Higher Education

Debate between John Hayes and David Lammy

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why France, Germany, America and other countries throughout the developed world have a huge commitment to higher education and are increasing funding, not decreasing it. There is a drive to give more of the population the higher-level skills that come from higher education. The Government’s decision is crucial to the future of this country. We commissioned the National Council for Educational Excellence to encourage schools and universities to work better together to raise aspirations and achievement.

We do not say that schools in this country are only about driving young people to get GCSEs or A-levels. It is about outcomes, and one of the most important pathways to a better outcome for individuals and society as a whole is attendance at university. By the year we left office, £580 million was being spent annually on broadening access to higher education and widening its reach to poorer families across this country.

The number of entrants to higher education increased by 44% between 1999 and 2009. Since 2004, participation among the poorest 20% of the country has increased by 32%, compared with a rise of 20% among the richest. Our policies raised aspiration among people who had never before seen the path to university as being for them. Schemes such as Aimhigher broke cycles of poverty and underachievement that had existed in families for many generations. The proportion of university places taken by ethnic minority students increased from 13% in 1994 to a figure broadly proportionate to the size of the young population as a whole. None of those changes happened by chance. They happened because we wanted them to. We put money and a lot of effort into them.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s flow, and I endorse what he said about our shared intentions in respect of participation. He will know that on his watch as Minister, the funding for Aimhigher was reduced. Why?

[Mr Lammy]

I have no recollection of the proportion of funding for Aimhigher being reduced. The Aimhigher programme sat alongside the funding that we gave universities to both widen participation and increase retention. As I said, that overall pot was about £580 million. That is a significant amount of money, and it made a huge difference. I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

As I said, we were all concerned about the progress in relation to our most selective universities. That is why allowing our most selective universities to raise their fees to £9,000 a year must be counter to the progress that I would hope the hon. Gentleman desires. The Sutton Trust estimates that there are 3,000 missing state school students from Britain’s 12 most selective universities. A further statistic that comes to mind is that only one black Caribbean student was admitted to Oxford university in 2009—one student.

The Government’s claims are hugely important. They claim to be committed to higher education’s role in social mobility. Indeed, we are told that access is hard-wired into the coalition agreement. However, despite that hard-wiring, the Secretary of State has apparently long questioned whether the 50% participation rate is sensible or affordable. It is important that the Minister says something about what he considers will happen to the participation rate. Does he believe that the Government can widen access with an increased tuition fee of £9,000 a year? How will trebling fees encourage the sons and daughters of nurses and dinner ladies to achieve what their parents never had the prospect of doing? If we add to that figure the £8,000 a year maintenance that a student needs to live on, the Government’s plans mean that it will cost £17,000 a year to study for a degree. Will that encourage a nurse on an average of £23,000 a year to send her young son or daughter to university? With costs that are three quarters of their salary, will they not decide that university is what they always believed it to be: not for them?

Does the Minister honestly believe that students from the poorest backgrounds will not be put off by these staggering sums of money? A Sutton Trust opinion poll shows that only 45% of 11 to 16-year-olds who are currently interested in progressing to higher education at current fee levels would be interested if the fees were increased to £7,000. What does that then say about the current figure of £9,000? With institutions now capable of charging variable fees of between £6,000 and £9,000, it is inevitable that some of the most capable students from the poorest families will make choices based on cost or on the perception of cost, rather than because of academic talent.

[Mr Hayes]

I am intervening so that we can deal with some of the important questions the right hon. Gentleman raises. In the spirit of fairness that he normally adopts on these occasions, he will want to acknowledge that the statement made today by the Minister for Universities and Science, for the first time links fees to access. The proposals will explicitly link fees to the extra demand on universities in order to widen participation.

