
On attainment, despite claims in the media that it is now easier for a person to get the qualifications that they need to go into higher education, the demands of studying and of achieving those qualifications are as high as they have ever been. The gap in attainment between higher and lower social classes goes some way to explaining the relative success that they have in getting to university. Our significant investment in schools since 1997 has helped to raise standards overall. The attainment gap, at age 16, between higher and lower social classes at level 2 is narrowing, and that is welcome, but it is still the case that only about a quarter of lower-social-class 18-year-olds achieve two or more A-levels, compared with around half of those from higher social classes. That is one of the most worrying and troublesome challenges that we face.
The research shows that in the 1990s, children with parents whose incomes were in the highest 20 per cent. were about five times more likely to acquire a degree by the age of 23 than children with parents whose incomes were in the lowest 20 per cent. That is simply unacceptable, and we are determined to address the problem. Evidence shows that if someone makes a decision to stay on at school or college at 16, they are much more likely to stay in education after 18.
The choice of too many 16-year-olds not to stay in education is the biggest barrier that we have to overcome. Through the development of diplomas, ongoing investment in personalised learning in schools and colleges and, crucially, initiatives such as education maintenance allowances, we are making progress. EMAs have contributed to an increase in participation in post-16 education that we expect to feed through to higher education. The proportion of 16-year-olds in the first post-compulsory year of full-time education at the end of 2005 is estimated to be 76.5 per cent.—the highest ever rate and an increase of 2.7 percentage points since the end of 2004. It is the biggest step change in participation in full-time education at 16 since 1993.
I now turn to aspirations, which are the most important challenge that we face. Significant investment in the Aimhigher programme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North mentioned, and other interventions are raising the aspirations of more young people with the ability and talent to enter higher education. Through a range of activities, such as university visits, master classes, mentoring and summer schools, we aim to show students from disadvantaged backgrounds what study at a higher level involves so that they can experience the realities, challenges and joys of being a higher education student. We welcome the fact that early evaluation of Aimhigher shows that its participants have more positive intentions towards higher education than non-participants. Furthermore, national data indicate that the gap between higher and lower social classes at age 16 intending to go on to higher education narrowed by almost 5 per cent. between 2001 and 2003. I strongly believe that the Aimhigher programme helps to show students from disadvantaged backgrounds that they, too, can strive for entry to universities with the most demanding admission requirements.
That work is critical. Evidence suggests that even when their qualification levels are similar, people from lower social classes are slightly less likely than people from higher social classes to apply for higher education—and if they do, they are less likely to apply to the institutions and courses with the most demanding entry qualifications. That is a challenge for all of us, and for the way in which we advance the debate.
In north Staffordshire we are slowly cracking the 16-plus argument, but the key issue is making sure that students aged 17-plus complete their courses. A policy in the White Paper package aimed at widening participation proposed that every district should have a choice adviser, who would advise students on which universities to choose, given the myriad fees and bursaries available. What happened to choice advisers, and will my hon. Friend point me to my local one in Newcastle-under-Lyme, because as far as I am aware, we do not have one?
A range of advice and assistance is available to young people locally, and I will ensure that I send my hon. Friend the details of what is available in his constituency. We must constantly review the advice and guidance given to young people to ensure that all the available opportunities are highlighted and signposted.
I understand that the Sutton Trust is piloting choice advisers for the Government.
The Sutton Trust is doing excellent work, often in conjunction with the Government, which can contribute to the improvement of the advice and guidance given to young people and mature students locally.
We have heard a great deal about social class, but we have yet to hear anything about what the Government are doing to help to widen access for disabled students.
There is significant expenditure under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Acts to ensure that all university premises are genuinely open. There are specific funding programmes, too, to enable more disabled students to attend university. Many people from different backgrounds have benefited from further and higher education who would not have done so 10, 20 or 30 years ago, and we must promote their involvement.
I should like to say a few words about the university application process.
Before the Minister moves on to another “A”, it would be bizarre if he did not comment on asset sales. There was a story in the Financial Times this morning about the securitisation of the loan book. Is the Minister aware of that, and was his Department consulted? I should like to know whether the story is true, and whether the Government will get a better deal on the sale of the loan book this time than they did in 1997.
I have learned in politics and in government never to comment on stories about what may or may not, or might possibly in some circumstances, happen in the Budget, and I will not break that rule today.
I shall deal now with applications. I welcome UCAS’s changes to the higher education application process to improve it for everyone trying to get into higher education. I remain strongly committed to a system of post-qualification application. Such a system would help to ensure that students are better matched to their courses, and reduce the potential for students to drop out. Fifty per cent. of predicted grades are inaccurate, and they are most inaccurate for students from lower socio-economic groups; we need to be clear that that is unacceptable. Whatever a student’s background, that level of inaccuracy is a cause for concern. I acknowledge that change cannot happen overnight. Our target is 2012, but the HE sector is already developing early reforms that will improve the HE application process for all students.
Is the Minister saying categorically that a fully developed post-qualification application system will be in place by 2012? Can he say a little more about the interim steps that are being taken to achieve that?
The Government are not responsible for the HE applications process. Nevertheless, the Department, the Secretary of State and I have driven the debate and are strongly urging universities to sign up to a pathway leading towards post-qualification applications. We had a constructive working party chaired by Sir Alan Wilson, the former director general for higher education at the Department. We achieved a consensus among all the representative bodies in higher education, which sets out a clear timetable for progress on this important issue. It is a two-stage process of reform.
There is the end date objective of 2012 for a full PQA system, and there are significant reforms in 2008-09, such as students being given the access profile course by course, institution by institution, a reduction in the number of applications that each student makes from six to five, to ensure that students can make more informed choices, and the opportunity by 2008-09 for a student who does better than their predicted grades to re-apply once they have gained those grades to a course or institution that better suits their needs or interests. These are important changes, which we should strongly encourage universities to take forward.
Five years ago the Select Committee made a strong recommendation about post-qualification access and about the nonsense of Oxford and Cambridge having an entirely different date, time and structure for their admissions process. The debate is about broadening access. When will the Government push Oxford and Cambridge into a sensible admissions policy that is the same as any other university’s?
I can assure my hon. Friend that we have ongoing discussions with all institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge. One of the changes included in the 2008-09 reforms is the concept of a gathered field before the evaluation of applications takes place. Although that will not move the Oxford and Cambridge application date, it should ensure that all applications are dealt with on their merits. That will help to improve the admissions process for those two institutions and many others.
Although we have always said, rightly, that admissions are the responsibility of universities, we do have an interest in these policies and practices. I was encouraged by the findings of our independent review of admissions led by Steven Schwartz. The review showed that, overall, admissions are fair, but that more could be done to demonstrate professionalism and transparency. With universities and colleges, we continue to take action in this area.
On affordability, a matter that was raised earlier by Liberal Democrat Members, it is important to say clearly that all the evidence suggests that the critics of the new system of higher education are being proved emphatically wrong. The UCAS figures released earlier this month show a significant rise in applications from students in England. Applications have risen from 271,700 in 2006 to 291,000 this year, which is a very encouraging rise of 7.1 per cent. Among those providing social class data, applications from the lower socio-economic groups have increased from 30.9 per cent. to 31.3 per cent. Although it is true that the rise in applications will have been affected by demographic trends, that explains only a small part of the increase. The population in England is rising, and applications are rising even more strongly. The increase is well in excess of this year’s 0.8 per cent. population growth among 18 to 20-year-olds.
Before the Minister draws too many firm conclusions from the socio-economic data derived from the UCAS collation of statistics, will he concede that the biggest group in the data is unknowns, because students do not have to tell UCAS which social group they come from? How can we be so certain that the proportion from lower socio-economic groups is going up?
I concede that one cannot be absolutely certain. We seek to ensure in the best way possible that we get as much information as possible on the backgrounds of students who are applying to university, and UCAS is looking at that. If we are having an adversarial trading of blows on this issue, I know whose position I would much rather be in: I would rather defend the changes which we have made and which the hon. Gentleman opposed. One of the reasons why I am confident that we are protecting access for those from poorer backgrounds is that the new system of student financial support is genuinely progressive and genuinely fairer. Student grants have been reintroduced, and we have ensured that students do not start to repay until they are in work and earning more than £15,000 a year, which is effectively a postgraduate system of repayment that rightly ensures that the greatest resources go to those who are most in need.
The Minister is right; the robust argument that we had on these Benches during the changes meant that the student support and bursaries were much improved to sweeten the pill. I would be delighted to be proved wrong about participation by people from poorer backgrounds, but the evidence from overseas shows that when fees are raised all the other moves tend to be neutered, so the overall result is neutral. Does the Minister agree that there is a world of difference between having a cap at £3,000 and giving in to the blandishments of some universities to raise the cap and to introduce a system similar to that used in the United States? I hope that he will resist any such blandishments.
I disagree with my hon. Friend about the evidence from overseas. This debate raged long and hard during our proceedings on the Higher Education Act 2004. In some countries where higher fees have been introduced, there has been an increase in applications. On his core point about what we will do about the cap after 2009, we have made it clear that we will not move until we have seen the first full three years of operation of the new system. There will then be an independent commission. I say, both to those who advocate lifting the gap and to those who say that we should scrap fees now, that both those approaches are premature, because we need to see the full operation of the first three years of the new system.
The role of the Office for Fair Access has been significant in helping to smooth the passage of the new system. The introduction of access agreements through which universities can commit publicly to what they will offer students from poorer backgrounds out of the additional income generated from fees has been an important step forward. In the Higher Education Act 2004, we legislated to ensure that a university must have an access agreement approved by OFFA if it wishes to charge more than the basic fee. The introduction of variable fees was an incredibly difficult decision to take, but the Government had the courage to take it, and as I have said, we are being proved right.
I welcome the fact that the Conservative party has shifted its ground on that issue. If I look long and hard, even some Liberal Democrats appear to be shifting their ground—[Interruption.] Maybe not the ones who are present today. In my experience, different groups of Liberal Democrats come up with different conclusions. Nevertheless, the pamphlet that was produced before Christmas by the Lib Dem think-tank, which fundamentally endorsed the Government’s approach on a post-graduation repayment system, was very significant.
The time has come for those who criticised the concept of OFFA and the bursaries regime in 2004 to move on from that position. OFFA has been an important success. All the institutions that have chosen to set fees above the basic level have successfully completed an access agreement. I take this opportunity to pay the fullest of tributes to Martin Harris and his team for the outcome that they have secured and for how they have gone about it. As a result, access agreements are in place and forecast to deliver in excess of £300 million per year in bursaries to students. I have no doubt that the right to additional fee income for universities must go hand in hand with a social and moral responsibility to students from less advantaged backgrounds. Universities have demonstrated their genuine commitment to that principle through the extent and generosity of the bursary schemes and additional outreach commitments in their access agreements.
At this juncture, I should refer to the concerns that have been raised about a potential underspend on bursaries in some universities. I have been monitoring that situation very closely. The overall scale of underspend has been exaggerated in some reports. In several universities, including a significant number in the Russell group, the projections are that there will be no underspend at all. Forecasts of spend inevitably carry with them some uncertainty, especially in the first year of an entirely new bursary scheme, and some universities set a high figure for reasons of prudent financial management. I am not in the business of unfairly or unjustly criticising people. OFFA will monitor expenditure and performance annually, and we will have a full picture of year 1 after the relevant monitoring information has been collected this summer.
At the same time, universities should be doing all they can to ensure that students get the support to which they are entitled. In recent weeks, several vice-chancellors have explicitly said to me that they intend to invest any underspend in their original bursary estimates on other measures to improve social inclusion. One of them told me:
“The money for bursaries is ‘budgeted out’. If it cannot be spent on bursaries, then it will go to support other widening participation projects.”
That is heartening. I would urge all universities forecasting a genuine underspend on bursaries to take that approach.
Before we leave the question of bursaries and fees, we must recognise that we are still talking about full-time undergraduates. In the context of widening participation, part-time students are likely to provide the greatest number of new students. Will my hon. Friend say a few words about improving financial support for part-time students? I know that he has agonised about the complexity of this. What is his latest thinking?
My hon. Friend hits on a key point. The 27 per cent. increase in the part-time student grant that we announced last year was a very significant step forward. However, there remains a challenge. If we simply replicated the full-time system of student financial support for part-timers, there would be an immense amount of dead weight. We need to encourage employers to invest more in the higher education of the people who work for them. Bearing in mind—I am quoting these figures from memory—that 35 to 40 per cent. of part-timers receive a financial contribution from their employer, I do not see why the state should automatically step in through a replication of the full-time student support package in order to absolve the employer of that responsibility. We must ensure that we keep these issues under review to ensure that the part-time student package is as flexible and attractive as possible.
I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying as regards the contribution of employers, but would he acknowledge that many potential part-time students are not in employment? Some are carers, for example. How would he address that question?
Order. May I remind the Minister about speaking into the microphone? Those taking notes may experience difficulty in hearing his contribution.
My sincere apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The point about carers is important. One of the changes that we recently announced—an additional bursary for those leaving care—is an important step forward. The specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) made is one of the reasons why we need to keep such issues under review. I am not committing to anything today, but it is important that the system is as flexible as possible.
As I said, I urge all universities that forecast a genuine underspend on bursaries to take the approach that I described earlier. It is right in principle, consistent with universities’ social obligations, and important for the credibility of the new fees regime. That is why I am pleased that the Russell group and the 1994 group of universities are making clear their support for that principle today. I am also glad that the National Union of Students has given its support.
Malcolm X said:
“Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today.”
If we want a work force that can compete with the best in the world, adapt flexibly to the challenges of the global marketplace and deliver high productivity, we must ensure that more people have the higher-level skills needed to achieve that. In my view, that will involve a big future expansion in work-based, flexible higher education.
If we want a society that is fair and tolerant, where everyone has an equal chance to succeed and fulfil their potential and dreams, we must ensure that everyone with the talent and ability to benefit—whatever their background, class or bank balance—can pursue higher education. The Government will continue to take the actions necessary to bring about the fundamental changes required to widen participation, increase access and overcome the obstacles that continue to prevent too many bright people from disadvantaged backgrounds from entering higher education. The future success of our country depends on it.
I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks about my party’s position on some aspects of higher education. Of course, we agree with many things that he said and I admire him for the sincerity with which he speaks about widening participation.
I do not want the occasion to be entirely glutinous and consensual, but I wish to congratulate British universities on their achievements. They are not only huge money-spinners for the British economy, generating £45 billion according to Universities UK, but the chief motors of social mobility and the chief emancipators of women in the past 100 years. In spite of all the social and political obligations that we politicians place on them, and all the hectoring that we give them about widening participation, they remain places of light, learning and scholarship.
I hope that I express common ground with the hon. Gentleman, to whom I shall give way, when I say that universities’ primary purpose is to achieve an intellectual transformation and—who knows?—an emotional and spiritual transformation, too.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would also include a good standard of teaching. Before he gets carried away in congratulating universities, does he believe that they have invested enough of the extra income from top-up fees in rewarding lecturers a little better?
It was perverse of the lecturers to oppose top-up fees and then go on strike for a larger share of the proceeds from them. It ill behoves lecturers and the hon. Gentleman to be grudging about the extra income—perhaps not as much as we would like—that has flowed to the academic community and also gone towards the bursaries that are so essential to the needs-blind admission that we all support in higher education.
Is not it a fact that we know our friends when there is a common and shared purpose and times are rough and tough? Where was the hon. Gentleman’s party when we were fighting for variable fees? Indeed, where were the Liberal Democrats? Is the hon. Gentleman today apologising for the position that the Conservative Opposition took in those tough times?
I almost find myself apologising to almost everybody. If it pleases the hon. Gentleman to have an apology from me, I have absolutely no compunction about issuing one. All I would say is that the record will reveal that I did not, for one reason or another, contrive to vote with my party on that particular issue—one of the many reasons why I got into trouble—but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Unlike the creatures on the Liberal Democrat Benches, my party has changed. The Minister has hinted that there are signs of a thaw in the Liberal Democrat position, and it would be a good thing if representatives of the species other than the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) came to the House today and ventilated the change of heart that we are starting to see.
The Liberal Democrat position is being exposed by the statistics as against the interests of the universities and against the interests of students—we should look at the figures from Scotland, as the Minister said—as well as regressive and socially unjust. I do not say that the UCAS figures are definitive—of course not—but if they are correct in so far as they relate to lower socio-economic groups, they are, as the Minister rightly said, very encouraging. There is a great deal more to be done, as he conceded, and the Government have been open in their confession of failure to attract candidates from lower socio-economic groups. We are not doing well enough yet in convincing people of natural ability from poorer backgrounds that university might be the place for them.
The brutal reality—here I shall become more controversial—is that not enough of them are getting good grades in the demanding subjects that universities often require for entry.
