Exam Reform

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is a consensus among business organisations, from the Federation of Small Businesses to the CBI to the Institute of Directors, that the current GCSE offer is inadequate and that we need reform. Particularly on literacy and numeracy, in our consultation paper issued today we make it clear that we would like GCSE English and mathematics to include sufficient rigour so that employers can be guaranteed that students are properly literate, properly numerate, and ready for the workplace.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that a one-size-fits-all final exam is not the best way of assessing talent across the whole ability range in core subjects, and that it is no preparation for a world of work in which no employer would dream of appointing or evaluating staff on the basis of a single closed paper?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, but he seems to be inviting me to move towards a two-tier system because he believes that one size would not fit all. I reject the view implicit in his argument that the overwhelming majority of our students are not capable of doing what they do in other jurisdictions in showing at the age of 16 that they have mastered the core academic subjects and are ready for further study and the world of work.

Higher and Further Education

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who made his case powerfully. Perhaps he forgets, however, that during his time as a higher education Minister, a number of physics and chemistry departments around the country were closed, not least at Reading university. We all need to look to our record on these matters.

The motion deals with tuition fees, but the real issue for debate is social mobility and how we approach it through higher education. My view is that going to university must be about individual academic ability, and not about where someone was born or about their parents’ bank balance. No talented young person should be left behind because of their background. For many people, university is a way of unlocking their potential and becoming socially mobile—essentially, bettering themselves and preparing themselves for a better life. Of course it is worth pointing out that university is definitely not the only route to success, and that many happy and successful careers are pursued by people who do not have a university degree, but I want to focus today on higher education, rather than on further education, apprenticeships and all the other avenues that are available.

For those who are suited to university, regardless of their socio-economic background, sustainable funding arrangements must be in place, coupled with a rigorous admissions process that is based on merit. The Labour party’s rather shrill message this evening has been that the new fees form a barrier to higher education. That, however, is simply not the case. Leading experts in the field of higher education do not consider the new tuition fees to have hit students, particularly students from disadvantaged backgrounds, negatively. The unfair and unworkable situation that Labour prophesied has simply not come to pass. Labour needs to understand that fees are not the real barrier to higher education.

I am pleased that the Opposition have raised this subject for debate this evening, but I am disappointed that the motion fails to deal with the real threat to social mobility that is stalking higher education. That threat is to be found in our schools and their role in failing to secure more admissions to top universities and therefore wider participation. The sad fact is that the poorer people are, the less likely they are to attend one of our top universities. Figures from the Sutton Trust show that a comprehensive school pupil on free school meals is 55 times less likely to attend Oxbridge than those educated at an independent school.

We heard today that four of our universities are in the top six in the worldwide league tables, but if we are to ensure our continued pre-eminent position as a world-class provider of higher education, with world-class institutions equipped with world-class reputations, we must have an admissions regime based on individual academic merit.

I know that, because social mobility is so important, many hon. Members share my concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) has made clear, about the comments of Professor Les Ebdon, the head of the Office for Fair Access. I have held meetings with him and I am willing to give him fair wind and every chance to prove himself in that role. Last week, however, barely 72 hours into his new post, he suggested that, over time, our top universities should have one poor student for every candidate enlisted from the top 20% of households. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether that is the Government’s understanding of OFFA’s role. Is it the Government’s desire and expectation that that should happen?

In many respects, this is a laudable aim, but it is completely impossible for universities to deliver it on their own through the many outreach and summer schools and the foundation degrees that they invest in heavily. The implicit threat in Professor Ebdon’s approach to fair access is that targets are to be forced on top universities—regardless of merit. His approach does not seem overly concerned with removing the current barriers to opportunity, which would mean addressing the structural issues. Sadly, Professor Ebdon’s philosophy appears to be that of a social engineer, rather than one to socially enable. He sees his role as “challenging” universities on admissions targets.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the role, as prescribed by the Government, of the director of fair access? It is not his responsibility to restructure the entire education system; it is his responsibility to challenge universities on their contribution.

[Mr Wilson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which I will deal with if I have enough time.