[Mr Lammy]

I hope that the Minister will explain in his response to the debate the detail of that access. As I listened to the Minister for Universities and Science a few moments ago, there did not appear to be the teeth required to ensure that level of access. I did not hear anything about the programme of effort—the punishment or fine—that we will need to ensure that higher education meets the necessary access levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: arts and the creative arts make a huge contribution to our economy and to the new digital creative economy. The decision to withdraw state funding from such courses is bizarre, particularly as it was made alongside the decision to make massive cuts to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Those subjects cut to the heart of what it means to be a democratic country. We all sit in this Chamber as politicians—politicians who draw on the liberal arts and who, I would have thought, expect the state to make some contribution to that area of study. Even in the United States, with its highly developed private higher education system, every state has a state university, as is the case in California, and all those universities make a massive contribution to the liberal arts. The departure that we are making in the UK leaves countries such as France, Germany and the United States making a contribution to that area of study, yet for the poorest students in this country, that will no longer be accessible.

I put on the record my thanks to the many people up and down the country who have worked in the Aimhigher programme. It is a programme that works. Pupils have been able to attend three-day summer schools attached to our universities as a result. I saw a scheme working with students in the Toxteth area of Liverpool; it was really reaching out to those young men, most of whom came from backgrounds like mine and had been raised by lone parents. They really wanted to aspire for the first time because of the huge inspiration that the scheme gave them. Following the decision that was announced today, what is to happen to Aimhigher? We have heard much today about the new access and success fund, but will the Minister confirm whether that fund will equal the £580 million a year that the previous Government invested in widening participation?

The Browne review promises to introduce stringent access agreements, and the Minister for Universities and Science confirmed that today. With universities charging more than £6,000 a year, will the Minister confirm what penalties they will suffer if they do not meet their access agreements? Will those agreements have teeth? I was saddened to hear the Secretary of State for Education being interviewed on the “Today” programme this morning. We did not want to hear that universities will demonstrate that they will use imaginative ways to attract students from poorer backgrounds; we want a lot more than imagination.

The Minister is really attracted to choice for students and to having funds following students to university. He has made great hay of the pupil premium, so why not have a pupil premium in that area of the education system? Why not fund students from poorer backgrounds better to get that buy-in from the higher education sector? Does he not agree that universities need real, hard commitments on access that are statutory and can be challenged? That is important if we are not to see the situation deteriorate.

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time—I will not intervene again unless he says something extraordinary or outrageous, but I know that he will not. On the pupil premium, he knows that the biggest challenge in widening access is prior attainment. Unless we have more applications from people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds—as he and I do—we simply will not get the admissions we want. That is about the pupil premium and about supporting people in schools. Surely that is right.

[Mr Lammy]

I hope that the Minister appreciates the fact that 494 black students of Caribbean descent received straight As in their A-levels last year. I have already presented him with the evidence about Oxford university. The question for him is this: how will his changes make that situation better? Will they not make it worse?

It is important to note that there are three primary beneficiaries of higher education: the graduate, wider society and, of course, the employer. When we set up the Browne review, we asked it to look specifically at the employer contribution. I was disappointed that Browne spent only 300 words in his entire report on the employer contribution. We heard nothing from the Secretary of State on that subject when he responded to the report, and nothing from the Minister for Universities and Science today. Will the Minister now take the opportunity to explain why he departed from that key element in the basic terms on which we set up the Browne review? Why should we load young people, students and poor middle-class families with the debt, yet not ask employers, who are a beneficiary of our higher education system, to meet part of the cost? Why was that decision ruled out?

Will the Minister make a commitment that by the end of this Parliament, when—we are told—the structural deficit will have been eliminated, he will raise the public contribution to all courses, and lower fees? The changes have been presented to some extent as emergency measures that are necessary because of the deficit. When the legislation comes before the House, as we are told it will in a few weeks’ time, can we expect to see a sunset clause so that we depart from and then return to a system of more equalised contribution? I would like the Minster to say something about that.