In 2004, only 28 per cent. of those from socio-economic groups 4 to 7 went to university and only 13.1 per cent.—more or less the same statistic that the Minister mentioned— from Labour party’s traditional neighbourhoods. It would be quite wrong to blame the vice-chancellors, students or lecturers for those dismal figures, because all three are making huge efforts. Anyone familiar with today’s students or who looks at their CVs knows how much time ambitious students at least seem to spend—and who knows, they probably do spend—working with schools in deprived areas to encourage kids to think of themselves as potential university material. That happens to an extent that would have been unimaginable 20 or 25 years ago, or however long it was since I was at university. That is a wonderful thing for students to be doing, it will reap huge dividends over time and it is the way to go. That is why we completely support the objectives of the Aimhigher programme, though I note that the Minister has ordered a review of it and that it is to be cut by £19 million in 2007-08, so I would be grateful if he would explain the consequences of that cut for the objectives that we all share.
As I mentioned previously, north Staffordshire has one of the lowest participation rates in the country. The crucial stage is 17-plus—getting people to complete their courses and then go on to higher education. What would the hon. Gentleman’s party do in particular to improve the careers advice service?
One thing worth considering is getting rid of the Connexions service. The general problem that the hon. Gentleman raises is at the heart of the whole widening participation agenda. At every stage from 16 on, we are trying to remedy defects and divisions in our education system that appeared much earlier on. That is the key point that I want to make today.
Too often, there is a direct read-across from economic or social disadvantage to academic disadvantage. Let us consider two small kids of 22 months—one from a low socio-economic background and one from a well-off background. Let us suppose that at 22 months the kid from the poor background does well in a test and the one from the well-off background does relatively badly. By the age of six, their positions will have been reversed, and the gap will never again be closed.
That raises deep and difficult philosophical questions. What do we mean by raw intelligence? What is the role of the Government in winnowing out and encouraging raw intelligence? Is it randomly distributed throughout the population? It would be crazy to discriminate against parents who read to their children and who make an effort to turn the television off and take away the PlayStation in order to improve literacy. We also have to recognise, however, that the system is simply not working for poorer brighter kids.
By the age of 16, almost half of those qualifying for free school meals in 2005 failed to get a single A* to C-grade GCSE. Only 19.8 per cent. received five or more A* to C-grade GCSEs including maths and English. In recent years, the gap in attainment between the free-school-meals lot and the non-free-school-meals lot appears to be widening. Those people do not go on to do A-levels, and the consequence is that there are very few candidates in that socio-economic group with the requisite A-level qualifications to get into university. There were about 850 in that group, all told, who got three grade As at A-level. It is no wonder that it is so hard for the universities, which are keen to meet these political objectives, to show that they are widening access and participation, when they are all chasing the same small number of candidates from those groups.
During the debate on top-up fees, I met the then Secretary of State to discuss the effectiveness of the Connexions service. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he would get rid of it, but we would then have nothing. What would he replace it with?
I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. It is our purpose to reform the Connexions service, not to get rid of it. I am grateful to him for allowing me to clarify that point.
We were talking about the gap in attainment between free-school-meal kids and non-free-school-meal kids, and what worries me is that the position is even worse when we look at their respective performances in the kind of subjects that universities traditionally value. I tend to get into even more hot water than usual when I talk about this, because I use the term “crunchy subjects”. That is not popular with the educational establishment—it does not seem to be popular with anybody—but I continue to use it. It seems to be an article of faith that all academic subjects are equally academically challenging, but I am not sure that that is entirely true—[Interruption.] Perhaps I have support from the Liberal Benches on that. I do! I am very glad to see it.
I shall defend my position on this by making reference to a study by Durham university which looks at the rates of progression from an A grade at GCSE to an A grade at A-level. I hope that we are in agreement across the House that it is palpably easier to progress from an A at GCSE to an A at A-level in some subjects than in others. Are we agreed on that? Thank you. In so far as there are crunchy subjects—I think that it is agreed that there are—the worry is that they are being increasingly ghettoised in the independent sector and in the top performing state schools.
Before we leave the subject of differential attainment between children of different social backgrounds, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the amazing insights that he is bringing to the debate have been common knowledge on this side of the House for many years? Not only that, but it has been an article of faith for us that something needs to be done about it. Is the logic of his new insight into these matters that he now completely accepts the kind of intervention that our Government have brought in since 1997 in early years and primary education, and in raising achievement in secondary schools? Does he think that anything done by the Government since 1997 has not been designed to contribute to closing that attainment gap?
Of course, the Opposition support anything that can be done to improve children’s performance in the early years, but I am afraid that recent statistics do not bear out the hon. Gentleman’s confidence in the Government’s record. I am glad that he says that my analysis is common ground—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my point.
In 2004, an increasing divergence was seen between the maintained sector and the independent sector in the crunchy subjects. No amount of extolling what the Chancellor has done can massage that away. Let me give the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) the figures. If he looks at the 2004 A-level statistics, he will see exactly what I mean, and the Labour Government cannot escape responsibility for the problem. In 2004, there was an increase in some of the easier subjects—I am glad that he accepts that analysis—with art up 11 per cent., communications and media studies up 22.9 per cent., design and technology up 23 per cent. and business studies up 13.4 per cent.
I do not wish to deprecate those subjects—I greatly admire the teachers of those subjects, and they are in many ways wonderful qualifications to attain. In parallel, however, some of what the hon. Member for Bury, North and I would agree to be the hardest A-level subjects have declined in the maintained sector. Let me give him the figures. Chemistry was down 2.4 per cent.; physics was down 9.1 per cent.; maths was down 10.4 per cent.; French, which the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning studied at university—I cannot remember whether he is the hon. or right hon. Gentleman, but he jolly well ought to be right hon.—was down by 16.7 per cent, in spite of his efforts; and German was down 24.9 per cent.
Those statistics are not under dispute. What is under dispute is the way in which the hon. Gentleman, to get himself off the hook, is trying to conflate two separate issues: the differential levels of achievement by social class over time, which have been reduced since 1997 because of the Government’s efforts, and the distribution of high-ability pupils between the state and private sector.
My point is a simple one. In trying to widen participation, which we all want to do, we must ensure that the crunchy, difficult subjects, which the hon. Gentleman and I agree are particularly valued by universities, are popular and well studied throughout our school system.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman the figures for the independent sector. As in the maintained sector, the number of A-level candidates has increased, by 11 per cent. The key point, however, is that entries have also increased for the crunchy subjects. In 2004, chemistry was up 8.6 per cent.; physics, which, if he remembers, was down 9.1 per cent. in the maintained sector, was up 6.5 per cent.; maths was up 8.5 per cent.; and modern languages, which saw such dismaying declines in the maintained sector, were up 5.5 per cent. overall. That translates directly into university admissions.
I am not entirely sure where the hon. Gentleman’s argument is going. I think we all recognise the need for more young people to study science subjects at A-level and at university, but is the hon. Gentleman arguing that we should not encourage students to study other subjects that he listed, such as design and technology or media studies? In the north-east, we need students with such qualifications so that they can help to develop our creative industries.
Of course we need students to study those subjects as well. I am merely trying to account for the problems involved in persuading universities to admit candidates from a wide range of social backgrounds at a time when the difficult subjects required by the admission procedures of many universities are not being studied sufficiently in the maintained sector.
In 1995, 15 per cent. of first-year chemistry students came from the independent sector; in 2004, the proportion had risen to 18.5 per cent. In 1995, 26 per cent. of new modern languages students came from the independent sector; in 2004, under the present Government’s watch, the figure was up to 30 per cent. Alas, the trend is all the more pronounced at the so-called top universities. I know that we are not allowed to use that phrase, and the Minister carefully avoided it, but as usual I have introduced an unthinkable phrase into our discourse. In 2004, 48 per cent. of the French department at Bristol university came from the independent sector. I do not believe that that is the university’s fault: as any Labour Member with an ounce of fairness would agree, it makes huge efforts to widen participation. I believe that it is the fault of the school system.
I will happily give way.
Where is this leading us? The hon. Gentleman is—
If the hon. Gentleman would let me finish—
Order. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is in the middle of an intervention.
The hon. Gentleman is defending the status quo. He is repeating a set of statistics with which everyone is familiar. What conclusion does he draw, and how does this relate to differential levels of achievement in the early years?
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my argument, he will understand. The problem is that we cannot widen participation in the universities by concentrating on the universities alone, at a time when the performance gap in the schools sector continues to become wider and wider.
While I am on the subject, let me say that I think it quite wrong of the Government to seek—as they have today, apparently—to politicise university admission procedures by the incredible expedient of forcing students to give details of what their parents do, the race to which they belong, and whether their parents obtained a university degree. In my experience, universities are not interested in the background of parents; they are interested in the potential and the academic ability of students. I think that it would be disastrous for every university admissions procedure to become a nightmarish discussion about nature versus nurture. I believe that students have a right to withhold that information, and should be judged on their educational performance and potential alone.
The hon. Gentleman keeps asking me where my argument is going. If he will allow me to make some progress with it, I shall be happy to enlighten him. The school system and the imbalance of the progression and uptake of the crunchy subjects are at least partly responsible for the difficulties that we are discussing.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
With pleasure.
I cannot resist pointing out that during an earlier discourse, the hon. Gentleman strongly agreed with me that one of the virtues of the new system was that there had been not a fall but an increase in the proportion of students from the lower socio-economic backgrounds. How can we obtain that information unless UCAS asks for it on the application form?
I think the Minister knows the answer to that. Indeed, I think he was about to give it to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). It is perfectly all right, in general, for UCAS to have the information so that we, as a society, can know what kind of people are going to university and can study social progress. What is not right is for university admissions tutors and academics to feel the pressure and oppression of such data, and to be constantly dragged into discussions about the background and parentage of individual candidates when they are seeking to make a judgment about their academic potential. That is wrong, and I hope that the Minister will give students the option to withhold that information.
I can give the hon. Gentleman some support—although, as a Cambridge academic, I might have to declare an interest to do so. The request for information about parental background was removed from the Cambridge application form because it was thought that applicants might think that it might prejudice their application and that it would have an adverse effect on access.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for injecting some common sense from the Liberal Democrat Benches—on this occasion, at least. I hope that the Minister will take account of what he is being told because his position on the matter under discussion is mistaken.
The imbalance in respect of the uptake of difficult subjects is producing perverse incentives. Let me give an example. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) talked about the need to encourage people to study science subjects, and we are all keen to keep our science departments open, but there is a paradox involved in that. If a university admits a good science candidate, the chances are—statistically, this is very likely—that they will come from a relatively well-off background and from a relatively successful school. Therefore, the university might achieve the objectives of admitting a good science candidate and of expanding science education in this country, but it will not achieve the objective of widening participation.
As I—and the Minister, too—never tire of saying, in terms of science, success is followed by success. Let me give a statistic that the Minister should have used when addressing the Liberal Democrats: engineering graduates enjoy an earnings increase of £243,730 as opposed to an increase of only £34,494 for those, like the Minister and me, who were so unwise as to study an arts degree. That point is a great advertisement for science, and it should be used more widely by all Members to evangelise on the benefits of the study of science at university.
However—to return to my core point—the tragedy is that we deprive our children of a realistic choice of what to study much too early in the system; that happens not at university, but much earlier. As well as taking steps such as recruiting more science teachers and making science more interesting, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that we should take a harder look at the effects of the league table system, and particularly the extent to which the tables build in disincentives to study what I call the crunchy subjects. As my hon. Friend suggested, it would be a sensible reform if we were to give a special weighting in school performance assessment and league tables to such difficult subjects—which are the subjects that universities look at in particular in deciding on admissions. That is the key to what I, the Minister and everybody else wants to achieve, which is to expand the classic route to university.
I want to return to the crunchy issue of Connexions. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the importance of good career advice for acquiring information, confidence and aspiration, and he has made it clear that he would not get rid of such advice, but that he would reform it. Lest Members think that he might be making policy on the hoof, will he tell us what is the key reform that he would implement in respect of Connexions?
It is particularly important that students have better advice on the right mixture of GCSEs necessary to gain admission to the place they want to go, but we will not solve the problem we are discussing by addressing the careers advice system alone. We must make sure that all children in all schools have equal access to the vital utensils that they will need to get to higher education. The hon. Gentleman trivialises the matter by endlessly banging on about Connexions.
Let me turn to a point that has been repeatedly made: everyone involved in universities who is listening to this debate and my speech—and everyone else who is listening—would say that we are missing out addressing a huge chunk of matters relating to how we could widen access to higher education. The hon. Member for Bury, North made just that point a moment ago. We should not think of higher education as an 18-24 issue or even as an 18-30 issue. We have to encourage all sorts of groups to think of themselves as university material at all kinds of ages.
We should also be expanding part-time study and it is interesting to hear the focus on that point in the Chamber today. We are clearly all getting pressure from constituents to expand part-time provision and find an imaginative way—I am sure that the Government can think of one—to ensure that part-time students have the same access to financial help as full-time students. That would be very expensive, and I am not making any spending pledge, because I would be immediately jugulated. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is in his place and watching me very carefully, but it would be good if we could consider the issue. I heard what the Minister said about not wanting to drive out business funding, and the point about dead weight is well taken, but there has to be some way to help part-time students.
It is sad that one sector that has declined under this Government is the adult and community learning sector. The Minister shakes his head and I hesitate to disagree with him, but the numbers for that sector are down on 1997.
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is being extremely entertaining, but he has been speaking for nearly half an hour. Could he just get on with the argument, because we are waiting for it? We have heard a lot of waffle, but what is the Conservative party’s view on how to broaden access?
That is very disobliging of the hon. Gentleman, who was being kind to me earlier. I have already made it clear that we have two concerns. The first and most important is that the school system is not adequate for the job of widening participation in the way that we all want to see. That is why we should look again at the league table system, and there was some nodding by Labour Members when I made that point—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman was nodding off—[Interruption.] Perhaps they were shaking their heads. I said that we must ensure that people did not face any disincentives when choosing to take the crunchy subjects that universities value and that assist people in getting into higher education. That would be a useful reform and it has been promulgated by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, who is in his place on the Front Bench.
Secondly, we should consider part-time students, who come disproportionately—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I keep being interrupted and asked to make fresh points. I am obviously stimulating much thought in what passes for Labour Members’ minds.
We should do more to stimulate part-time study, because part-time students—as Labour Members will know—come disproportionately from low-income groups. The Minister recited the figures today, but we all know that 70 per cent. of the 2020 work force is already in work. We need to keep training them and, as the Minister rightly said, to become more competitive.
I wish to end with a thought about increasing participation generally, not only in universities but in education as a whole. It is widely recognised that one of the failures of this Government, to which the Minister did not allude, is that there has been a 15 per cent. increase, to 1.25 million, in the number of 16-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. We are seeing, time and again, the results of failures at earlier stages of education. We need a better vocational route for those people and a better progression from further education to higher education. I am glad that progress has been made, although I realise that the Further Education and Training Bill was a rushed job, spatchcocked together at the last minute—Interruption.] I thought that was what the Minister said. However, he has been imaginative and conciliatory in his solution to the difficult problem of further education colleges issuing degrees with no co-operation with universities. I think he has accepted that articulation agreements will be in the Bill—I hope he will reply on that point—which is a good thing, because the agreements will ensure that there is integration and co-ordination between FE and HE institutions.
Does my hon. Friend agree that co-operation between local FE colleges and universities will be an opportunity to release the huge untapped pool of talents of women who did not go to university when they were younger and have now brought up their children? They will be able to undertake a course of academic or other study and acquire a degree without having to move away from home or give up their other responsibilities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right. We support the broad thrust of the Bill because it will help people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university, as long as we make sure that the FE and HE sectors are properly interlocked and not in pointless competition. We support the measure not because we want to aim at pointless targets of 50 per cent. participation in higher education, but because we believe that universities have enormous power to change society and to change people’s lives. That is why widening participation is a vital objective, provided we remember that we cannot ask universities to remedy the divisions and injustices that have already appeared in British education. Any serious attempt to widen participation must address the serious and growing gulf in performance between our schools.
We should congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning on his role in initiating this debate on widening access. It is high time that we debated the subject in the House. The Select Committee on Education and Skills has just embarked on a major inquiry into the sustainable university and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is welcome to participate in any of our sessions. I am sure that some of the distinguished people who will give evidence over the next few weeks will be of great interest to him.
We must look seriously at the progress report on higher education. Much of what the Minister said is right and should be welcomed. I hope I shall not be castigated by anyone in the university world if some of my remarks are a little uncomplimentary about the higher education sector’s timidity in meeting some of the challenges.
I think all parties agree that getting less-privileged young people into higher education is a difficult job, and that although all the statistics show that there has been gradual improvement, it has not been fast enough for most of us. What should we do about that? We know that more than 90 per cent. of 18-year-olds with the appropriate qualifications go into higher education. Most young people who remain in education after the age of 17 go on to higher education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who has left the Chamber, suggested. That is to be celebrated, but those figures do not include enough kids from poorer backgrounds. We need to raise both our aspirations for those young people and their achievements.
Can I have my cake and eat it? What irritates me about some of our colleagues—not just Opposition Members, but Labour Members too—and many media commentators is that they pontificate about what goes on in our schools but do not actually visit them. In my job, I make sure that I get a strike record of visiting two or three schools a week. That means piling in an awful lot during term time. However, there is nothing like it.