I fear that Professor Ebdon’s comments on setting “challenging” targets for our most selective universities show that he sees OFFA’s access agreements as a means of forcing institutions into accepting rigid quotas for university applicants. He has said that he is unafraid of using the “nuclear” penalties option available to him through OFFA. Such action would tear this country’s higher education system apart. He is on record as saying to his critics that

“the reason I shouldn’t be appointed was if I got the job, I might actually do it”,

but I think we need to be clear about what that job entails.

In my view—one shared by many of my colleagues—Professor Ebdon’s job is not to interfere with the university admissions process. He favours the deliberate lowering of admissions criteria in order to increase the number of poorer students into elite universities. This is not the way to ensure that our top universities remain the best in the world or to help poorer students. It is, at best, a short-term fix. Instead, we need to enhance opportunity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds by improving the state secondary education system across the board. We need to get more students up to the level necessary for them to apply to our best universities, and when they are, we need to ensure that they actually apply to our top universities.

According to Professor Ebdon,

“Context has to be taken into account if you are going to assess potential.”

I do not disagree with the proposition that individual cases may well require context, but that is a matter for the admission boards at universities, not for state interference, and the universities deal with it very well. The trouble is that Professor Ebdon appears to believe that top universities are deliberately trying to exclude poorer students, and that could not be further from the truth. In contrast to Professor Ebdon, I believe that we must change the context of this debate; and that means driving up standards in state schools, much as the Secretary of State for Education is trying to do. Initiatives such as the pupil premium, free schools and university technical colleges, among many others, make an enormous contribution. The solution to the problem of providing fair access to university is not to be found through heavy-handed outside interference or pontification on fees. It is to be found pre-university, in our state schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Two and a half years ago, I arrived in this place and two years ago I was introduced to the Browne report on the future funding of universities, which had been asked for by the previous Labour Government. It was to be studied not only in itself, but when the country faced a catastrophic financial situation. I could not have agreed with the Browne report as it was, because having universities charging unlimited sums was not acceptable to me. So I told the current Secretary of State that I could not agree with it and that he had to do something for the poorer families in the country, particularly those in my constituency. We then got the proposal that we have now, with the change from an unlimited to a limited amount of money. The Browne report, asked for by the Labour Government, was talking about making it unlimited. Now, not only was the amount to be absolutely limited at £9,000, but there would be national scholarships to help young people from families who did not have the funding to go to these places. That has happened quite a lot in Burnley; a lot of young people have gone on these special scholarships, getting their first year and, we hope, their second year free at the colleges.

When I went back to the town to discuss the matter with the young people there, I was astonished to hear that they had been fed the story, particularly by the Labour party, that they would have to find the money up front—that the £21,000 would have to be paid before they turned up on the university doorstep. That was parroted by the Labour party and in some of the press.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is making a serious claim against the Opposition. Will he say on precisely what occasion anybody speaking on behalf of my party said that?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

A number of members of the Labour party in Burnley were saying to the young people of Burnley, and convincing them, that they would have to find the money up front. That was obviously not the case, so I told them that they would not have to pay the money up front, that the money would be given to them up front and that no repayments would have to be made until they were earning £21,000. They then asked how much they would have to pay when they were earning £22,000, which is a gross salary of £1,850 a month. When they are on that income, their repayment to the taxpayer for funding their education at university will be £8 a month. When I asked them whether they would mind paying back £8 a month if they had a salary of £1,850 they said, “Of course not. We understood that it would be lots more than that.” I then asked them to assume that they were on a salary of £25,000, which is a substantial salary in Burnley, and so would be collecting more than £2,000 a month. When I asked whether they would then object to paying back £30 a month to the taxpayer who had funded their education at university I was again told, “Well of course not, but that is not what we have been told. That is not the understanding that we have. So we are happy to do it.” I even got the student union rep at the university of central Lancashire to say, “That is far better than what we have now.” The young people of Burnley are getting a better deal now than they had before, and that convinced me to support the proposals in the Bill.