On widening participation, I want to hear what the teeth, or the beef, of the programme will be. In particular, will the Minister commit to Aimhigher? I started my speech by saying that the Minister cares passionately about the issue, but I hope he will realise that, on this day of all days, many people beyond the Chamber are looking to this House, and what they want are answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I will not. I am terribly sorry, but I want to make progress. A lot has been said about Aimhigher. I charged the right hon. Member for Tottenham with the claim that he cut the budget for Aimhigher—that was perhaps a little unfair given that he will not have access to the same figures as when he was a Minister or a Front Bencher. However, I would like to give him the facts and I know he will also want them on the record. In 2007, the budget for Aimhigher was £102 million; by 2009 it had dropped to £81 million, and by time the right hon. Gentleman left office, it had fallen to £78 million. The faith that he and others expressed in Aimhigher was not supported by a financial commitment in the budget over which he presided.

[Mr Lammy]

Let me put on the record that I was not the Minister in 2007. We increased the widening participation budget for universities more broadly, alongside Aimhigher.

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman was not the Minister when funding for Aimhigher was at its highest, but he was when the funding fell. We understand his point.

The quality of achievement at state schools and the prior attainment of students is critical. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the success of black students in getting into Russell group universities. That is a matter of profound concern and something that the Government should look at, particularly in light of the recent research that he and I discussed yesterday. I want to see what we can do to address that issue.

I also wish to speak a little about the point made about arts subjects. It is important to understand that we will continue to support the arts. It was suggested that arts subjects will no longer receive funding, but we will continue to focus the Government subsidy for teaching on that.

Building a High-Skilled Economy

Debate between John Hayes and David Lammy

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I welcome you to the Chair and wish you very well in your new role in the House? The House has been at its very best this afternoon, and I have enjoyed all the contributions, particularly the maiden speeches. The subject of education and skills always brings out the very best in Members. Indeed, for many of us, from whatever party represented in the House, it is the reason why we came into public life, and we have seen that today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his contribution. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, Dr Starkey, who is remembered fondly on the Labour Benches, and of Milton Keynes’ great heritage in higher education. I was pleased to visit the new university centre in Milton Keynes, and I hope that he continues to support it in its work to extend access and widen participation in that area. Of course, Labour Members are particularly fond of, and are keen to remember, the great Open university and the heritage of Jenny Lee and the Wilson era Labour Government.

We heard a fantastic and wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know was a very effective mayor of Liverpool during its year as capital of culture. He included many of the football references that we hear in the House. He obviously has big shoes to fill—many of us remember Peter Kilfoyle fondly—and I particularly enjoyed his reference to growing up on an estate. Those of us who grew up in very humble circumstances wish him well in his endeavours to remind the House that there are many people a long, long way from this Chamber.

We also heard an eloquent and articulate speech from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that she will not be overwhelmed by liberalism, as she referenced in her speech. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who made many football references, so I will look at them in Hansard tomorrow. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, who was well respected on the Labour Benches.

I know the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) because she stood against me in Tottenham in 2000. She will remember that back then I looked a little more like Denzel Washington, but 10 years later I look a lot more like Forest Whitaker. She has championed the Conservative cause in London. I wish her well in her seat, and it is good that she mentioned Battersea Dogs Home—an institution of which we in London are very fond.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) made me want to rush up to north-east Lancashire. I do not claim it is an area of the country I know well enough, but I thought he gave a very eloquent speech in which he reminded us of that city’s manufacturing heritage.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) also gave an eloquent speech. He was very kind about his predecessor and reminded us that we must continue to rediscover the importance of our industrial heritage—the Humber clearly played an important role in our history.

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) could have got a job with a tourism agency in speaking about his constituency. His effective speech reminded us not just of the industrial nature of so many of the areas that we represent, but of the importance of agriculture and the skills that we need to support agriculture in our economy.

Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made a warm and passionate speech. She placed a great emphasis on role models—an issue that I have also championed in the House—and again, the beauty of the area that she represents came across.