If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, picked up The Sunday Times and read the education stories and finished with the last page and an article by the former chief inspector of schools, that would almost drive you to suicide. The only thing that prevents a suicidal act in my case is the prospect of visiting a real school on the Monday or Tuesday. If we go to a school, we see the good teaching, great learning and the highly motivated staff.
The best teachers that I have seen in my lifetime are now coming through. The new generation of teachers make wonderful school leaders. Indeed, last week, I spoke at the National College for School Leadership in Nottingham and saw how many new young heads are coming through aided by inspirational new programmes such as “fast track” that identify early on the young teachers who have the potential to become heads. I met two only last week. They are aged 29 and they are heads of their schools. That is truly inspirational.
Before my hon. Friend moves on from discussing the educational guru of The Sunday Times, he will recall that he played an important part in the demise of the former chief inspector. Given Mr. Woodhead’s continuing influence over a large section of the British establishment in respect of education policy, does not my hon. Friend think that Mr. Woodhead would be a suitable candidate to bring before the Select Committee at a future hearing?
The guru status and influence of that particular gentleman can be exaggerated. I will have to think about my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
The hon. Gentleman has just repeated a comment that he made in questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills earlier. He seems to be under the misapprehension that Opposition Members do not visit schools. May I assure him that he is preaching to the converted? I, and every colleague I know, frequently visit our schools and share his concern and interest.
I was just trying to get the balance right. I meet many Members of Parliament who do not visit many schools, and I urge them to do so. However, let us put that issue to one side for a moment.
We want to raise the aspirations of 18-year-olds. However, what was disappointing about the speech of the hon. Member for Henley was that he did not go below the age of 18 and explore what we can do to stimulate those pupils further. There was a broad generalisation that we must improve schools. Of course, that is so, but there has already been a steady improvement. However, he did not mention the fact that the independent sector is good at identifying what he calls the “crunchy subjects”. I am always a bit cautious about crunchy subjects because one person’s crunchy subject is not the same as another’s. Is economics a crunchy subject? Is law a crunchy subject?
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that English and mathematics are crunchy subjects. The disgrace of our education system is that 44 per cent. of children still leave primary school unable to do reading, writing or basic mathematics. That is where the division begins and that is exactly the point that I was making throughout my speech.
That is the Woodhead argument, is it not? It is not true. That is not the percentage of children leaving school at 11 with those low levels. The hon. Gentleman does the children and teachers of this country an injustice by exaggerating the levels of illiteracy and innumeracy. Perhaps he can provide me with the facts or statistics that would authenticate his wild view, or perhaps he will change his view after two minutes as he did about the Connexions service as the result of an earlier intervention. It is not right to talk about low levels of performance. The performance of children in our schools is improving steadily, although of course it is never good enough and we want it to be better.
Let me talk about the responsibility of higher education in that respect. I have taken the Education and Skills Committee to visit many of the ivy league universities in the United States. People in those universities do not sit there, concerned and worried about the lack of bright students from less privileged backgrounds. The universities have a technique for identifying where those students are and a rigorous way of going out, finding them and bringing them into their institutions. If we look at the overall performance—particularly of the research-rich universities in our country—it is lacking, in terms of what our universities could learn from the United States. Stanford, Princeton and other leading ivy league universities in America have a map of America that shows every state, city and community. They know where the students are coming from and they know when they are underperforming in terms of attracting students from a particular state or municipality. They are so well organised that they use their alumni, as well as professional staff, to visit schools in areas from which they do not get students.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, slowly but surely, universities in this country—certainly in the north-east—are changing? However, we have to get to a situation whereby universities visit not just secondary schools, but primary schools to light the little touch paper there and to put the idea of going to university not just into the kids’ minds, but more importantly—especially in families where there is no tradition of going into higher education—into the parents’ minds.
My hon. Friend makes a good point.
I agree entirely that it would be much better if British universities did what American ivy league universities do in identifying those who can most benefit from a higher education, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the major difference is the amount of funding and the resources that American universities have to do that with. I am sure he would agree with me that many British universities do as much as they possibly can with the limited resources that they have available.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. American universities, and especially ivy league universities, have greater resources. When one meets a president from somewhere such as Stanford, he will have 50 MBAs standing behind him. That does not happen with most vice-chancellors in most universities in Britain. But let us get the balance right. I am not condemning universities in this country; I am saying that they could do far more in terms of going down their supply chain and looking at where their talent comes from and, if there is a deficiency, doing something positive about it.
I have been rather disappointed in some of our institutions. I am a governor of the London School of Economics and I tell our director that we do not do enough. We have summer schools, as do many universities. But, without the impetus of the Sutton Trust and Sir Peter Lampl, many universities would not even have gone that far. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and I have visited summer schools in Cambridge. The criterion for someone to go on one of those Cambridge summer schools, which are supported by companies such as Goldman Sachs and organisations such as the Sutton Trust, is that neither parent has been to university. Perhaps it is dreadful that that criterion is used, if the hon. Member for Henley is to be listened to, but the fact is that a high percentage of the young people invited to those summer schools get into Cambridge. So, there is much that can be done.
Universities in this country, including the London School of Economics, should go further. I am disappointed that more universities have not gone into partnership with academies, or created academies. They could go down their supply chain and choose to be based in communities where they could make a difference and participate in the process long before children choose their subjects. That is the level of partnership that I would like to see our universities indulging in. There is also the new ability to form trusts, which are in some senses less onerous. I would like to see more imagination from our higher education institutions in reaching down the supply chain, identifying the problem and doing something about it.
Let me make a comparison. The thing that, more than anything else, has stimulated universities in the United Kingdom to move faster towards the American tradition is fundraising. Universities throughout the country now carry out fundraising much more successfully than before, usually because they are copying American techniques. Indeed, many universities are hiring Americans to raise money for their institutions. If more attention were paid to the situation in America—the Americans have a similar culture to ours, and a comparison with continental Europe is much more difficult—we could learn American techniques reasonably quickly. There is much to learn from the United States. Of course, American universities have more resources, but there are now more resources in this country than there have been for a long time because the fundraising of some of our premier institutions has been very successful.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although there are many similarities with the American system, one of the major differences, which has a direct bearing on what he is saying, is that American universities have a well-developed system of keeping their alumni interested in, and supportive of, the university? Does he agree that British universities could try to do that to a greater extent? If they were to succeed, there would be not only more examples of people from less well-off backgrounds who had gone to university on which to draw, but better access to funding.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I welcome the fact that that is happening in British universities of every kind. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go further with the tax breaks and incentives that he can give to people who put something back by investing in the institutions from which they have benefited.
Although we have teased each other about this, it is true that variable fees, or top-up fees, as the Lib Dems successfully called them, have been a success story. Those of us who passionately believed in variable fees and still have the bruises from our discussions about them in the House—they were backed by a very narrow vote, against the opposition of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members—are seeing that the measure is showing much success. English universities are out-competing universities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on applications, and there is evidence that more children in England from deprived social and economic backgrounds are going into higher education than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a success story.
Although we did not know about this, one of the less successful aspects of the measure that is now materialising—we have evidence for it—is the paradox that the universities with the most funding for bursaries have fewer students from socially deprived backgrounds to whom to award them. We have a problem that the research-rich universities have a disproportionate amount of funding for bursaries compared with the less well-endowed universities, where the need for bursaries is greater. We must do something about that.
I heard what the Minister said about the use of unused funding for social inclusion, but there would be a danger that we could develop a system similar to that in independent schools. Independent schools justify their position to me by saying that they put money back into poorer students, but the “poorer students” to whom they give bursaries tend to be those with parents who are not very well-off and are struggling with the fees, rather than children who are from very poor backgrounds, but have ability. There is a danger that such a situation might arise if we were to give the bursaries to people who did not really deserve them.
On access and fees, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crucial measure of the system is the chance that a particular person born in a particular year will apply for higher education? If he does agree, what is his response to the calculation that a child born in 1986-87 had a 43.7 per cent. chance of applying to university by the time of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service cut-off point of 15 January, that that figure fell the following year to 40.5 per cent., and that although the figure increased in the most recent year, it increased to only 43.2 per cent., which was less than the starting point? Does not that contradict what the hon. Gentleman said about access and fees?
No, it does not, because we only have one year’s figures to look at in considering the impact of fees. As we have said, we will look very carefully at the figures for the three years. One reason why Labour Members believed that the variable fees option was the way to go was that we understood clearly that although expenditure on education across the piece had increased substantially under the Labour since 1997, less of an increase had been affordable in higher education. We knew that realistically, there was one way to get new resources for the higher education system, and we knew that there was one way to start paying staff in higher education properly—something that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) will perhaps appreciate.
Let us remember that we still have many world-class universities of which we should be proud, but we cannot take them for granted, and if we do not pay academic staff adequate salaries we will not get the talent coming through. People will not choose an academic or research career, but will instead go to the City of London, which everyone seems to think is the acme of success. They will not choose to give something back by teaching in a higher education institution. There has to be a balance; if people choose that pathway, they should earn an adequate income for doing so. I have a vested interest, as I am still a vestigial member of whatever the Association of University Teachers is called these days. I also have a son-in-law who is a struggling academic; they will all tell you that they are still struggling on their salaries, which compare badly with those in the United States.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and I appreciate his supportive comments about rates of pay for my colleagues in academia, but he should appreciate that the amount of money that universities, especially research universities, get from tuition fees is actually quite small, compared with the university budget as a whole. In Cambridge the total university income is something like £500 million, and the net income from fees is less than £20 million, so academic pay is not entirely determined—in fact, is hardly determined at all—by tuition fees.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is quibbling a bit. The fact is that a significant tranche of new money came in, and will continue to come in, for higher education. One of the great things about the university system in this country is its relative autonomy from government. It is far superior to the rather centralised systems in continental Europe. One of the reasons why I know the details is that the Select Committee on Education and Skills is considering the Bologna accord at the moment, and we have taken evidence on the subject.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
In a moment. The very different tradition in mainland Europe, and difference in the history of its universities, has been brought home to me. We should surely nurture a system in which there is greater independence from government. We were talking about receiving money from alumni, and we are now talking about receiving money from fees, and surely that arrangement is part of the health and strength of a relatively independent higher education system. It adds to universities’ viability and independence. It means that in many years’ time, long after we have stopped strutting this stage, we will have a university and higher education system that maintains itself, and has independence and integrity. Surely the hon. Member for Cambridge would agree with that.
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had followed the never-never land approach of the Liberal Democrats and opposed tuition fees, that extra money would not be going into Higher Education, and would not be having the effect that he describes?
When the Select Committee intervened and held a session to try to bring the two sides together in the pay dispute, I asked the general secretary of the Association of University Teachers whether she was embarrassed about taking the money after opposing the proposal. She said that she did not feel any embarrassment at all. [Interruption.] Well, I am glad that she spoke up for her members in that regard.
Another problem affecting access to higher education is the existence of subcultures. We can discuss the problem in an airy manner, but some children face barriers to higher education. As I travel around England looking at the problem and talking to students, I meet people in my own community and in other communities, and I have discovered that there are distinct subcultures in which people do not believe that higher education can play a part in their life. They do not know anyone who went into higher education, and they do not have any neighbours in higher education. They live in communities where that aspiration is not voiced, so there is a tremendous onus on their teachers to introduce them to higher education.
It is extremely difficult to tackle that problem. We know which parts of the country, which wards and which postcode areas are affected, so we must identify the relevant schools so that we can support them in raising aspirations and giving students the imagination to think about going to university. With my colleagues in the Select Committee, I try to visit schools around the country and talk not only to teachers but to parents and students. We know when we are in part of the country where that aspiration is low. I recently visited a Yorkshire school—it is not in my constituency—in a white working-class area of social housing. The head told me, “We don’t have many aspirations that these children will go into higher education.” That attitude made me angry, as it is rare that one hears such low aspirations from teachers.
We must, however, tackle those subcultures. We know where they are, which is why I want more active participation by the Government, through whatever agency, so that schools can raise the aspirations of their students and tackle the problem. There are other subcultures that worry me, too. I have four children, two of whom went to Cambridge, one to Bristol and one to Edinburgh. I accept that I am lucky that my children all went to university in towns and cities that are accessible and pleasant to visit. They went to local comprehensives, and they all said that there is a subculture in those universities that puts off a hell of lot of children from ordinary backgrounds. I do not know as much about Oxford as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and other Oxford graduates in the Chamber, but a subculture dominated by the independent sector and the leading public schools is prevalent in our research-rich universities.
That problem is underestimated. In the past five years, the number of students from Eton going to Oxford and Cambridge has grown from 38 to 70 students a year. That statistic makes me angry, as does a similar statistic for Westminster school. I do not wish to condemn those schools, but Oxford, Cambridge—and, I admit, the London School of Economics—are regarded almost as finishing schools for our leading independent schools. That is not the only problem, as a subculture has been set up within those universities. Having discussed the issue with my children, who have been to those universities, I know that there is another Oxford, another Edinburgh and another Bristol. That subculture is extremely off-putting to children from other—
Stop this chip-o-rama rubbish!
The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about it. I know a little bit about his Oxford set and the old Etonians at that university. The perception among many ordinary bright young kids—and he will never be able to see this—is that those universities are not for them, because the pervading ethos is set by a restricted and privileged group of young people. We underestimate that.
Five years ago, we said that bright kids from working class homes were put off applying for Oxford and Cambridge because the system of application is so distinctive and so different. We took evidence that because Oxford and Cambridge were different, ordinary kids in ordinary comprehensives who were bright enough to be predicted to get three A grades were put off applying because they saw those universities as different, exclusive and not for them. We recommended on an all-party basis that that system should change.
It is a tragic comment on the vacuity at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s argument that he is obliged to reduce an important and interesting debate about higher education, access to higher education and the difficulties of allowing schools to compete on an even playing field to an ad hominem, ad personam discussion of the off-putting characteristics of this or that group of people. That is tragic, and it also shows that the hon. Gentleman is failing to address the key point of the debate. If we want to widen access to higher education, there is no point in blaming the people who are at Russell group universities for being in some way off-putting—a pathetic argument, which will be bitterly resented by Russell group universities, because they make huge efforts to widen participation. We should look at what is happening in our schools.
I do not need to say much more.
Yes, you do.
It is obvious that the shadow Minister does not understand the problem. He has been part of that system of privilege, and it is so ensconced in him that he does not even realise that it exists.
I do not find the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) remotely off-putting, but is not the key point in the debate about differential access to the leading research universities for applicants from state schools and private schools the HEFCE research which shows clearly that for every given set of A-level point scores, applicants from state schools gain a higher class of degree than applicants from private schools? Is that not the key point that we should focus on? Does my hon. Friend think our leading research universities are doing enough to recognise that statistical fact?
My hon. Friend has stolen the last part of my speech. That is precisely the argument. Many of our bright young people underperform because they are given poor guidance and they come from a background where they are not encouraged to stay in education, and all the things that we take for granted. In my speech I have tried to identify some of the steps that we could take in partnership, and some of the ways in which higher education institutions could reach down and do something about that. The hon. Member for Henley does not like that. The feeling that some of our research universities are centres of privilege to which ordinary young men and women have no access and no right is one of the problems. I am trying to balance the argument, but he does not like it.
The hon. Gentleman has made a sincere speech and some good points. I was particularly interested in what he said about the zones that he goes into where people have no aspiration whatever to go to university. That is tragic and we need to work on it. As for the quality of the elite universities and the ethos that they allegedly exude, the fact is that in the 1960s far more children, proportionally, went to those universities from the maintained sector than do now. It was about 60 per cent.—
It was not.
It certainly was.
It was not.
Will you allow me to finish? It was about 60 per cent.—
Order. The hon. Gentleman is on his feet making an intervention. Perhaps he will bring that remark to a close.
The point is that in the 1960s and 1950s far more children from the maintained sector got access to those very universities than achieve it now, because of the failure of the hon. Gentleman’s Government’s schools policy.
That is not the case.
It is true.
It is not the case.
It is true.
The louder the hon. Gentleman shouts—
Order. Interventions are made from a standing position, and Mr. Sheerman is responding to an intervention.
Most of us in the Chamber, including the hon. Gentleman, know that the figures are much more complex than the ones that he has shouted at me.
But I am right.
No; the hon. Gentleman is not right.
The point is that the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) conceal the fact that in the 1960s direct grant grammar schools were deemed to be part of the maintained system. That figure comes from the redefinition of which schools were in the maintained system, which is completely irrelevant to widening participation.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Opposition spokesman has been infuriated by the fact that one particular aspect of my speech is about the power and influence of one sector of education in this country, which is highly privileged and from which he took advantage.
As one of the working-class kids who was not put off by Cambridge’s atmosphere and who went on to interview applicants for Cambridge undergraduate courses for 20 years, may I say that the reason why there is a different cut-off point for the Cambridge entrance procedure has to do with the desire to interview as many applicants as possible in as short a time as possible, in order to be fair in comparing various applicants. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) might be right to say that a different system would have a better effect, but he should be aware that there might be negative results of switching away from that system.