I also compared the number of students who go to university with the total number of students who leave school. About 40% go to university, which means that 60% do not. So I looked at the prospects for those young people who do not go to university—I am thinking of the apprenticeship scheme. I was an apprentice engineer in 1958. Over the past 25 years, various Governments, particularly the last one, took the decision to destroy apprenticeships. They said that they did not need apprenticeships, that they would pray and bow to the City and the finance sector, so never mind the manufacturing sector—let it go. The Indians and Chinese could do the manufacturing and we would just make money out of the finance sector. We all saw what happened to the finance sector: it caught a cold and we all got pneumonia.

We have to support manufacturing, so the Government have invested in 800,000 young people who are now apprentices. Many of them are going to university but are being funded by the companies that they work for, which means that they are getting degrees and have a job, but do not have any debt. That is the kind of forward thinking that the Government should demonstrate and that is what we have had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I have the privilege of representing both of Sheffield’s great universities. Both are strong in their own parts of the sector, extremely popular and important to the local economy, and both are facing falling applications as a result of this Government’s policies. That is no surprise, because it is in line with the national trend. The deeper concern in the sector, as I have learnt from talking to vice-chancellors over the past year, is not so much about the applications but about the conversion rate. We are now seeing their fears realised. As the final figures are beginning to emerge, it is clear, as has been pointed out, that the rate of people dropping out of the process after submitting applications is now much higher at 16%.

It does not have to be like this, because politics is about choice. The Government are clearly making the wrong choices. Earlier in the debate, the Minister for Universities and Science, on the back foot, simply blamed austerity. Were he here now, I would remind him of his statement to the House in November 2010. In response to questions, he made it clear that the Government’s response to the Browne review was only partly driven by the need to deliver cuts, and was more about “delivering reform” and “remodelling” the sector. Indeed it was: it was about transferring the cost of teaching from the state to students, ending the previous position whereby that responsibility was shared, and making our system one of the most expensive in the world, with fees higher than most universities in the United States.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am sorry, but I will not because of time.

The Government’s response was about withdrawing all public funding for teaching from the majority of courses in the majority of universities, making the statement that arts, humanities and social science courses do not deserve public support.

I am also sorry that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is not in his place, because I recall him, in the same debate, seeking and securing a guarantee from the Business Secretary that fees of £9,000 would be the exception, not the norm. They are now the norm, because the Government failed to listen to vice-chancellors when they changed the system. At that time, every vice-chancellor was saying, “We cannot run our institutions at the fees the Government are talking about.”

Amazingly, when university governing bodies fulfilled their responsibilities to their institutions by setting fees at the much higher level that we have seen, it seemed to surprise the Government. It appears that they expected the universities obediently to set their fees according to their perceived quality, with Oxbridge setting the fees at £9,000 and everybody else neatly ranking themselves below. When that did not happen, new policies emerged as quickly as they could be written on the back of a cigarette packet, particularly the core and margin policy. Taking 20,000 places out of the system and selling them off to the lowest bidder does not help students; it simply reduces the student loan obligations to the Treasury. Indeed, it has damaged the position of many students, as universities were encouraged to scrap bursaries to fund fee cuts and create competition for places.

The debate is about not just the sector’s problems but the unfairness caused to students who can least afford it. The problem at the heart of the Government is that the Prime Minister just does not get it. Echoing the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), I recall that at the height of the debate on trebling fees, the Prime Minister tried to defend his policy during a factory visit by asking workers:

“Do you think it is right that your taxes are going to educate my children and your boss’s children?”

It clearly had not crossed his mind that those factory workers might have children who wanted to go to university, had the talent to do so and deserved support.

The damage that the Government’s policies are doing to social mobility is not just at undergraduate level. There is deep concern in our universities that the transition from undergraduate courses to postgraduate taught courses will be affected by higher fees. The Browne review did not consider the issue, but many professions now require a taught master’s qualification and others expect it. If that route is closed to those who cannot afford to add to their debt, we will have taken an enormous step backwards.