The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) also paid an eloquent tribute, not just to his constituency but, importantly, to our armed forces. Historically, they have always played an important role in this country, by providing so many men and women with skills who have not just served our armed forces, but gone on to serve the wider community once they left the armed services.

Like the hon. Member for Central Devon, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) reminded us of the importance of seaside areas and the work that we must continue doing, particularly in the south-east, where there remain acute pockets of deprivation.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is a tribute to the north. He is keen to keep Stockton on the map, as his predecessor was, despite the boundary issues affecting his constituency.

I was not surprised that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), being a barrister, managed to cram a lot into her speech in the time available. I look forward to her contributions in the Chamber over the years ahead.

Let me turn to the returning parliamentarians. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for reminding us of the role of group training associations in extending apprenticeships and helping small businesses in particular to take part in our wider apprenticeship schemes.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) has tremendous expertise in higher education issues, but she also reminded us of the importance of the Leitch targets. I hope that when the Minister winds up we might hear something about whether the Government remain committed to those targets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was right to remind the House that Derby remains an exemplar city, owing to its unique combination of both skills and manufacturing. There is much that we can learn from the success of that part of the country over the most recent period. We all want to replicate that success in different parts of the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on his election as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, and on his thoughtful speech. We all look forward to hearing more from him in these debates over the coming years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on his advancement of the cause of UCLan university in his constituency and on reminding us of the industrial heritage of his area and the importance of companies such as Rolls-Royce.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), in an intervention. Importantly, she reminded us not just of the role of universities—she spoke about Cardiff—but of the many spin-out companies that emerge from universities, taking skills back into the community, as people graduate and create companies. They are illustrations of the huge success of “Science made simple”.

Let me come to the contribution of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I have had exchanges with him across the Chamber for about four years—first in my role as the Minister for skills and then as the Minister for higher education. I look forward to the debates that we will have over the coming months. He has always described himself as a high Tory. As a consequence, he has an elevated—some might say levitated—status in the Chamber. I know his constituency well; I remember it fondly from my days as a Peterborough cathedral chorister. I suspect that he can be found on a Sunday engaging in amateur dramatics in the village halls around Spalding, playing Hercule Poirot or even Miss Marple.

[Mr Hayes]

Or a mix of the two.

[Mr Lammy]

Indeed.

I was disappointed not to see a reference to higher education in the motion and not to hear much from the hon. Gentleman about its importance. It is my view—I hope that it is his—that a world-class university system is central to a high-skilled economy. I grew up in Tottenham during a very difficult time in our history—and as an ethnic minority in troubled and difficult times—and I am very proud of all that we have done to widen access and extend opportunities for poorer and non-traditional families and for ethnic minorities across the country. It was a huge achievement for the Labour Government to widen participation to 44% and to enable more young people and more black and ethnic minorities to go to university than ever before.

When we look at constituencies in inner-city Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester and at the pockets of deprivation in the cities, towns and villages that we have heard about today, and we see young people—whose parents would never have dreamed of going to university—going into higher education, we realise the major contribution that the Labour Government made to our high-skilled economy. It is important that that should continue.

It is a great shame that the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), recently referred to students and young people as a “burden on the taxpayer”. Students are never a burden on the taxpayer. Underlying his statement is a certain view of the state and a suspicion of the contribution that the state makes to advancing the cause of a high-skilled economy. We will take every opportunity to challenge such assumptions over the coming months.

The Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, has announced the creation of 50,000 apprenticeships, but he is not in opposition now, and he must remember that he does not have those 50,000 apprenticeships until he has delivered them. The people who will actually deliver them, however, are in business and industry. Achieving that will take a lot of hard effort over the coming months, because I do not think that he is suggesting that the money that he has set aside will pay the salaries of those young apprentices. He is still expecting business to do that. So, at the moment, he has delivered only one apprentice: the public apprentice, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I wish the Minister of State well, but we will be looking hard at the detail over the coming months, and he will expect me to penetrate fiercely some of the hyperbole in his comments.