The hon. Gentleman has brought me to the last thing that I want to say in my contribution.
All that training at Eton and Oxford never actually raises the level of the debate.
This is chip-o-rama.
I want to end my remarks by saying this: this country must use all the potential of all the people. One valuable point that has come out of today’s debate is that we are not focusing simply on the potential of young people at 18 or 21. As my hon. Friends have said, part-time students and mature students are entering higher education in larger numbers; you will know something about that, Madam Deputy Speaker. People are deciding to enter higher education later, which is a success story. We want people with potential to be able to go into higher education, if it is right for them. It is not right for everyone.
We do not have a system in our universities that identifies potential as well as that in the United States—I am sorry to return to that example. When I have talked to the presidents of universities in the United States, they say, “We don’t interview. If we wanted more people like us, we would interview.” Many people in this country are hooked up to the view that interviews are the best way to identify talent. We restrict the scope of people who enter higher education by using interviews. Some universities do not interview, but the research-rich universities tend to interview.
In the United States most universities use five different criteria on which to judge a student, including written work, standard assessment tests and recommendations from teachers. Those five criteria are used to judge not only examination passes and grades, but whether students have the potential to benefit from the institution. That goes to the heart of today’s debate. If we are going to do something radical about getting into higher education all the talents who could be there, we must change how we assess potential at every level of our education system.
I enjoyed the long speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and I enjoyed some of the interventions even more. One of the other jobs that I do for my party in this House is to sit on the Select Committee on Education and Skills, which the hon. Gentleman chairs, and yesterday we visited the Natural History museum together to see the outreach work that it does in education. We did not see any Liberal Democrat creatures among the specimens there, nor Etonian creatures for that matter.
When the Minister opened our debate, he rightly referred to the economic reasons why we need to get more people educated to level 4 or degree standard. The Leitch report, which has not been mentioned by name so far, has the rather challenging target of increasing from 29 per cent. to 40 per cent. the number of people in our work force who are educated to degree level. The stark statistic in the report, though, is that 70 per cent. of the 2020 work force have already left formal education. That suggests that the people who will need to go into higher education in order to achieve that target by 2020 are the people who are currently in work, which suggests in turn that an even greater proportion of people than now will be studying for degrees part-time. Moreover, a greater contribution will probably be made by the further education college sector, which already contributes about 14 per cent. of the people who study for degrees. Those are some of the topics that we have not heard a great deal about this afternoon.
We are here to discuss widening participation in higher education, which is about much more than simply increasing the stock of the population—the human capital—with a degree. Throughout the past few decades, because a greater proportion of the population have gone into higher education—we hear about fiscal drag; perhaps this is educational drag—people from all classes have participated more. None the less, there are still some alarming gaps, which means that we do not have a broad mix of social classes within higher education. For instance, over the past 15 years the proportion of people with unskilled or manual worker parents who go on into higher education has increased from 11 per cent. to 19 per cent., whereas the proportion of children who have parents with non-manual or professional occupations has increased from 35 per cent. to 50 per cent. The social groups at either end of the social spectrum, as measured by the Office for National Statistics, have increased their participation in higher education, but nevertheless the gap has widened. If we go back 40 years, the proportion of students from the lowest socio-economic group of all has barely changed—it has increased, but the increase has not been dramatic—whereas the highest socio-economic group of students with professionally qualified parents who have been to university themselves has a participation rate in higher education of more than 80 per cent. That implies that we have reached saturation point in that social group.
There are other differences in society. Nobody has referred to the gender difference that is opening up in higher education. For some years, the Government’s favourite measurement of initial participation rates in higher education, for which they have the target of 50 per cent.—although they do not talk about it much any more—has been stuck at about 42 per cent. However, that is an average, and underneath that average we find that the participation rate is 37 per cent. for male students and 47 per cent. for girls—a 10 per cent. gap that is widening with each year that passes. That trend continues in the most recent UCAS application statistics, which the Minister is fond of quoting. There are 221,000 applications from women and 174,000 applications from young men.
As many hon. Members have acknowledged, a large part of the explanation for that difference lies further back in the education system: it reflects attainment at school, not just the higher education process itself. In future, the gap between girls and boys may actually have some beneficial aspects in society. The salary premium has been mentioned a couple of times. At the moment, male graduates tend to get the higher salary premium because of the kind of professions that males and females have traditionally gone into. Perhaps the widening gender gap means that women will start to dominate in some of the higher-earning professions such as medicine, law and accountancy. That might be a good spin-off benefit.
The ethnic gap has not been mentioned. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on 13 March, the Minister gave the latest available statistics, which show that only 305 students who identify themselves as black African, black British or black Afro-Caribbean, and only 300 who identify themselves as being of Bangladeshi origin, went to Russell group universities. That is a pitifully small number, which does not get the attention that it deserves.
Geographical variations have also emerged from the underlying trends. My constituency, along with others such as Sheffield, Hallam, is in the top category for participation in higher education. However, Bristol, South—which the Paymaster General represents, just over the river from my constituency—and Nottingham, South are the bottom two parliamentary constituencies for participation in higher education. In one city, which is one of the most prosperous cities in Europe, and the most prosperous in this country after London and Edinburgh according to some measurements, there are stark differences in educational attainment and participation in higher education.
I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman’s argument and I agree with the thrust of it. Will he comment on the extent to which Bristol university has extended access to students from St. Paul’s, which I believe is the ward to which he refers, and contrast that with the work of London Guildhall university, which has a remarkable record of widening participation for ethnic minority communities?
If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find that I shall deal with fair access to particular institutions, and the point that he makes, shortly.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the Government have made some progress with black African ethnic minorities, the representation of Asian Indians in higher education institutions has gone backwards? How does he explain the disparity between the wide range of ethnic minority children and white children that appears to exist at universities?
I thank my Select Committee colleague for his intervention. It is perhaps for the Minister rather than me to explain matters on behalf of the Government. However, even within the white group to which he refers, there are enormous variations between social classes. It is a flaw in the statistics that they do not reflect that. The participation rates of white boys from council estates in higher education are probably even lower than those of students who identify themselves as being from the different ethnic groups that we discussed.
In my constituency, eight wards have higher education participation rates that exceed 43 per cent., which is the highest figure that is given in the Higher Education Funding Council’s statistics. However, nine wards in Bristol, South have participation rates of below 16 per cent. In Bristol, North-West, Southmead ward has a participation rate of less than 10 per cent. Westbury on Trym, which is next door, but happens, by a quirk of the boundary, to be in my constituency, has a participation rate that exceeds 60 per cent. I shall not breach the rule about props, but simply mention that the cover of HEFCE’s compendium of statistics, which I am holding, displays a map of the Bristol wards.
There are similar pockets elsewhere. Not many representatives of rural constituencies are currently in the Chamber, but participation rates are unacceptably low in parts of Cornwall, Devon and other rural seats.
What are the barriers to people accessing higher education? As has already been said, solving the problem lies not only with higher education institutions but with attainment in school or college. Of course, the staying-on rates at 16 or 17 are also important.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while there is an economic dimension in respect of the relationship between socially deprived areas and the staying-on rates, another problem is the lack of role models—perhaps people who have themselves been to university—in those communities to help raise the aspirations of youngsters to go to university?
Yes, I agree absolutely. I intend to say more about that later.
The 2003 review by Steven Schwartz showed that of the top three Office for National Statistics social groups, 47 per cent. get the requisite A-levels to go on into higher education, compared with 23 per cent.—less than half—of classes 4, 5, 6 and 7. A large part of the problem could be dealt with, I believe, by the reform of the curriculum. Some points were raised about that in Education and Skills questions this morning. The reason why people are not achieving more at 16 or are not motivated to stay on beyond 16 probably lies in the school curriculum itself. Although we have a statutory school leaving age of 16, I think that many people in our communities leave school mentally at 14 or even younger. That is the big challenge for the Minister and his ministerial colleagues—to make sure that the 14-to-19 diplomas start to arrest that alarming situation.
The Minister initially disputed the fact—though not when it was repeated—that 90 per cent. of people, from whatever social class, who get their A-levels go on to higher education. The big problem is therefore young people not reaching the standard of qualifications that they need. School reform is clearly outside the scope of this particular debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there are things that universities and higher education colleges can do about the problem. The Government’s programme has a role to play, but universities can do more through their outreach work.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), I take part in the Royal Society MP-scientist shadowing programme, which I find extremely worth while. Last year, the chemist who was shadowing me—I was shadowing her on that particular occasion—helped me to find out much more about Bristol university’s outreach work in Bristol schools and further afield in rural parts of Gloucestershire. It does much to enthuse children about the excitement of science—chemistry in that case—and to encourage schoolteachers into the university department to upgrade their skills and take them back into the classroom. Those teachers then help to get some of their children interested in what higher education has to offer them.
I hope to speak in another Adjournment debate next Tuesday on the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, and perhaps that debate will provide an opportunity to enthuse people from different racial groups about history and their past. They might like to do what I did and go on to study history at university.
There are many things that universities can do in their work with schools, but the hon. Members for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) are right that there are aspirational barriers as well as problems with attainment levels in schools. We have a part to play in trying to tackle them. When it comes to our parliamentary role in visiting schools, I think that I can trump the hon. Member for Huddersfield today, because I visited a school before I came here on Monday morning, and on Friday I will visit two primary schools and a secondary school as well. Like the hon. Gentleman, I try to do that as often as I can. We can find out far more about what is going on in our schools by visiting them than we can even by attending Select Committee hearings.
Another barrier to participation in higher education is undoubtedly the burden of debt, exacerbated by fees and the different financial arrangements that students now face. The Minister has been crowing, as we all expected, about the latest UCAS statistics, and that has been echoed by some, though not all, of his hon. Friends. The figures show that UK applications have gone up from about 371,000 to about 395,000—an overall increase of 23,624, to be precise. The point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the number of 17 and 18-year-olds who could have applied has gone up by 30,000.
Will the hon. Gentleman distance his party from some of the remarks that were made before the last election about tuition fees discouraging students from applying to go to university? We now have evidence that that is not the case. Will he also accept responsibility for discouraging some young people from low-income backgrounds in my constituency from going to university, because his party’s representation of tuition fees made no mention of the reintroduction of bursaries and grants?
No, I will not accept responsibility for that. In every speech that I made in the 2001 and 2005 general election campaigns, whether I was talking to schoolchildren or to people in student unions who had already gone to university, I was careful to make the point that if they had the educational attainment and the ambition to go to university, they should not let the prospect of debt put them off, because university would transform their lives. I am sure that all my fellow Liberal Democrat candidates would have said the same thing. I was actually trying to do some of the Government’s work for them, and I continue to do it. However, that does not mean that we can disregard the fact that debt will be perceived by some students as a barrier to their going into higher education, and that it might well skew their occupational choices thereafter.
I was talking about the Minister crowing about the UCAS statistics on the increase in one year. To do so seems rather perverse, however, given that, underneath that statistic, there has also been an increase in the number of teenagers who are eligible to apply to university. We can get lots of good news out of the way in one go this afternoon, because the number of teenagers who are eligible to apply to go to university will increase every year between now and 2011. I am sure that the Minister will therefore have lots of good news for us in the future.
I do not think that it is perverse to celebrate the fact that a higher number of students are leaving school more qualified to go to university. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we had effectively reached saturation point among the better-off going to university. Clearly, the level of payment that people in the better-off groups are making is not affecting their entry into higher education. Is he arguing that the better-off should be paying more, to subsidise the least well-off?
That was a rather convoluted economic point. All students will have had their debt increased in the current year by £3,000 when they leave university, no matter what social group they come from. The debt burden will be the same for all of them. The Minister appears to be grunting, and I recognise that the Government have introduced bursaries and maintenance grants, but students use those to live off while they are at university. The grants do not reduce their debt levels thereafter.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the old system, poorer students on average ended up with higher levels of debt? Does he acknowledge that one of the virtues of the new system is that they end up on average with lower levels of debt?
The arrangements that a modern-day applicant has to face are so convoluted, compared with those that we all had to deal with, that I am not sure that we can make that judgment. One of the smart little differences that the Government have made is that a student’s eligibility to borrow from the Student Loans Company is reduced by £1,500 if they qualify for the £2,700 maintenance grant—sometimes called a fee loan, depending on which publication we read. So, yes, they are getting a grant, but the student loan that they have to live on will have been reduced. It is a complicated scene that students face at the moment. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong about that.
The Government would be foolish to rely on one year’s set of statistics for justification. One swallow does not make a summer, and one blip this year does not make for a statistical trend either. Over the past few years, as different financial arrangements have come into play, higher education statistics have been on a rollercoaster, and that will continue for the next few years as students under the old regime leave, and those who have to face the new regime join the system. It is too early for the Government or Labour Back Benchers to justify retrospectively the decision in 2004. They certainly cannot rely on one data set from one year of applications to imply that it will be okay to take the cap off fees in 2009. Such far-reaching policy conclusions cannot be made on the basis of one year’s worth of statistics.
If university applications continue to increase in future years, will the hon. Gentleman’s party then recognise that its stance on tuition fees was wrong?
If the hon. Lady looks at my website or the federal party website, she will see that the first thing that I did when the statistics came out—during the half-term recess, I think—was to welcome them. I welcome more people going into higher education, as would most of my colleagues. That does not mean that we cannot question some of the assumptions made about those statistics.
As the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said, the UCAS statistics do not include the large number of people who apply directly to institutions, either because that is the way that they do it or because they are studying part-time. About 40 per cent. of students currently study part-time. The statistics leave those people out of the equation. We do not yet understand, because the statistics have not been made available to us, the effect of the arrangements on them.
On social class differences, the Minister is clinging to a 0.3 or 0.4 per cent. increase—depending on which table one reads—in participation by lower socio-economic groups. Such a marginal increase in one data set is nothing to draw firm conclusions from. Earlier, he conceded that I had a fair point—just for once—in mentioning that the biggest sub-set of data in the UCAS statistics relates to students who do not volunteer information on their parents’ socio-economic group. We cannot draw hard conclusions from such statistics.
Debt may or may not make a difference. In some circumstances, in which a person is determined to go to university, I accept that it may not. Were I making my university choices again, despite coming from probably a similar background to the Minister’s, from what he said earlier—mine was a single-parent family from a council house in south Wales—I would like to think that financial considerations would not have stopped me. But some people in a similar group might make a different decision. Even if people do go on to university, the issue might skew their choice of institution or subject. We do not know about that yet.
Student bursaries are completely bewildering. I tried to replicate my choices of 20 years ago via the Aimhigher website and gave up after struggling to find out the different levels of financial support for the different institutions and subjects—history and economics—between which I was choosing at the time.
Are they crunchy enough subjects?
I think that they are. In the end, I chose history. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is nodding that I did a crunchy subject, and I certainly think that it was—I have not read his latest book about Rome, however, although I did see it in the Library the other day.
The Department for Education and Skills has launched a new bursaries website in the past couple of weeks, which is a way of conceding that the information available was bewildering for students to navigate.
It is possible that a third barrier is presented by the structure of degrees. The financial arrangements for part-time students may present a barrier as well, but it is likely that the structure of courses does not attract some people who would like to benefit from higher education. Perhaps we should adopt a credit-based system, allowing students to dip in and out of higher education at different points in their lives, perhaps even studying at different institutions.
The hon. Member for Henley nods. That happens to be my party’s policy; I do not know whether it is his party’s policy, or indeed whether he can speak for his party when his chaperon is absent. It seems that he does not dare to say anything! But it is my party’s policy, something that may not be quite as well known as our opposition to variable fees at the last general election. We would like the degree structure to be reformed, so that students can take up a course of study and if their circumstances change—or for any other reason—can stop and continue with it later, perhaps at a different institution, in order to build up a degree. I understand that Wales is beginning to move in that direction; perhaps England should consider doing the same.
There has been an increase in foundation degrees over the past few years. We welcome that, and look forward to discussing it soon when we debate the Further Education and Training Bill. We may also need to consider the length of study involved in a full-time degree. Why does it have to be three years? It is not three years everywhere else, as we know from discussions we have had elsewhere about the Bologna arrangements. Perhaps the period could be condensed. Do students really need the long holidays that are required by the academics who teach them? If we condensed the programme of study into two years, the debt with which students leave university would undoubtedly decrease, and that would draw more people in.
Perhaps I should inform my hon. Friend that research universities no longer refer to “the long vacation”; it is now called “the research period”. Academics must do their work at some time.
I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me. I trust that the research takes place in the courts of Cambridge and not on a Mediterranean island—unless it is archaeological research, of course. Anyway, there are reforms that I think the higher education sector could introduce to increase participation rates among not just young people, but people of all ages.
Fair access is another issue. Widening participation is not merely about increasing the total volume of people who enter higher education; it is also about the institutions at which they study. Some higher education institutions have been extremely successful in attracting more students. I recently visited the university of Bedfordshire in Luton, where 60 per cent. of students come from areas with a Luton postcode, and I have already mentioned the contribution made by further education colleges to attracting members of the local community to higher education. However, this is not just a question of going to university; it is a question of where people go.