The Government’s higher education policy is deeply damaging to our universities and deeply unfair to students, so I hope that the House will support the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As my hon. Friend says, there has been a considerable increase in inward investment, much of it as a result of the hard work done by UKTI and indeed by Ministers. There was a particular success at the British embassy alongside the excellent Olympic games, which is attracting more inward investment to this country. In terms of regional distribution, we are drawing up agreements between the local enterprise partnerships and UKTI on how to ensure that parts of the country that currently do not receive very much inward investment get a proper opportunity to lobby for it.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Minister of State has had the opportunity to spell out the importance of international students to the UK economy, and his Department has estimated that the contribution could double. I am sure that he will share my frustration at the way those prospects are being undermined by the Home Office. What is he going to do about it?

[Mr Willetts]

We completely understand the importance of the Home Office maintaining the integrity of our immigration controls, but BIS—and the whole Government—believe that legitimate students who have a visa entitlement to come and study in Britain should be welcome. There is no cap on those numbers and we are making every effort through UKTI and British embassies abroad to continue to communicate the message that Britain is a great place to come and study at our colleges and universities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Iain McKenzie. Not here.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the higher education sector to economic growth.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the higher education sector on economic growth.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Higher education contributes to growth. We have just had universities week, celebrating our universities’ contribution to the Olympics, to the economy and to national life, and estimates by Universities UK indicate that higher education contributes more than £31 billion to our GDP. University education is of course, however, also worth while in itself—in ways that cannot be measured by economists.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister acknowledges the importance of higher education as a major export earner. Does he therefore agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who wrote an excellent piece in the Financial Times last week, arguing that we should catch up with our competitors and stop classifying students as migrants, as part of a strategy to win a bigger market share for our world-class university system?

[Mr Willetts]

I absolutely support the objective in that statement of winning a greater market share for our higher education sector, and we can be very proud of the international demand from students wanting to study at our higher education institutions. There is no cap on the number who come here, and we will do everything possible to correct any misunderstandings around the world that may be inhibiting people from applying.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

It would be a pleasure to go back to Harlow with my hon. Friend. We are about to conclude the first round of city deals, but I will make an announcement shortly to invite other places across the country, especially those that have prospects of high growth, as I know Harlow does, to put their innovative ideas forward.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T5. Will the Minister for Universities and Science reassure the House that the introduction of any student premium to offset the impact of tuition fee increases, as proposed earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister, will not be at the expense of the funding that is provided for the widening participation premium and currently allocated to universities by the Higher Education Funding Council for England?

[Mr Willetts]

I have just written to the Office for Fair Access and HEFCE to ask them to assess the effectiveness of the very large amount of money that is now used for that purpose through the widening participation premium and universities’ access funding. We fully recognise that the different strands of money have different purposes, and that some of it is there to meet universities’ particular needs through WPP funding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Lady will know that this Government have done more on apprenticeship standards than any previous Government, including the one she supported. Minimum lengths for apprenticeships; statutory national standards; every level 2 apprenticeship moving to GCSE English and maths equivalent; tighter frameworks—these are things that the last Government could have done, but did not. Record growth, record standards—she should be proud of that, as we are.

[Paul Blomfield]

As the latest apprenticeship figures show, the Government are failing to make progress among 16 to 18-year-olds. Will the Minister therefore join me in congratulating Sheffield city council on its scheme for young people who are not in education, employment or training, which has created 100 new apprenticeships this year and promises 100 more next year, and will he urge other councils to follow that example?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is a great authority on these matters, and he is wise enough to know that he needs to get his figures right if he is to quote them in the House. Although they are provisional, the latest data, for the first two quarters, show that apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds continue to rise. That is not a surprise, given that over the last two years those young apprenticeships have risen by over 30%. Doing the best by young people—that characterises all that this Government do.

Apprenticeships

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a spirit of bipartisanship in the debate, but I hope he will forgive me if I depart from it for a moment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), I represent a city that was deeply scarred by the last Conservative Government’s assault on manufacturing industry in the 1980s. Thirty years on, we in Sheffield live with the legacy of the policies of that time.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is shocking that manufacturing declined faster under the last Government than it did under the Government of Mrs Thatcher?

[Paul Blomfield]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to Sheffield to see the real consequences of Mrs Thatcher’s policy on steel and engineering in our city. Some 30 years on, we in Sheffield still live with the legacy of those policies: a lost generation who never made it into regular work and the social consequences of intergenerational unemployment. In the steel and engineering industries, apprenticeships were the route to highly skilled and well-regarded jobs that provided both a learning experience gained from respected role models in the workplace and experience of the discipline of working and of working as part of a team.

To revert to the spirit of bipartisanship, I am pleased that the Minister recognised the role the last Government played in restoring apprenticeships. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) pointed out, apprenticeship starts more than quadrupled between 1996-97 and 2009-10. I am deeply worried, however, that with youth unemployment now at more than 1 million, as in the 1980s, we again face the risk of there being a lost generation.

The Minister is an honourable man who is deeply committed to skills and apprenticeships, and he must therefore share our frustration that behind the Government’s rhetoric is a sorry picture in respect of apprenticeships. There is concern about the age profile of apprenticeships nationally, and that is certainly felt in my constituency. In 2010-11, just 150 people under the age of 19 started an apprenticeship, as against 200 people aged between 19 and 24 and 250 people aged 25 and over. Compared with the previous year, there has been a 27% decline in the number of apprenticeship starts for those under 19, as against an increase of 17% for those aged between 19 and 24 and a 313% increase for those over 25. In June, even the head of the Government’s apprenticeship service, Simon Waugh, had to admit that

“there is still a chronic lack of apprenticeship places for interested school and college leavers”.

Many people were shocked to discover that the growth in new apprenticeships under this Government has come in the 25-plus category. Astonishingly, the number of apprenticeships taken up by those aged over 60 increased tenfold between 2009-10 and 2010-11. What is the reason for that trend? There is concern that since the abolition of many of the training courses delivered under Train to Gain, there has been a rebranding of in-house training as apprenticeships. The Minister must address that issue.

I think the Minister will agree with me about the number of apprenticeships in small businesses. Only 8% of small businesses had taken on an apprentice in the past year according to a Federation of Small Businesses skills report in June. In October, the British Chambers of Commerce found that 53.7% of its members who were surveyed thought an apprenticeship was not relevant to their business or sector. The FSB backs that up in its report, saying that 46% of businesses did not think an apprentice was suitable for their business. That proportion increases to 60% for sole proprietors and 47% for micro-businesses. That perception must be challenged, because apprenticeships can play a valuable role in all sectors both in the workplace and in terms of gaining valuable skills.

I have been working on that issue with the British Chambers of Commerce, and that work has been reflected in early-day motion 2469, which has support on both sides of the House. It states that

“greater priority needs to be given to increasing the number of apprentices across the UK to provide essential career opportunities for young people”.

About 20% of small businesses cited each of the following three factors as major reasons for not taking on an apprentice: training time and general time constraints, costs, and the young people involved having no previous experience. The Government must consider how they might give better support to small businesses by disseminating information better to break down these perceptions and by providing the practical assistance that SMEs need.

[Damian Collins]

I do not wish to plug my district council in Shepway again, but it has developed a service to local businesses who may want to share an apprentice rather than take one on full time, and that service addresses how the council might help with some of the transport costs as well. Good local creative thinking may help to solve some of the problems the hon. Gentleman is setting out.

[Paul Blomfield]

I welcome such initiatives, while also recognising that many local authorities—such as mine in Sheffield, which is facing a 30% cut in funding over a four-year period—will have difficulty finding the money to launch such new initiatives. Assistance of that sort does need to be provided, however, and the Government might try to identify funds to support local authorities in taking initiatives such as that in Shepway.