My life—like that of the Minister, as he told us earlier—was undoubtedly changed, not just because I went to university but because I left my home community, then still a mining village in south Wales, to enter a completely different environment in Bristol, where I met many students from Eton and other such schools. I had never met people of that sort before, but, unlike other Members who have spoken today, I was not put off by that, and to this day some of my best friends are people who went to those schools. Nevertheless, fair access must be an aim of widening participation. It is not just a question of increasing numbers; it is a question of ensuring that people have fair access to our top universities, a phrase that has been used a number of times today.
The latest edition of the House of Commons compendium “Social Indicators” shows the benchmarks set by the Higher Education Funding Council for all higher education institutions. Some universities, such as Greenwich and Teesside, exceed their benchmarks for students from certain socio-economic backgrounds with given A-Level grades, while others—including, regrettably, Bristol, of which I am an alumnus and which I now represent in Parliament, as well as Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Nottingham— fall short of their expected intake of students from social classes 4 to 7. I will not restart the debate between the hon. Member for Huddersfield—who has left the Chamber—and the hon. Member for Henley about the state school-private school gap, but as recent reports have shown it is widening in some higher education institutions. That means that there is an important role for those institutions to play. I have mentioned the local outreach work that universities do; I know that Bristol university does that in local schools, and I am sure that all other universities also do such work.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned the programmes at top American universities. I see no reason why such programmes could not take place at our universities as well. Under the “widening participation” postcode-related grants that universities receive from the HEFC for taking students from certain backgrounds, there is, effectively, a financial incentive. As we know where those low participation postcodes are, why can we not encourage universities to reach well beyond what they consider to be almost a catchment area and pair them off with particular schools, especially those in low participation areas, so that they can enthuse and draw in students from such backgrounds? When I was doing my own university applications—before somebody brings this up, I admit that I am an Oxford reject—I noticed from reading the Oxford prospectus that certain Oxford colleges have historical links to particular schools. Why cannot some of our universities develop links with certain state schools?
To echo a point made earlier, we need to start this process when people are younger. If we start speaking to people when they are 14 or 15, it is probably too late. We need to do more work in our primary schools. I made that point earlier this week when I met some young scientists from the Royal Society of Chemistry representing a group called “Voice of the Future”.
Let me turn to my final point. [Interruption.] I know that other Members are keen to speak, but I think that my speech has been briefer than the contributions from both of the other Front-Bench spokesmen—although perhaps I have not had as many interventions. Fees might skew the choice of subject that people make. We know that there is already a social imbalance in certain subjects: 45 per cent. of the medicine and dentistry intake come from the highest socio-economic group—higher managerial and professional people—compared with 8 per cent. from class 6, which covers semi-routine occupations. The figure for class 7 is so low that it is not even reported. The balance is better in law and business. [Interruption.] Yes, so it is better in the professions of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and myself, but, curiously, the trend is the opposite in education and teaching. Only 14 per cent. of the intake for degrees that lead to teaching careers is from the highest socio-economic group. We are also worried that the intake for science subjects is skewed. Part of the reason for that problem lies further back in the school system, and is to do with the qualifications of the teachers who teach the subjects—in particular physics and chemistry.
There is a huge risk that the market system that the Government might introduce beyond 2009 will make such trends even worse. If we have genuine variability in the tuition fees, that might not deter people from participating in higher education, but I think that it will deter people from going to certain institutions and skew their subject choices.
I began by mentioning the challenge of the Leitch report. Higher rates of participation in higher education will bring about economic prosperity and social justice. Widening participation is all about achieving social justice; it will make sure that we all share in prosperity, and it will also give us a chance of increasing social mobility in our country which, depending on which measurement we use, is either the lowest among the industrial countries or just above the level achieved in the United States. Many Members have cited statistics this afternoon. What is clear is that it is far too early to know with certainty whether fees are having a detrimental effect, but we certainly know that there is a lot more work to be done in widening participation.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). I do not necessarily agree with all of his analysis, but I share his objectives for social justice.
I should declare an interest in terms of my personal background and as a parliamentary patron of the adult learners body NIACE—the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education—and a vice-president of Carers UK. I also participated in adult education as a tutor for most of my working life and I continue that interest as a professor emeritus at Swansea university, my former university.
I welcome this debate as an opportunity to recognise and applaud the work of the Labour Government since 1997 in widening participation. The debate is important for two other reasons. The first is the long and honourable record of higher education in attempting to address the questions of social and economic injustice. The second is the current challenge of the skills agenda, as we have already heard from the hon. Gentleman, and—following the Leitch report—the interface between the skills agenda and part-time higher education. That will be the main subject of my contribution.
Before I come to that issue, I will indulge myself in discussion of another crunchy subject—history, which is my discipline—and provide a brief historical perspective. Arguably the most influential thinker on education of the 20th century was Michael Young, the founder of the National Extension college, the inspiration behind the Open university and—the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) may not know this—largely the author of the 1945 Labour manifesto. In his seminal work, “Labour’s Plan for Plenty” from 1947, which was largely the Labour manifesto, he paid tribute to Britain’s greatest social thinker of the 19th century, Robert Owen. We commemorate the 150th anniversary of Robert Owen’s death next year. Michael Young said:
“Of all the social services, education is far and away the most important. ‘The best governed state,’ said Robert Owen, the pioneer of modern socialism, ‘will be that which shall possess the best national system of education.’”
We would all endorse that.
It is to the credit of this Labour Government since 1997 and of our first Secretary of State for Education and Employment, as the post was then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that one of his first acts was to establish the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning. I was privileged to be appointed as a member of that group. Its two reports, “Learning for the 21st Century” and “Creating Learning Cultures: Next Steps in the Learning Age”, provided the intellectual groundwork for the progress in the last decade in such major issues as the interface of lifelong learning with community development, access to learning, stimulating demand among under-represented groups in further and higher education, and building networks and partnerships in localities and regions.
Democratic devolution was developing at the same time in the late 1990s in Scotland and Wales and they pioneered their own educational programmes, which were more radical in some respects. In Wales, the whole vision of the Welsh Assembly Government was of a learning country, and that encouraged much wider participation, especially in building interesting relationships with the voluntary sectors and women’s groups, and in developing the notion of community universities in different parts of Wales that had begun to develop in the period after the miners’ strike in 1984-85.
I turn now to the contemporary challenge for the skills agenda and part-time higher education. I believe that all higher education institutions should address the question of widening participation and the need for greater opportunities for part-time students from the perspective of not only social equity but economic progress. The challenge is both global and local; the two are complementary.
A national campaign would be welcome to highlight the valuable contribution that part-time higher education could make if there were greater opportunities and proper financial support for such study. The National Union of Students debate in Central Hall on 21 March will no doubt provide the opportunity to begin such a campaign. I have been impressed by NUS representations, which reminded us recently that 42 per cent. of HE students are part-time, yet the equalities review of March 2007 shows that the great expansion in higher education has apparently led to an increase of only three percentage points in the number of graduates from the poorest families. That is a debatable figure—indeed, it was discussed earlier—although it is too soon to assess the recent changes. However, it is a major challenge to all of us, especially my Labour Government and other parties.
For that reason, and from the perspective of social equity and the global economic challenge, the recent written evidence of Professor David Latchman, Master of Birkbeck college, to the Education and Skills Committee is important. I visited the college recently, as did the hon. Member for Henley who gave a lecture there—he would not allow me to intervene earlier when I wanted to refer to my visit. Professor Latchman is a dynamic leader of that institution, whose president is the distinguished historian, Professor Eric Hobsbawm. Birkbeck is a higher education institution serving one of the great cities of the world, and a range of students who largely study part-time. I was impressed by the fact that it is ahead of Government and other thinking about how we address the skills deficit and widening participation, especially in its innovative project to develop a new campus in the east of London and the Thames Gateway.
Professor Latchman raised important issues, with which I am sure many Members are familiar, about ensuring that part-time study is better supported. Before I go through them, I should point out that many other higher education institutions that are supportive of part-time students, such as London South Bank university, my own university—Swansea—and the North East Wales institute of higher education, would also benefit if we addressed the economic barrier faced by part-time students.
Professor Latchman made the following points: first, it is necessary to make use of full economic costing in determining the allocation of teaching funds, to recognise the higher cost of part-time provision; secondly, the funding allocation must be responsive to the flexible and modular patterns of study followed by part-time students; and, finally, there must be recognition that the present funding method has limited scope for increasing part-time fee rates as a means of closing the funding gap faced by many institutions, such as Birkbeck, which have a large number of part-time students. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points raised by Birkbeck and similar institutions.
Carers are an under-represented group in higher education, yet bearing in mind their caring responsibilities they could benefit enormously from part-time study. The Government have done outstanding work in supporting carers—from the Prime Minister’s national carers strategy in 1999, which established the carers special grant, to my Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, which the Government supported and which highlighted the importance of education and training opportunities for carers, and the Work and Families Act 2006, which gives carers the right to request flexible working. To build on that progress, I believe that the current review of the national carers strategy should recognise the pioneering work of the National Extension college in helping carers to access further and higher education. There should be a section in the new review on carers’ ability to access such opportunities. That would contribute enormously to addressing the question of social exclusion and the need to widen the participation of this very important group. The whole question of the 21-hour rule is a serious barrier to carers studying part-time.
As I said at the outset, I have focused on the new skills challenge and its relationship with part-time study. I end by paying tribute to a pioneer in this field—Bob Fryer, who 10 years ago was the principal of the Northern college. He was chair of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning and, since that time, he has continued the important work of widening participation by developing innovative and Government-supported strategies that could be seen as a model for future action. He was a leading figure in the early years of the University for Industry, which is now rebranded as learndirect, then the chief executive of the NHS university, and he is now the Department of Health’s national director for widening participation in learning. His work shows how seriously the Department of Health takes the development of its staff, especially the 25 per cent. who are qualified below NVQ level 2. His first report last year identified a great disparity between professional and non-professional employees in the national health service, and it is something that I know the Department will take seriously. It is very much part of the whole debate about widening participation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to the fact that we should not be narrow in our definition of higher education. It is not entirely about residential, full-time university opportunities; it is about work-based learning, home-based learning and a whole host of other things that have been developed by fine institutions such as the Open university.
I conclude not only by referring to the great and the good, such as Michael Young and Bob Fryer, as pioneers, but by recognising those people at the grass roots, such as Lesley Smith and Julie Bibby, who are carrying forward the work of widening participation for working-class women in former mining communities through the work of organisations such as the Dove workshop in the Dulais valley. It is now held up throughout Europe as a model of how to address the skills deficit in socially deprived communities. I should declare an interest at this point: my wife was one of the founders of the workshop and is its current president.
I am wearing the tie of the university of Wales, whose motto is “Prifysgol y Werin”—the people’s university, an aspiration that we all share. The challenge before us today is much easier than it was 150 years ago, when the university of Wales was established. The pennies of the poor, which inspired the establishment of the university of Wales, still inspire developments such as the Community university of the valleys, with which I was associated, Birkbeck college’s fine work in east London, and—most inspirationally of all—London South Bank university’s partnership with universities in South Africa to widen participation for black and coloured peoples, women, and working class people in that new country. It is the task of this Labour Government to sustain, widen and deepen such initiatives so that they are not marginal, but are mainstream in our higher education system. That would be a real achievement.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not allowing him to interrupt during my speech. It was because I was taking so many other interventions. I want to join him in what he says about Birkbeck. I hugely support Birkbeck’s fantastic efforts in the east end. But does he really think that women represent a minority whose participation in higher education needs to be expanded, given that they currently make up 59 per cent. of the student body?
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but what was lacking in his contribution was any class analysis. I am talking about working-class women and black working-class women. People from all kinds of social backgrounds should be encouraged—particularly women of working-class origin.
My last point is that this is a worthy, honourable and appropriate challenge for a party in government today that gave this country and the world the national health service and the Open university. It is a challenge that it will meet and in which it will succeed.
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), because I want to pick up on some of the points that he made about part-time students, but also because I share with him an interest that I should declare: until fairly recently, my wife was in charge of widening participation at Warwick university. I should put that on the record from the outset, before I start complimenting Warwick university on all the wonderful work that it did until recently to widen participation—and, of course, is still doing.
It is quite apparent from what we have heard in the debate so far that the issue of widening participation in higher education has been around for a great many years, but the issue has changed and developed. Whereas once upon a time we might have talked about the need to bring more women into higher education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has just observed, that is most distinctly no longer the issue. If anything, the issue is now the opposite of that. It is just as true to say that, as the Secretary of State observed yesterday and this morning, we must look at how to bring more white working-class boys and young men into higher education, as to say that we must look at many ethnic minority groups.
The issue is changing and developing and we find new challenges within it. One of those new challenges, to which reference has also been made, is the need to bring more disabled people into higher education. That brings with it specific challenges that are to do with the need to persuade people with disabilities, whether physical or mental, that university is an environment within which they can thrive. I say that because for those with a disability, it is particularly challenging and worrying to have to adapt to a new environment. It is important for that group that we make every effort to ensure that the environment is reassuring and that the development they will need to find within the environment that they will move into will be suitable for them.
Above all—this applies not just to disabled potential students, but to many of the other groups that we have talked about—we need to find new and imaginative ways to persuade people of something on which everyone has focused. I am talking about the need to explain that, despite their initial perception, university is a place within which they can do well and feel comfortable. One of the most imaginative and effective ways to do that is to develop mentoring programmes. If it is possible to demonstrate to someone that a student who is just like them—in terms of their background, the challenges that they have faced and the interests that they share—has done well at university, that is the most effective way that I can think of to show a prospective student that they will also do well in a university setting. I hope that what the Government have in mind for developing the widening of participation in higher education will include an element of mentoring, because that is very effective.
I want to widen the debate beyond the issues about which we have talked at some length and to concentrate on how we can broaden out the 18-to-30 age group that is going into universities. We could widen participation among those outside that group. I disagree with the Government’s 50 per cent. target for participation in higher education among the 18-to-30 age group for several reasons. One of the target’s flaws is the fact that it tends to focus too much attention on that age group and thus to underline the perception that higher education is only for people between the ages of 18 and 30, and that when one reaches the age of 30, it is no longer an appropriate course to pursue. That is profoundly wrong, and it is entirely at variance with other things that the Government are properly trying to do to develop the idea of education being a lifelong experience.
In many ways, the problem is mirrored by what is happening with adult learning courses. For perfectly understandable reasons, the Learning and Skills Council is focusing its attention and funding on the 14-to-25 age group, but the people who suffer are those outside that age group who are trying to attend adult learning courses later in life. Again, I understand why that focus is there and I sympathise with many of the reasons for it. However, one of its consequences is that it underlines the perception that if one has not taken the chance to go into higher education early in life, one cannot do so later. Such a situation would be profoundly regrettable.
I am not making my point solely to criticise the Government. On the contrary, I think that they are trying to deal with the situation. It is important that people understand that education, and especially higher education, is about second chances as well as first chances. Someone who did not go into higher education should be able to do so later, and people who, for whatever reason, went into higher education and then came out of it should be able to go back. Academics and those involved in higher education often say that people who go back into higher education later in life after an initial only-too-brief experience have done proportionately better on the second occasion, and better than others who have gone straight into higher education. There is a lot to be said for the opportunity to go in, or back in, at a later date.
It is important that we develop the idea of lifelong learning and consider widening participation in that context. We face a changing economic world in which few people of my age or younger will be able to look forward to one career from the moment they leave education to the moment they retire. We have realised that that is true for manual trades and technical professions, but we might not have recognised it quite so comprehensively for the professional or academic fields. For people in those fields, too, there will be huge burdens of retraining and expectations of re-education, so universities have a massive part to play in developing that re-education and retraining.
I accept that that already happens, to an extent, so I congratulate universities on what they do. They already effectively provide continuing professional development for those in mid-career who wish to develop their skills. I would like to see more of that. However, we face a particular challenge when addressing those who are between careers because, for whatever reason, they have left their particular employment or profession. Such people might wish to retrain and re-educate themselves so that they can go forward in a different field. However, those people are often in an especially difficult position. Employers, of course, see it as in their interests to pay for the continuing professional and academic development of their staff, so they do so. The universities find that helpful and they provide a good service. However, people who are between careers have a problem because they do not, by definition, have an employer that can help to fund what they wish to do to retrain, to be re-educated, or to re-skill. How are they to fund what they wish to do? Those individuals face particular problems. The hon. Member for Aberavon mentioned people who wished to become part-time students; overwhelmingly, the people I am describing will wish to study part-time, rather than full-time. They may face caring responsibilities, or more general family responsibilities, and they may well be obliged to earn money while studying. They will almost certainly face the challenge of having to reacquaint themselves with how studying and learning works, because they will have been absent from education for some time. They will face particular challenges, and although the issue is partly about how we can structure their educational experience so that they feel more comfortable with it, it is substantially about funding.