We can also do more in our constituencies to work with small businesses, and I applaud the efforts of the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and other Members on both sides of the House in setting up the Parliamentary Academy. As employers, we are not dissimilar to SMEs. Our offices operate as micro-businesses, and we are busy, money is tight and we might never have taken on an apprentice before. I was pleased to take on an apprentice even before the Minister invited us to do so. A young woman called Rebecca is working in my office as an apprentice secretary, in partnership with Sheffield college. At the end of the year she will gain a level 2 BTEC in business and administration, by spending one day a week in the college and four days a week in my office, with regular visits from the work-based learning assessor. She will come out of the scheme with skills and experience enabling her to get a job, and she will have assisted the work of my office over this year. There is a lesson in that for all small businesses. I encourage other MPs to take a lead on this issue by employing apprentices.

I hope the Minister will also recognise that there is much more that we can do collectively and that his Government can do to advance the cause of apprenticeships. I hope he will respond in his closing remarks to the comments of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), about the powerful role the Government can play in public procurement. It is unfortunate that this Government have backed away from some of the initiatives Labour took when we were in power, and I hope the Minister will recognise the opportunities that exist to use the role of government locally and nationally as consumer in order to bind companies to take on more apprentices.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we are setting up the network of six technology and innovation centres. It is why we are particularly backing the campuses in Norwich, Babraham, Harwell and Daresbury, which bring together scientific research and business applications. It was also the reason for the investment of £50 million in the application of graphene to business purposes, which was announced only a few weeks ago.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise the deep concern in our universities at the cutting back of their capital programme, in contrast with what is happening in other countries, which will put us at a significant competitive disadvantage?

[Mr Willetts]

The figure that I just gave the House for capital spending on science and research is comparable with the figures for capital spending under the ring-fenced science budget under the previous Government. So, even in tough times, we are absolutely maintaining our commitment to investing in science.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

I am familiar with the Prince’s Trust report to which my hon. Friend refers. It does indeed describe the under-achievement that he highlights, but it also says that often people do not get adequate advice and guidance—the wherewithal that they need—to achieve their ambitions. That is precisely why we are so committed to filling that gap.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T10. Head teachers of eight secondary schools serving children in my constituency have taken what they describe as the unprecedented step of writing to the parents and carers of years 11 and 12 students about the impact of Government cuts on sixth-form funding. They are considering cutting the range of courses, increasing class sizes, ending the teaching of some subjects, and reducing guidance and enrichment sessions. They say in their letter:“we have never been subject to cuts of this magnitude,”which—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that we have got the drift of the question.

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Enough.

English for Speakers of Other Languages

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In view of the time, I will severely curtail my points. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on this timely debate and I welcome the comments from Government Members on the need to work together in resolving the issue. I tabled an early-day motion on the issue, which drew support from parties across the House. There is the potential for us to address the concerns that have been raised this morning.

I will not read out all the testimonies that I received in response to my early-day motion. A number of students from Sheffield college talked about wanting to improve their lives, to find a job, to help their children, and to be able to talk to their doctor. One said, “I don’t need an interpreter any more. I feel more confident. I can join in with things. I won’t keep myself so far from society.” Is not that what we all want to see?

Of the testimonies I received, almost all of them were from women. That is not surprising. As has already been said, 74% of ESOL students on inactive benefits—those who will be affected by the Government’s proposals—are women. Six months on from the original proposals being published by the Department, the equality impact assessment has yet to be produced. Only last week, the Minister, in response to a written question that I tabled, said:

“There is no specific date currently planned for publication of the assessment.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 487W.]

That is simply not acceptable because there is a date for implementation of the proposals. There is a real danger that we will find ourselves in a position—as the Government have on other policies—in which we implement changes before we consider the evidence. I join my hon. Friend in urging a delay in implementation.

Although, regrettably, I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate, I would like an assurance from the Minister today that he will consider our remarks and that we will receive the equality impact assessment and have the opportunity to consider it before the Government proceed with their proposals. That delay will give us the time to consider the helpful proposals that have been made by the Association of Colleges and others. My own early-day motion simply asks the Government to modify their proposals to alleviate the devastating impact that they will have on many people, and on women in particular.

Higher Education Policy

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is illuminating to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). His transformation from critic to passionate advocate is part of the extraordinary nature of the road that the Government have been travelling along with this policy. It is almost surreal.