I do not have a magic solution to offer the Minister any more than anyone else does, but neither his Government nor any other Government can simply say, “The issue is too difficult and complicated; we won’t address these problems.” An answer must be found, because the group of people to whom I am referring will become ever larger, and will have ever more demanding needs. We need to find a way to ensure that their educational experience is comfortable, and we need to ensure that they can afford to undertake those educational tasks and can sustain themselves economically while they do so. That is partly because of the economic benefits that they will receive, but partly because of the benefits that we will all receive if more people reach a higher standard in education.
There are wider benefits to higher education, too, but very little has been said about them this afternoon. There are huge cultural benefits, benefits of well-being, and straightforward health benefits to higher education and further education. We have an increasingly ageing population that will need to return to education more often. People may wish to return to education once their working life is done. They may well want to re-enter some form of education during what may be a very long retirement, in order to keep their brain active and keep themselves interested, and we should encourage that. Why should we not talk about widening participation in higher education for those in retirement? They will have the time, and may have the income, to go into higher education. There must be considerable advantages to our society of encouraging people to keep their brains active, given that we know that dementia, Alzheimer’s and other conditions among older people will be an increasing drain on the health budget.
I am keen to allow others to participate, but I wanted to speak in favour of broadening the definition of widened participation, so that it includes those beyond the 18-to-30 age group, important though that is. I want to talk about a broader idea of what education should be; it should be a genuine lifelong learning experience. It should not be expected or anticipated that a person’s education will finish when they are 16, 24, 60 or 84. It should genuinely be an opportunity that people may take advantage of at any stage of their life. If we can achieve that, we will genuinely have widened participation.
I, too, congratulate the Minister on introducing today’s debate. Like many others in the House, I share a real interest in widening participation in higher education. As hon. Members may well know, before I entered the House I worked in higher education and did stints at Ruskin college and the Open university, two institutions that are absolutely committed to widening participation.
The debate is important, because it underpins values held by the Labour party, most notably the value of securing equal opportunity for all socio-economic groups when it comes to education. That is one of our foundations, and it remains an important aspiration. I am sorry to start on a contentious note, but I could not disagree more with the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) about the Government’s aspiration of getting 50 per cent. of young people into higher education. We have to look closely at why the Government set that target. It has helped us to shape the debate about higher education by focusing it clearly on getting more people into HE.
I accept, as does the hon. Lady, that it is a good thing to get more people into higher education, so I do not object to the target on those grounds. However, if we set a target of 50 per cent. we instantly suggest to young people who are seeking to go to university that if they do not do so, they must be in the bottom half. There is no problem in saying that we want as many people as possible to go to university who have the capability and ambition to do so, and who will benefit from the experience, but there is no reason to put a figure on it.
I accept that point only in so far as to say that we should not rest with the minimum. We must do everything that we can to encourage as many young people and other age groups to go to university. However, it is important to provide an aspiration, as it helps to focus everyone’s attention on getting more young people and others into university.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) is not in the Chamber, because he discussed the Leitch report, which made the point that we need to upskill the entire population. Some of that upskilling will take place in further education to level 3, but we must give our young people higher-level skills if we are to achieve a knowledge-based economy and compete internationally. In the past couple of years, I have had the opportunity of visiting India and China, where there is massive investment in the higher education system and a hunger for learning among young people. If we are to compete in future we must ensure that our young people have suitable skills.
There are other reasons for extending higher education opportunities. Recent forecasts by the Institute of Employment Research show that half of the 12 million jobs—some 6 million—likely to become vacant between 2004 and 2014 will be in occupations most likely to employ graduates. Graduates are more likely to enjoy better health and are less likely to commit crime. They are much more likely to engage actively in civil society, and we need no other reason for trying to encourage access to higher education. So far, the Government’s record is quite good. Since 1997, university applications for undergraduate enrolment have risen by about 23 per cent., and there has been a 28 per cent. increase for postgraduates. The proportion of first-degree entrants to university from state schools has risen, as has the number of young people going to university from low-participation areas. About 28.2 per cent. of young entrants to first degree courses are from the lowest socio-economic groups, which shows that good progress has been made on achieving the 50 per cent. target. However, Government Members are not at all complacent, and we accept that much more needs to be done if we are to achieve the 50 per cent. target and, indeed, exceed it, as we all want to do.
To achieve that goal, the Government have taken a number of steps to improve the admissions process. In particular, they have sought to raise aspirations. Not only do we have to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for everyone, but we must ensure that we raise the aspirations of people in the lowest socio-economic groups, as well as their attainment at university level. That means encouraging more young people to engage in post-16 learning. As well as young people doing A-levels and going straight on to university, there has been an increase in part-time study at university.
When considering the 18-to-30 group, we perhaps do not pay enough attention to the expansion that has taken place in work-related learning and work-based learning, and the excellent work that a number of trade unions are doing in the workplace through Unionlearn and by getting employees signed up to opportunities for more training and further qualifications.
Aimhigher has been mentioned this afternoon. It is a national programme that we know works in some of the intensively disadvantaged areas of the country. It co-ordinates a number of activities locally from HE, FE, schools and the learning and skills councils to encourage more young people into higher education and further education. I welcome the activities that Aimhigher carries out in my constituency, but I would like to hear more from the Minister about how it will be reviewed and how it might be transformed so that it can extend its work further.
I shall say something more about the higher education institution and the further education institution in my constituency. When we have these debates, we sometimes forget about the tremendously good work that is already being undertaken by institutions to raise aspiration and extend access. As the MP for City of Durham, I draw attention to the work of Durham university and New college Durham. Durham university is one of our leading research institutions. It would probably accept that it could do more to widen access. Nevertheless, it has a school- targeted aspiration-raising scheme, which it calls STARS, fortunately. That is targeted at local schoolchildren aged 14 to 16 to give them an idea of what it is like to be a student. They are brought into the university for study days and given mentors in the community.
I also want to draw attention to the mentoring scheme that Durham university runs through Collingwood college for its students to mentor looked-after children. We need to put more effort into raising the educational attainment of looked-after children, and the mentoring scheme has been shown to be extremely successful in raising the aspirations of those children. The Government should try and think of ways in which that scheme could be rolled out further. Durham university does all the things that almost all higher education institutions in the country do, by offering master classes, summer schools, talks and tours for years 12 and 13.
New college Durham undertakes activities though the Aimhigher programme. It has a target of taking 75 per cent. of its students from low-income neighbourhoods. We should applaud that target and the college’s efforts to work with local schools and other colleges to meet it.
There are a few topics on which I should like to hear the Minister’s comments. We have heard the figures that show that the Government are making considerable progress towards the 50 per cent. target, but there is more to do. What role will extending foundation degrees, particularly vocational foundation degrees, play in achieving the target? How might the Further Education and Training Bill address the issue by giving colleges the ability to award their own foundation degrees? What more can be done to encourage universities, particularly ones like Durham, where the majority of the intake comes from the independent sector, to get more applications and more students from state schools into our best universities, and to ensure that some of those students come from lower-income backgrounds, to raise aspirations across the board? Will the Education and Inspections Act 2006 be an important factor in that respect in terms of extending the right of schools to have a sixth form?
Will the Minister acknowledge that there is still a need to streamline all the different organisations involved in promoting skills and skills development? The situation is incredibly confusing not only for young people, but for older people who are trying to get back into higher or further education, because they are bombarded with information from a huge number of agencies. There needs to be better liaison between local authorities, learning and skills councils and schools in an area in order to plan effectively.
On sixth form and post-sixth form places, we may need to look at support for part-time students. Science teaching and the need to produce more science graduates has been mentioned this afternoon. I have a science learning centre in my constituency, and it is excellent. It is giving wonderful support to teachers, and we need to consider how to roll out that model. I am absolutely certain that a science learning centre and the support that it gives to teachers means that there are more young people taking science-based subjects at A-level and going on to study science-based subjects through higher education. Can attention in the 14-to-19 curriculum be given not only to vocational subjects, but to encouraging young people to take their education on to further education and foundation degrees?
I will finish there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. We all agree that, as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) has outlined, the issue that we are discussing this afternoon is very important.
To be fair, the Government have committed enormous resources and effort to trying to widen participation and improve fair access to higher education; they have spent some £350 million of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash on that in recent times. I criticise them not for their commitment but for their use of outdated dogma, and to some extent for their incompetence. The Government suffer from the same problems that afflict many in the education establishment.
I have looked at a number of briefings for this debate from organisations ranging from the National Union of Students to the Association of Colleges, many of which make the same basic error. They seem to believe that the Government can do everything—that the Government can intervene and change the world to create a perfect model of society. I suggest that the lesson of the past 10 years is the opposite of that: we need less interference in order to achieve more success. The old saying “Less is more” is relevant in this particular case.
Part of the problem is that the Government have approached increasing participation from the bottom socio-economic groups from the wrong end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has said, much of the problem in getting a wider section of social groups into higher education lies in primary and secondary schools and the social problems in the areas surrounding those schools. As several hon. Members have said, there is a poverty of aspiration in many parts of the country today, and far too many parents have a poverty of aspiration for their children. We can set as many artificial and socially engineered targets as we like, but if we do not tackle that poverty of aspiration, improvements will be difficult to achieve and maintain. Our schools, both primary and secondary, do not currently provide a significant ladder of opportunity for social classes 4 to 7 as measured by UCAS.
Despite all the initiatives and money spent, the overall additional participation of the bottom social classes is only 1.8 per cent. since 2002, and just over 3 per cent. since 1997, according to the Library. That is not a significant return on the huge investment that has been made, and it is despite the bigger numbers going into higher education since the mid-1990s. From 1994 to 2005, the number of home students accepted at universities through UCAS rose from 251,000 to 360,000—an increase of about 30 per cent. I congratulate the Government on making funds available for that and on making further funds available for an increase of another 50,000 over the next couple of years.
The good news is that more young people go into higher education and will continue to do so, but the bad news is that they do not come from an increasingly wide socio-economic group, despite all the Government’s top-down schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, the latest wheeze is to record whether applicants’ parents went to university so that admissions tutors can make judgments as to which candidates deserve to go to their universities. Our great academic institutions are being encouraged to pick students not on merit but on the basis of what their fathers did decades before. After last week’s debate, some will appreciate the irony of this Government’s establishing a new hereditary principle. Universities are being penalised for not hitting arbitrary targets for the number of poor students they should be taking; several have had funds cut as a result. That kind of social engineering attacks the problem from completely the wrong end, and does nothing to resolve the issues.
One thing that the Government may have got right, although it is still too early to tell for certain, is top-up fees. The figures suggest that after last year’s dip, this year’s applications have climbed by about 7 per cent. That is good, but as we have heard, the NUS and others, including the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), suggest that it may be related to the demographic bulge.
Well, we will see about that. The NUS also makes a significant point about the 42 per cent. of higher education students who are part-time, about whose socio-economic class we do not have much information. For poorer students, there is something to be said for an annual grant of £2,700 plus a university bursary and interest-free loans that do not have to be paid back until they start earning. That may incentivise some poorer students to go to university; it certainly should not disincentivise them, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman suggested, particularly as fees are not paid up front. What I find less convincing, and less attractive, about that model is its effect on those who fall just above the qualification level. As always, students and parents who are just above the qualification level for such grants and bursaries face the biggest barriers to entry.
On student funding, I am prepared to listen carefully to any further evidence-based plans from the Government, as I think that they are going in the right direction. However, within the overall context of widening participation, policy mistakes are limiting access for poorer socio-economic groups. Let me demonstrate that with a couple of examples of how the schools system, as run from the centre, has militated against the success of the Department’s own purported aim of improving fair access.
Two years ago the Government stopped languages being a compulsory subject when they dropped them from the core curriculum at key stage 4. Surprise, surprise—the numbers taking languages slumped. In 2004, 80 per cent. took one language or more at GCSE; now only half that number do. With fewer and fewer young people taking the subject to GCSE and then on to A-level, many universities struggle to recruit students. Consequently, languages are becoming elitist because only middle-class students study them at top universities. While the number of comprehensive schools teaching languages falls, grammar schools, specialist schools and independent schools forge ahead with them. Students from those schools go on to the Russell group of universities. However, further down the pecking order, 16 universities no longer offer a degree in the four major languages of French, German, Italian and Spanish.
Many schools in the state sector no longer teach single science subjects. The flow of students studying pure science at university has become a trickle. That has caused approximately 80 departments to close in recent years, including the physics department at Reading university, in my constituency.
The changes in language and science teaching in schools have had a direct negative impact on the number of young people from specific social groups who can participate in important academic subjects. The chances of those who have not had a middle-class upbringing being able to study a pure science or a language at university are increasingly slim.
With all due respect, this speech is one of the most poorly researched that I have heard—and I do not say that gratuitously. The hon. Gentleman has made a statement about the closure of university science departments. Will he give us the figures for the number of students who study science? If he can do that, he will paint a different picture.
I will not give specific numbers, but I am talking about pure science subjects, not the combined science subjects to which the Minister is referring.
My hon. Friend is a man who knows about this subject. Pure science subjects such as physics have experienced a sad decline in numbers of students, and 30 per cent. of physics departments have closed in the past eight years. The Minister is right to say that the number of those studying forensic science and combined science subjects is increasing, but if he examines what is happening to chemistry and physics, he will realise that there is serious cause for concern. My hon. Friend is right to make that point.
I mentioned lack of competence in some subjects, and I should like to give an example of that. Have the changes to post-qualification access—PQA—been shelved? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us later. It is a system whereby students apply to university after they receive their A-level results.
In September 2005, the Department published consultation proposals from a group chaired by Sir Alan Wilson about the implementation of PQA. The Department based the case for change on the fact that 45 per cent. of predicted A-level grades are accurate. The group highlighted the fact that predicted grades were most inaccurate for students
“from the lower socio-economic groups and those from certain school or college backgrounds” .
The Department said that, “crucially”, students with underestimated grades did
“not receive the conditional offers that they merit”.
In other words, students from lower socio-economic groups were disadvantaged by the current system.
However, Geoff Hayward, who produced a report for UCAS, said:
“It’s just not true. They are trying to portray a particular image that poorer students are being disadvantaged by the system, but the report I wrote finds very, very weak, if any, support for that conclusion.”
Dr. Hayward’s report shows that predicted grades are indeed less accurate for students from lower socio-economic groups, who are more likely to have their grades exaggerated. However, the discrepancy is largely explained by the accuracy of the different grade predictions. A grades are much more reliably predicted than others, and a strong correlation remains between socio-economic background and achievement at A-level. The report states:
“Teachers in independent and grammar schools make the most reliable predictions, largely because of the high proportion of A grades being achieved in these institutions.”
The fact that fewer than half of all grade predictions are accurate matters only if it affects admissions. The report finds little evidence that it does. It found “only weak and negative evidence” of over-prediction increasing applicants’ chances of success. Some commentators observed that the idea that the whole system might change to benefit specific sorts of applicant, however deserving, was asking for trouble. Why change the whole system when the evidence suggests that offers are not affected by slight inaccuracies in predicted grades?
After a major push for a move to PQA in 2005, the Government seem to have gone very quiet. Have they realised their mistake and buried the issue? Perhaps the Minister will explain in his summing up what is happening, but there is a bigger issue. If PQA is not a magic-bullet answer to improving fair access to higher education, what are the Government going to do to improve the chances of bright and able pupils from poor backgrounds to access top universities? Preferably, they will not offer socially engineered schemes—but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on securing the debate. First, may I say that 10 years ago, it would have been inconceivable to have a debate on this topic in Government time? That in itself is a tribute to the efforts of the Minister and his predecessors on widening participation. I congratulate the Government on their unswerving pursuit of the objectives of increasing fair access and widening participation. I want to put on record my support for almost every individual policy that they have implemented over the last 10 years, which has made this achievement possible.
In contrast, during that time I cannot remember—until today—a single statement or policy put forward by the Opposition that has advanced this cause. In fact, the Opposition have voted against virtually every Budget that provided the money to make progress possible.
I am afraid that I will not give way, as time is so short.
I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way earlier, and I had more than my fair share of interventions—but let us see how the next 10 minutes go.
In the 15 years before 1997—before I was elected to the House—I had some involvement in this field of activity, and I cannot remember a single act by the then Conservative Government that advanced the cause of widening participation—[Interruption.] Although the numbers of students in our universities increased during that time, that was entirely due to two factors. The first was the gradual extension of comprehensive education during the 1970s and 1980s, which led to more children and young people achieving the necessary qualifications to enable them to stay on, to study their A-levels and continue on to university. The second factor was the two recessions in the early 1980s and early 1990s, engineered by the Conservative Government, that raised unemployment and led many adults to seek places at university because they could not find a job in the labour market. That was the reality.
It is precisely because of that reality that I particularly welcome the new rhetoric put forward by the official Opposition. [Interruption.] There now appears to be at least a consensus of rhetoric about the importance of widening participation—if not a consensus about the policies needed to address the issue. [Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Talk about a badly researched speech! I really think that the hon. Gentleman should reflect the role of the Conservative Government and the Conservative Education Secretary in hugely expanding the university sector by allowing the creation of a huge number of new universities.
That is not a picture that I recognise. What I do recognise is the fact that the previous Government put a cap on the number of places in universities. Since that time, of course, Conservative Front and Back Benchers have continued to argue that there are too many students of the wrong type going to university. Throughout this whole period, I have asked a number of Conservative MPs which of their children they are prepared to tell that they are the wrong kind of kid to go to university—and not one of them has been able to answer that question.
Until we see some sort of conversion halfway along the road to Damascus, which is where the Opposition currently are, and until we see them adopting and supporting the sort of sensible policies that this Government have put in place, we cannot accept that their position has much credibility. Indeed, during the whole 35 minutes of the opening speech by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—he was actually winding us up the whole time, which I thought was a subtle achievement—only one new policy was put forward. That was a tweaking of the arrangements for performance tables—a weighting of achievements in science subjects—which as far as I could see would simply increase the differential between schools that already had a large number of students pursuing and achieving in pure science subjects and schools that did not. That would have been a regressive step.
I support the various measures that the Government have taken and I pay tribute to the universities that have taken this matter seriously. In the opening speech from the official Opposition, I was struck by the way in which the hon. Member for Henley praised Bristol university in one breath and, in the next, condemned the measures that it had used to improve its rates of participation.
I also want to pay tribute to the work of the many Aimhigher partnerships operating throughout England and Wales. Although it is sometimes difficult to assess the direct effect of much of this work, I hope that the Aimhigher project will still continue after the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, because it involves long-term investment for long-term achievements. I particularly want to pay tribute to the active work of the Aimhigher partnerships in Greater Manchester, which covers my constituency.
We need to get away from a total obsession with getting a wider group of students into our elite universities. Widening the social base of those universities is crucial—my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, outlined the nature of this problem, and some of the solutions, extremely effectively—but widening participation is not only about Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Durham and one or two of the London universities. It is about the whole range of universities, and we need to look at the whole of the British university system rather than focusing on the elite research universities.
If we want to make progress with our leading research universities, we have to move to the post-qualification admissions system. That crucial measure will help us to implement a fairer system. We must also do more work on making more information on students’ backgrounds available to admissions tutors. In the various discussions that I have had on this subject with Opposition Members in the past 10 years, I cannot remember a single occasion on which they did not introduce the concept of social engineering. That is an important concept, because we have had a thousand years of social engineering that has led to the kind of class-based inequalities of access to university that we now suffer from. The job of the university admissions tutor is to identify potential. To pretend that that can be done without judging the achievement of the student in the context of the school that they went to and the family that they came from is naive and dishonest. I therefore fully support moves to make such information available to admissions tutors.
I want to make a point that I hope will elicit a degree of consensus among all three parties here today. However important the Government’s measures to improve the admissions arrangements to universities and to widen the social base of the students attending universities, the problem is not at the point of entry to the university. As speakers from all parties have said, the problem is to be found earlier in the education system. In my view, it arises at the age of transfer from primary school to secondary school. What distinguishes the British education system from many others in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is the significance that parents attach to the choice of school for their child. Until we can move fairly and quickly to a secondary education system that is more equal, and in which the choice of school has less effect on a child’s eventual achievement, we will never have a fully developed, successful widening participation policy in our universities.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I am sorry.
If we can develop a more egalitarian, less hierarchical and less elitist secondary school system, it follows as night follows day that more young people will achieve more at 14, 16 and 18 in a way that will provide them with an automatic route into university.
They will not all be studying philosophy, politics and economics or ancient history at Oxbridge, but a range of important subjects. The progression from school to university, however, will become more automatic and inevitable if we lift the level of talent of all our pupils, and if the choice of school has less effect on the eventual outcome.
The 14-to-19 reforms are a hugely important development, which relates directly to the widening of participation in universities. It is regrettable that the Government did not adopt Mike Tomlinson’s report in its totality. I hope, however, that the issue remains on the table for the future. We make a mistake, however, if we believe that the key to the problem is somehow to get parity between the vocational and the academic. As long as the academic subjects lead to the kinds of careers that pay two, three, four or even 10 times as much as those to which the vocational subjects lead, parents and students will never be convinced of parity. The key lies in eliminating the nonsensical concepts of vocational and academic. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Henley agrees.
Medicine, of course, is the classic example of a vocational subject. For decade after decade, our system has produced people who know every fine detail of the history of the Peloponnesian wars, but who cannot change a plug or switch on the dishwasher. It is critical that rather than trying to get parity between the two concepts, which we will not achieve, we eliminate those concepts and develop a new framework and set of terms of reference to describe the different natures of learning reflected in the practical and the conceptual.
On costs and fees, among the most important steps forward in the past 10 years to a more egalitarian education system were the introduction of tuition fees in universities in 1999, and the extension of those fees by raising the maximum level to £3,000 for 2006. Those were hugely controversial steps. Once the effects have been analysed in four years’ time, when the first cohort of students will have gone through the new system with a maximum £3,000 fee, I believe that the case will be made for raising the cap. We cannot continue to finance a world-class university system largely on the back of the taxpayer. We need different sources of funding, to which fee income will contribute. I also find it impossible to understand how anyone who believes that it is reasonable to pay a fee for a child’s secondary education should find that the taxpayer should pay the largest part of the fee for that child’s university education. That is completely and utterly illogical. Raising the cap will be an important and high-profile political issue three or four years from now.
Finally, may I make a plea that the Government do it differently next time? We cannot just sit back as we did last time, and subcontract the decision to Sir Ron Dearing or some other expert. We cannot just have an external analysis of the impact of raising fees on the first cohort, and then try to push the change through Parliament. We must prepare the ground and develop a better understanding among Members of the three main parties represented here and among the wider public, parents and students. We should start discussing the arguments for and against raising the cap. We should not leave it to the last minute. We must do the groundwork so that in 2010, when I believe that the case will have been made for raising the cap in a careful and regulated way—and in a way that provides sufficient scholarships and bursaries so that no applicant from a low-income background feels that they cannot go to university—that change will become part of the new consensus in an expanding, thriving and internationally competitive university system.
I think that our debate has been genuinely helpful, informed and instructive. I must say that at the outset I did not expect, at the conclusion, to be urged from the left to lift the cap, and I greatly respect my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for that. I will not alter my opinion that we need to see what happens during the first three years of operation, but my hon. Friend’s speech underlined the fact that there is a redistributive case for the system that we have introduced. I think that that is one of its merits.
I was pleased that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) began by saying that we should encourage more young people in lower socio-economic groups to enter higher education. I wish that that could be stated clearly from a Conservative perspective in the columns of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph.
Their columns—apart from the hon. Gentleman’s— constantly attack the Government for pursuing exactly that objective, but if we have a cross-party consensus here, that is to be welcomed.
Like many other Members who spoke, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Aimhigher programme and our review of it. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) asked me about the review, which I instigated. I did not do that because I wanted the programme to be cut; I think that it is an excellent programme. However, I also think we should ensure that it is targeted as effectively as possible. The review has identified the fact that while an immense amount of good work is being done, it is not being targeted as closely as it should be on young people and children in the lower socio-economic groups.
Will the Minister give way?
Very briefly.
Can the Minister tell us where he thinks the money is going, and should not be going?
My point is that the money is there to target young people from the poorest backgrounds, which is not happening in all circumstances. We need to put that right.
The hon. Gentleman went on to make a number of comments about the fact that the key challenge in providing access to higher education is posed not by the university admission system, but at a much earlier stage. I agreed with that analysis, but I parted company with the hon. Gentleman when he repudiated the real progress made in the last 10 years in driving up attainment in state schools. There has been a step change in performance during that time. However we structure the figures—whether or not we include English or maths—there has been a significant improvement in the performance of state schools, which before 1997 had been flatlining for some time.
The hon. Gentleman majored on the position in the Russell group of universities. Ten thousand more young people are gaining access to those universities than were doing so in 1997. Is that enough progress? No, we have further progress to make—but I think the figure demonstrates that progress is being made.
We saw a couple of weeks ago how long it takes for a clear commitment on the part of the Conservative party to mellow into an aspiration. I think there was a gap of two minutes between the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to abolishing the Connexions service and his commitment to reforming it. I found that an instructive example of the evolution of Conservative party policy.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about announcements made by the UCAS board about the need to take account of socio-economic and parental backgrounds. I should make it clear that the decision was made by the UCAS board, which includes representatives from universities across the country. It is a positive response to the Schwartz review’s recommendations on an holistic assessment process. The Government did not ask for the decision or intervene in it, but I certainly welcome it. The new arrangement is optional for higher education institutions, which can decide for themselves whether they want to use it, but it could help the difficult process of assessing potential, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. Universities have been grappling with the issue for some time, and I think we undervalue its importance if we decry it.
The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), on whom I intervened, began by accusing the Government of outdated dogma. In fact, his comments demonstrated his own outdated analysis of the Government’s policies and programme. He made one statement that was completely erroneous, and which motivated me to intervene on him. He talked about the targets for higher education institutions in respect of the proportions of students from poorer backgrounds and from state schools accessing them, and he then made the completely unsubstantiated claim that if universities do not meet those targets, they will be financially penalised. That is simply untrue. They are not performance targets, there is no link with funding, and I hope that he will withdraw those comments.
The hon. Gentleman also made some comments about the teaching of modern languages. The most significant change that we can make is the one that this Government are committed to: to ensure that by 2010 every child in every primary school in this country has access to learning a modern foreign language. The key change we are making is to introduce that commitment at primary school level.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about science subjects. After several years in which there was a decline in the number of applications to study the hard science subjects, over the past three years there has been a positive trend in the right direction. In particular, in terms of the applications announced a few weeks ago for next September there have been big increases—of above 10 per cent.—for chemistry, physics, maths and engineering. That is solid progress, and it should be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman also made some very strange remarks about post-qualification applications and claimed that the Government had gone quiet on that issue. He cannot have been in the Chamber when I made a significant point during my opening speech about the importance of post-qualification applications and the fact that although the Government do not control university admissions, we are doing everything in our power to urge universities to move towards having a full system of PQA by 2012. The fact is that more than half of predicted grades are inaccurate, and in terms of both under-prediction and over-prediction—both of which are a cause for concern—students from the lowest socio-economic groups are the most adversely affected. However, it is for the benefit of people from all backgrounds that we need a fairer system of application and admission to university.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made a number of important points, but I think that he under-represented the progress that our universities are making in terms of community outreach and summer schools. Those efforts should be supported.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) made a significant point about the importance of work-based higher education. In respect of the Leitch challenge, 70 per cent. of the 2020 work force are already in work today. We need to ensure that those who are already in work have real opportunities to access higher education. That will be the biggest area of expansion in the system in future.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the burden of debt, and there is an important issue to get across on that: the postgraduate system of debt and repayment that we have established is debt like no other. It is not like any loan that people can get anywhere on the high street because there is no real rate of interest—people repay only when they are in work and earning more than £15,000, and if after 25 years they have not paid the debt off, it is cancelled. If people could get a loan like that in any building society or bank on the high street, we would not be able to move for people queuing up to get hold of it. We need to do much more to get across the benefits of the new system.
The hon. Gentleman also decried the fact that under the new system there has only been a small increase in the proportion of applications from students from lower socio-economic groups. I do not deny that we need to do more, but, before we introduced the new system, it was alleged that that if we introduced variable fees, applications would plummet, particularly from students from poorer backgrounds. That simply has not happened, and I would like some recognition to be given to that fact.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) made some important points about mentoring, which is a key element of what we are seeking to do. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham talked about the 50 per cent. target, and my hon. Friend rightly said that that is about setting an ambition and an aspiration. I would hazard a guess that that 50 per cent. target probably has the greatest common currency of any public service agreement target among ordinary people in this country. I think that underlines our ambition for the expansion of higher education opportunities, both for the younger population and throughout people’s working lives.
This has been an important debate with a lot of commitment shown. We are making progress, but we undoubtedly have to do more.
It being Six o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Petitions
Television Reception
I wish to present a public petition to the House of Commons, organised by a most excellent campaigner in my constituency, Mrs. Carol Childs. Normally, the Parliament channel would be able to beam my remarks to the petitioners, but as the House will learn, that will not be possible today. There are only 105 signatures on the petition, but those who have signed have lost their television signal. One day they had a television signal and the next day an industrial unit was built behind them and they lost it, although they still have to pay their licence fee.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of residents of Rushden, Northamptonshire and surrounding areas
Declares that, due to the construction of large industrial units behind The Hedges, a road in Rushden, the television signal has been lost or severely impaired for many households. Given that the households have to pay a TV License fee it is unacceptable that there is no or a very poor television signal.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons asks that the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport initiates an investigation into this matter with the aim to find a solution that will restore a quality television signal.
And the Petitioners remain.
To lie upon the Table.
Fire Appliances (Cheadle)
My first petition relates to the question of the fire station and engine in Cheadle in my constituency. It is supported by no fewer than 1,897 signatures and it states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
The Humble petition of the residents and citizens of the town of Cheadle in Staffordshire
Sheweth that the withdrawal of Cheadle’s second fire appliance exposes the residents of Cheadle to a greater risk and danger due to the lack of the two appliances which the town has enjoyed up until now.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to re-establish two on-call fire appliances as a matter of urgency for the town of Cheadle in order to protect and re-establish the minimum level of fire prevention support for the residents of Cheadle in Staffordshire.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Post Office Closures
My second petition relates to the proposed or feared closure of post offices in the rural area of my constituency and is supported by more than 1,000 signatories. One is a lady aged 101 whose father was the village postmaster. It states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
The Humble petition of the residents and citizens of the villages of Gnosall and Haughton.
Sheweth that the plans, if approved, for the closure of local post offices would severely damage the provision of local services to the local rural community and further erode the economy and services enjoyed over many years by local people
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to allow and encourage post offices to retain, maintain and strengthen those crucial services which they have always fulfilled in the past and allow them to continue.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
John Prendergast, Springbrook, Audmore, Gnosall, Staffs.
To lie upon the Table.
Moneystone Quarry
My third petition relates to a very important issue surrounding Moneystone quarry. It is supported by almost 700 letters of objection to Staffordshire county council. It states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
The Humble petition of the residents and citizens of the village of Whiston in Staffordshire
Sheweth that the plans, if approved, for an extension to Moneystone quarry will have a negative impact on the ecology, quality of infrastructure and quality of life in the area surrounding the quarry.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to call in the planning application so that a full and proper planning inquiry can take place and thoroughly examine the application in a fair, democratic and accountable manner.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Noise Pollution
I present this petition on behalf of the residents of Port Solent, which is in my constituency and adjacent to the M27. The motorway is heavily congested and due to be widened by means of climbing lanes. The residents of Port Solent are not opposed to the climbing lanes but they request that acoustic noise barriers be erected to combat noise pollution.
The petition has been signed by 544 residents of Port Solent, which is a mixed development of apartments and houses. The houses in the development are closest to the motorway and 435 of the signatures come from them, which demonstrates the strength of feeling. I pay tribute to Phil Dickinson, Paul Lemaistre and Sue Hewitson who have worked hard gathering signatures for the petition.
The petition
Declares that the very close proximity and raised nature of the M27, alongside residential housing at Port Solent, causes intolerable levels of noise pollution, beyond what would currently be allowable for planning permission of either motorway or housing.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency to construct acoustic barriers, alongside the motorway adjacent to this housing, to protect residents from the very detrimental levels of noise pollution.
And the petitioners remain etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Channel 4
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Roy.]
I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the subject of Channel 4 and public service broadcasting. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), is in the Chamber for this debate, but sorry that I have had to take him from pressing duties elsewhere, at the launch of the new digital service.
The debate offers the House its first formal opportunity for a full and frank discussion about the offensive and—in my opinion and that of many others—racist material broadcast on Channel 4 two months ago. In January, Channel 4 began broadcasting the latest and fourth series of “Celebrity Big Brother”. The channel’s 24-hour, seven-day-a-week coverage of celebrities isolated in a house in Hertfordshire attracted millions of viewers who had tuned in to see a narrative of human interaction. However, that series revealed a much uglier side to so-called reality television. It began with bullying, derogatory cultural references and blatant racist behaviour against the Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty from Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O’Meara—a trio of young female celebrities. Two of them have since apologised for their behaviour.
It is not necessary or productive to provide a full list of the incidents of abuse that took place inside the “Big Brother” house, but to have an understanding of the situation we should remember that over successive days and weeks Ms Shetty was called “Shilpa Poppadum”, asked whether she lived in a “house or a shack”, told to “go back to the slums” and repeatedly referred to as “the Indian”. Those were the bits that were broadcast, although for the many hours of footage that were shown many more hours were not aired. One wonders how much of it was in a similar vein.
Given the 24-hour nature of the programme and its wall-to-wall coverage, it is not surprising that the public’s reaction was so intense. The programme holds the record as most complained about in British television history. More than 40,000 complaints were received by the authorities. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Ministers and 91 Members of the House made it clear that they felt that the programme was doing a disservice to the multicultural society we have achieved today and was providing a major platform to the minority with such prejudiced sentiments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spoke for many when she said in a personal capacity that “Celebrity Big Brother” was nothing more than “racism masquerading as entertainment”—one of the most powerful and commendable statements made by anyone on this subject.