As a new Member almost a year ago, I expected that the Government would put forward policies with which I disagreed, but I had expected that they would at least be carefully considered, carefully evaluated, thoughtful and mindful of their impact. That was not so. The Minister for Universities and Science said earlier that the Government have a plan, but it seems that that plan is increasingly shaped not by Ministers but by events that they do not control and, at many levels, do not understand. Broken promises, conflicting statements and policy shifts: only when the dust settles will we find out the plan, with the publication of the repeatedly delayed White Paper.

Assurances were given to the House when we debated the Government’s plans back on 9 December, but those assurances have proved worthless. Indeed, had the House known then what we know now, who is to say, given the discomfort of some of those on the Government Benches at that time, what the outcome would have been? I recall the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, in particular, seeking reassurance that £9,000 fees would be exceptional. Let me remind him what the Business Secretary said. He gave the right hon. Gentleman a clear pledge—huh, a Liberal Democrat pledge—that he would not allow the

“migration of all universities to the top of the range.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 547.]

Consistently, the Prime Minister and other Ministers gave assurances that £9,000 fees would be exceptional. So where are we? We have seen precisely the migration that the Secretary of State said that he would not allow. Far from being the exception, £9,000 fees are the norm.

We were told at one stage that fees would average £7,000, then that they were calculated at £7,500, then that they might average £8,000. Now we find that the average fee is likely to be just £360 short of £9,000, at the very top end of the range. It did not have to be like this, however. The situation became inevitable because the Government decided to cut the undergraduate teaching grant by 80% without considering the impact or listening to those who knew what it was likely to be. From the outset, vice-chancellors were clear, including many of those who had been browbeaten into supporting the Government’s proposals, that fees of about £8,000 would be needed for their institutions simply to stand still.

[Mr Lammy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 80% cut and effective withdrawal of the state from higher education and the funding of arts, humanities and social sciences—there is no other country in the developed world that has made that kind of departure in higher education—will have catastrophic effects in the future?

[Paul Blomfield]

I completely agree. Back in December, the Minister for Universities and Science made the point that this was not about deficit reduction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) reminded us earlier, but about changing the shape of our system. We stand only with Romania among OECD countries in cutting higher education, and we should be ashamed of that.

As universities have looked more closely at the figures, university councils and governing bodies have exercised the responsibility that they have a duty to exercise by setting the fees that their institutions need. It appears that many in government expected universities to fall into line with their picture of them, with Oxbridge setting fees at £9,000 and other universities ranking themselves where they fitted into the system. But those in government did not understand that university governing bodies would recognise their responsibilities to their students and the communities they serve and would set the fees that they need.

What about widening participation? I stress that this is not simply about Oxbridge. We should credit universities across the sector with the achievements on widening participation that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has mentioned. Back in February the Deputy Prime Minister pledged in a BBC interview that Oxford and Cambridge would be given permission to charge £9,000 fees only

“if they can prove that they can dramatically increase the number of people from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds”

who attend. In the past few days, it has become clear that Cambridge is not in a position, or is not intending, significantly to increase access for poorer students. What are the Government going to do about that? Will they tell Cambridge that it cannot have its £9,000 fees or will they tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he is going to have to confess to another broken promise?

What about the involvement of the private sector? The Minister for Universities and Science confirmed to The Times on Monday that, out of the crisis he is creating for the higher education sector, he expects there to be a bigger role for private sector providers. He has already prepared the ground by awarding university college status to BPP, which is part of the Apollo Group, which is currently being investigated by the United States Higher Learning Commission for deceiving prospective students. Where is the accountability for private sector higher education institutions? They do not face the same requirements on quality, access and numbers, and on the Government’s intentions in relation to the private sector we have had nothing but silence.

In December, the Business Secretary was quoted as saying of the Government:

“There is a kind of Maoist revolution happening in lots of areas like the health service, local government, reform, all this kind of stuff, which is in danger of getting out of control.”

What he failed to say was that the greatest chaos was unfolding in the area for which he is responsible.