Of course, offence was caused not only to the British Asian community, but to our friends and allies in the sub-continent. Fortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was leading a delegation to India at the time and could properly and immediately represent the rejection of the racism shown on “Big Brother”. Otherwise, I fear that even greater damage would have been done to our standing abroad.
It is of credit to Britain that this series of “Big Brother” resulted in a final victory for Ms Shetty, who won herself many admirers when she became the first ever ethnic minority winner. The Minister himself spoke for millions when in the Chamber on 29 January he congratulated Ms Shetty on her victory after what he described as a “ghastly few weeks” on the programme.
Throughout this sorry state of affairs, Shilpa Shetty carried herself with dignity, calm and grace—a real ambassador for Asian women the world over. The millions who voted for her also deserve congratulations on their rejection of those who sought to demean and humiliate her. We should rightly pride ourselves on the steps that our country has taken in recent years to change our national culture into one that accepts differences and respects diversity.
The loser from the whole incident was the broadcaster Channel 4. Through ignorance or wilful neglect, it allowed these broadcasts to continue through to a very bitter end and then sought to justify that on the basis that its viewers had chosen Ms Shetty as the winner even though Channel 4 had no role in or influence on the final result. In so doing, it lost the support of its viewers and it lost a multi-million sponsorship from Carphone Warehouse and the advertising revenue of PepsiCo as those companies took the right decision to stop supporting it. It also lost the revenue from its premium rate phone lines as it was forced into donating the money to charity. Finally, it lost the trust of the nation, which had looked to Channel 4 as a responsible public service broadcaster and as a real champion of ethnic minority broadcasting—hence this debate.
The initial response of Channel 4 during the peak of public outrage was most disappointing, as it distanced itself from the outrage felt by many. On 18 January, Channel 4 chairman Luke Johnson went on the “Today” programme and provided Mr. Jim Naughtie with a succession of “no comments”. As the interviewer aptly pointed out, it was a great irony on that day that it appeared that the only person in the country with nothing to say on this major news story was the chairman of the broadcaster responsible for it.
By lunchtime, when it was apparent that such stonewalling would not do, its chief executive, a tie-less Andy Duncan, appeared before the world’s press in Oxford. His statement offered the opinion that what constituted racism was a “complex” area. It appears sadly from a successful career at Unilever that Mr. Duncan, the man who promoted the catchphrase “I can’t believe it’s not butter” also could not believe that it was racism. Mr. Duncan went on to say that it was “unquestionably a good thing” that the programme
“raised these issues and provoked such a debate”.
Others believe that the role of “Big Brother” has a less grand purpose than creating a national debate on major issues. In fact, it was the very same Mr. Duncan who reportedly said 20 months before that “Big Brother” made no claim to provide “social or moral education” but was just a very important entertainment programme for Channel 4. Rory Bremner could have turned up on 18 January and would have done much better.
It is perhaps not surprising that Channel 4 was so unprepared for the reaction. Remarkably for a major public institution, it is run by an all-white management board. Despite the channel’s professed commitment to providing a service to all minorities, there is no way that any member of the board could have understood from personal experience what racial discrimination felt like. Perhaps that is why they found the issue so complex.
Overall, the response of Channel 4 was pathetic, ineffective and derisory. I met Mr. Duncan last week at my request. It was clear that he felt that his response and the general response of Channel 4 was in retrospect unsatisfactory. Mistakes were made, he said. He assured me that Channel 4’s internal investigation would address the areas where improvements could, and I suggest should, be forthcoming. It is a sad fact that during the events of January the channel, which was originally set up with the express intention of catering for minority interests, responded so poorly. It has damaged its own hard-won reputation in the eyes of many who previously looked to it to represent their experiences. What pride it took last year when it chose to front its alternative Queen’s speech with a woman in a niqab. Was that pride before the fall?
I hope that, at the conclusion of the investigation, Channel 4 will take a belated opportunity fully to condemn racism in all forms and fully to apologise to all offended, especially Ms Shetty. The regulator’s inquiry is important—not least for the precedent that it will set in a digital age. “Big Brother” is a unique show and I have concerns about the regulatory framework, which does not have the capacity to cope with reality television programmes of this kind. Unlike a normal programme, which lasts a few hours or less, the 24/7 nature of reality programmes results in masses of footage, filmed by several cameras. In the case of “Big Brother”, there would have been hundreds of hours of footage. Unfortunately, the complaints are not being assessed individually by the regulator. It has been pretty slow in responding to my requests for a meeting, although, oddly enough, it has agreed to meet me next week. The Minister will understand that, as channels proliferate on the digital spectrum, there is no effective mechanism that provides an efficient and effective oversight of the increasing number of reality shows that are broadcast over weeks or months.
It has been reported that, in an age of strong digital competition, the future of Channel 4 is uncertain. Its chief executive has projected a £100 million shortfall for the channel once digital switchover is complete. It is clear that that is expected to be made up in the form of a direct Government subsidy. The sum of £100 million would be only slightly more than the channel receives from the “Big Brother” franchise, which accounts for between 7 and 10 per cent. of its £800 million budget. It is clear that the management at 124 Horseferry road are attempting to avoid having to make a choice. They are trying to square the circle of broadcasting high-profit television franchises while demanding a subsidy on the basis that they are a public service broadcaster serving the public interest. It would have happened eventually, but “Big Brother” has shown that that will not be possible.
Many have misunderstood the debate as being one about editorial censorship. I must clarify that. This is a debate about how a channel that causes massive offence to the public in pursuit of advertising revenue can claim to be serving the public interest and deserving of public subsidy. Channel 4 now faces a clear choice between maintaining its distinctive and original identity and becoming just another outlet for shock television.
I hope that the Minister will join me and clearly state that, as far as he is concerned, racism is not a complex area involving subjective opinions. He has been involved in the great steps taken by the Government to promote the equality agenda and to encourage public institutions to modernise their attitudes. I call on him to ensure that all broadcasters can properly represent today’s Britain. Perhaps he can even get Channel 4 to apologise.
I also ask the Minister to use his good offices so that the public can be assured that all the money raised by premium-rate phone lines and later pledged to charity is accounted for. Many members of the public pursued their involvement in voting for Shilpa Shetty only on the basis that Channel 4 would not directly profit from their votes. In the light of recent scandals affecting other game shows and TV competitions, of which the Minister is very aware, there are questions about how much the concerned charities should expect to receive from Channel 4 and by what deadline, and who will monitor the money earned for the charity and the processing of that amount. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that position.
Is the Minister satisfied that the powers of the regulator are strong enough to deal with reality television formats? Can he offer the House any assurance about how far a reality-series television station could go before Ofcom could intervene with force?
The issue of accountability is at the heart of this. Mr. Duncan explained the system of accountability in Channel 4. The chairman and non-executive members appear to be appointed by the regulator. Ofcom will be expected to regulate the broadcaster under the management of its chosen appointees. At the same time, the chief executive of Channel 4 is selected by the board of Ofcom-appointed non-executive directors. One can imagine that once the board selects Channel 4’s chief executive, it will be loth to admit collective responsibility for selecting an individual who is not up to the job. Will the Minister clarify that point about accountability?
If this case were simple, one would obviously have expected a ministerial response, but it is complicated, and Ministers cannot intervene because they have appointed a regulator to do so. However, the Minister must accept that there is a duty in such a situation for the regulator to be able to intervene and, quite frankly, press the off button. What assurances can the Minister provide the House that his Department will consider again whether the powers of the regulator are effective enough when it comes to such broadcasts?
What are the Minister’s thoughts about where the future of Channel 4 lies? We await the publication of two reports on that subject. If either investigation reveals that Channel 4, either by act or omission, was in any way responsible for the broadcasting of racist material and failed to act appropriately, will the Minister join me in expecting either the chairman or the chief executive—or both—to offer their immediate resignation?
The past 10 years have seen a radical time of change and the adaptation of different approaches for those in the media. That will continue in forthcoming decades. The House is familiar with the continuous debate that we have on the role, responsibilities, functions and financing of the BBC. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to begin a new national debate on the future of Channel 4.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on securing the debate. I certainly join him unequivocally in condemning all racism, wherever and whenever it takes place. We rightly should be totally intolerant of racism in this country. Why anyone would want to put themselves up for “Celebrity Big Brother” is somewhat beyond me, and I say that as a former editor of “That’s Life!”, which was a programme that understood the values of entertainment.
The truth is that however awful hon. Members might find this form of programming, the public could watch our own “Celebrity Big Brother” in this Chamber every day, yet, remarkably, few choose to do so. I do not know what our viewing figures are right now, but I suspect that they are in single figures, with hon. Members’ relatives probably being the major players. However, “Big Brother” and its derivatives attract huge audiences and it is clear that the public enjoy them. Equally, “Celebrity Big Brother” enjoyed huge audiences.
I want to put on record, as I am sure that all hon. Members will continue to do, our admiration for Shilpa Shetty. She is a woman who, even if we did not know her as a celebrity before, in the course of enduring those weeks in the house earned huge respect from many people throughout the country, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. Her resilience and dignity during what I have referred to as “ghastly” weeks, as my right hon. Friend said, were as remarkable as the apparent bullying and racism were distasteful, grotesque and highly offensive.
My right hon. Friend has a proud track record of ensuring and fighting for equality in this country. As I have already said, I share his feelings about the need to root out racism. However, when it comes to sharing some of his conclusions, I urge caution. I absolutely understand, as he does, why so many people found the programme so distasteful. It led to Ofcom receiving a record 45,000 complaints.
The Government’s position on racism is unequivocal: we find it totally unacceptable. We have legislated to that effect, and Government policy reflects our view. We introduced a specific offence of racially aggravated harassment. In addition, under the Public Order Act 1986, there is an offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred. That offence covers inflammatory comments made in public or in the media, as well as the distribution of printed material. “Celebrity Big Brother” was unquestionably highly offensive, but the question is not whether it was offensive, but whether an offence was committed. I understand that Hertfordshire police have announced that no criminal charges will be brought in connection with “Celebrity Big Brother”, and the Crown Prosecution Service has stated that what occurred was clearly offensive, but not criminal.
On editorial content, and on “Celebrity Big Brother” specifically, responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the organisations that regulate broadcasting, which in Channel 4’s case is Ofcom. Ofcom is, of course, independent of Government. We believe that that is right, and that it should remain independent. It is a fundamental principle that the Government do not and should not intervene in matters of editorial or programme content, particularly when an investigation is in progress. We believe that it is right to let the regulator continue to conduct the inquiry.
Ofcom has been charged with the task of setting and assessing standards for the content of television and radio broadcasting. Its standards code, drawn up under the Communications Act 2003, aims to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services. Its function is to provide the public with adequate protection from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material. Of course, the legitimate question in this case is whether the public have been adequately protected. That is why Ofcom’s inquiry is so important. Parliament has charged Ofcom directly with establishing procedures to handle and resolve complaints, so it seems premature to prejudge the inquiry’s outcome, and the procedures by which it will achieve that outcome, while the inquiry is being conducted. After all, its procedures are not a reality TV show, and while we await the outcome, we should be careful about carrying out our own voting on those procedures.
My right hon. Friend raises the question of whether the regulator should have hit the “off” button. It has been suggested that a fundamental design fault must exist, as the big button was not hit when “Celebrity Big Brother” was on air. I suggest that we pause to make sure that what we are asking for is really what we want. We should ask whether the request truly falls in with the responsibility that Members have chosen to give Ofcom, and indeed whether it runs against the principle of providing a fair hearing, which should extend to Channel 4. Ofcom can, if appropriate, take action against a licensee while a series is on air. However, in line with the right to a fair trial and the provisions of the 2003 Act, it must give licensees an opportunity to make representations before any decision is reached on whether material is in breach of the standards code.
There were undoubtedly tens of thousands of complaints, and clearly many people were offended, but the number of complaints about a programme is not, and should not, be a factor to be weighed in a set of scales. The fact that there has been a large number of complaints should not, prima facie, prove that a programme was guilty. We need an inquiry to be conducted.
The question was raised of whether each complaint should have been investigated. The chief executive of Ofcom wrote to my right hon. Friend on 26 February, and a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. It explained that Ofcom decided not to reply to individual complaints, not because of the high volume of complaints, but because the regulator wanted to pursue a full investigation into them. Having said that, I do not think that Channel 4 or its chief executive, Andy Duncan, are complacent or remotely insensitive to what happened. At no point did Channel 4 condone what was happening, and I know that Andy Duncan has extremely strong views—as strong as those of my right hon. Friend and myself—about racism and the need to root it out from our society.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Yes, but my right hon. Friend should remember that I have only five minutes left to answer all his questions.
Briefly, has the regulator asked the Department for any additional resources to deal with the issue?
As far as I am aware, the regulator has not asked us for additional resources, but I do not believe that that will be a problem. If it is, I invite the regulator to tell us. We cannot allow a lack of resources to prevent us from dealing with the issue, but I genuinely do not believe that that is the case. If it is, however, we would want to help.
In evidence heard by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in March 2007, Mr. Duncan acknowledged that there were lessons to be learned from the episode by Channel 4. Channel 4 has indicated that its own internal review of “Celebrity Big Brother” will include an examination of the channel’s complaint handling, response times and communications. I share my right hon. Friend’s interest in the review’s conclusions, but I truly believe—and I honestly believe that this is part of the principle of natural justice—that it is only right that we should allow the channel to conduct that inquiry before we condemn it.
I therefore urge caution before we turn our attack on Channel 4. I put on record my belief that Channel 4 is an exemplary public broadcasting channel. In its work on equality issues, for example, it tackled gay issues head-on at a time when other programmes and channels found them a difficult area to tackle. In religion, its high-quality programming has looked at different religions and cultures at a time in the past few years when some found that too difficult to handle. “What Muslims Want” was a major study in multiculturalism. “Undercover Mosque” aired during the “Celebrity Big Brother” run, and it looked at the impact of hate-style preaching in this country. My right hon. Friend will accept that to caricature Channel 4 as a channel that deliberately chose to offer only shock television is a little unfair. Channel 4 has done a great deal to further understanding and tolerance in this country, and I believe that its chief executive believes firmly in that.
That does not mean that the result of the review by Channel 4 and of Ofcom’s work will stop the House from wanting to debate the subject again. However, I urge my right hon. Friend to be cautious lest he hastily decide that Channel 4’s chief executive is not up to the job or, indeed, that he has led the channel into the kind of broadcasting that does not reflect its inception in any shape or form. The review is extremely important, as, indeed, is Ofcom’s investigation into “Celebrity Big Brother”. The Government believe that Channel 4 has a role to play alongside the BBC, both now and in future, in the provision of public service broadcasting. It has a distinctive public service remit, a great tradition of innovative, quality programme making, as well as a wide remit to appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society.
Channel 4 has made an important contribution to broadcasting in the United Kingdom in the past 25 years, and I am confident that it will continue to do so under its existing leadership in future. It is worth reminding ourselves that only last year, a cultural diversity network survey confirmed “Channel 4 News” as the news service that Britain’s ethnic minorities thought covered their issues best. That news service, of course, is broadcast under the present Channel 4 leadership.
Although the debate has focused on allegations of racism and how they were handled, it also offers an insight into how bullying operates in our society. As a former deputy chairman of ChildLine, I saw the harm that bullying can do. It rears its revolting head by using the vehicles of racism, homophobia, religion and many others. In my own household we found that the “Celebrity Big Brother” to which my right hon. Friend referred indeed provoked a discussion about racism, and also about bullying.
The good thing is that so many people in this country complained about the programme. That demonstrates progress. I doubt that there would have been so many complaints a decade ago. We look to our broadcasters to ensure that such behaviour is not exploited as entertainment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, albeit in a private capacity, described the programme at the time as “racism masquerading as entertainment”, and I think that many in the House knew exactly what she meant.
The programme was a reality TV show, but because it allowed us to see through the window we, the public, were educated about some of the attitudes of some people in our country, and we were all ashamed of what we saw. So now we look to the broadcaster for its review to ensure that such television does not become an entertainment practice by prosecuting values which most of us hoped had long since gone. Ofcom undoubtedly has a role to play in that, and we look to its inquiry to see how we can improve the handling of complaints about such programmes.
We should all look carefully at the lessons to be drawn. We should be cautious about expressing our own anger and focusing it, perhaps, on the leadership of Channel 4. The programme may have reflected something deeply distasteful, although regrettably not everybody finds it distasteful. The problem with bullying is that it can find any vehicle. Sometimes it is racism, sometimes it is homophobia, sometimes it is focused on women, sometimes it is focused on someone’s size, but bullying is a part of our society and all of us have a duty to tackle it. I hope that that is a subject to which Channel 4 will direct its attention in the months to come.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the debate, which has raised some important issues. I promise him that I will meet him and discuss with him the outcome of the reviews, both by Channel 4 and by Ofcom. I commend him for having brought the debate to the House tonight. If in future he or other hon. Members want to raise the subject, I will be more than happy to discuss it.
The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Seven o'clock.