University Entrants (Hansard, 23 May 2002)

§ 5. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase)
What proposals she has to broaden the social class composition of university entrants. [56348]

§ The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge)
We are determined to encourage more young people from lower income backgrounds to enter higher education. We want to improve staying-on rates and to raise attainment levels in schools, but we have also committed more than £190 million to the excellence challenge programme, to raise the aspirations of young people in some of the most deprived areas of the country. The Higher Education Funding Council is also providing significant additional funding—about £180 million in 2002–03—for widening participation.

§ Tony Wright
I am grateful for that answer, but is not the difficulty that, although participation rates as a whole have increased, participation of the poorest economic groups has actually declined? That shows that we are getting something wrong—perhaps aspects of the student finance arrangements, as the Audit Commission has pointed out. Can the Minister assure us that, when the results of the student finance review are published, that issue in particular will be tackled? Can she also confirm that the review will not be determined simply by the needs of the Treasury?

§ Margaret Hodge
My hon. Friend raises a really important point that I have often alluded to in the House. Although we have increased the number of young people entering higher education, the gap between the number of entrants from higher and from lower income groups has not narrowed. If we are serious about social inclusion, we need to tackle that problem. My view has always been that there are three strands to this issue: achieving better attainment levels at school by encouraging people to stay on, getting young people to aim higher, and getting the student funding regime right. We are tackling all three strands to ensure that those from low-income families are not deterred from attending university because of debt, or the fear of debt.

§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
May I suggest to the hon. Lady that, regardless of the results of the review, the obvious answer is to reintroduce maintenance grants? That is the problem that is holding us back.

§ Margaret Hodge
That might be the hon. Gentleman's view, but mine is that the issue is much more complicated than that. Raising attainment levels and aspiration levels are difficult matters. I again draw the House's attention to a survey that showed that 44 per cent. of young people in the three lowest socio-economic groups never think of university as an option during their school years. That means that they are not encouraging themselves to aim higher, and nor are their friends, families, teachers or career advisers.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must get the problem with the grant settled 376 soon? Does she also accept that, in impoverished areas such as mine, in which the pits have closed, it is very important that further education buildings are kept open? Is it not pathetic for the Tories to talk about those at the bottom of the scale, given that 10 out of the 11 members of the shadow Cabinet send their kids to public school, including the Leader of the Opposition, who, it is now revealed, sends his kid to Eton? That is not a good message, is it?

§ Margaret Hodge
I certainly feel that the experience of sending one's own children to school adds hugely to one's understanding of the issue, and I must say that I would never have denied my four children the privilege of a state education. I also recognise the importance, as my hon. Friend says, of ensuring proper further education opportunities for our young people throughout the country. We will settle the issue of student funding as soon as a proper, sustainable system is in place. The issue must be seen in the context of all the things that we want to do in education—including in further education.

§ Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim)
Does the Minister accept that many families have no history whatever of participation in further and higher education, and that as a result no member of such families is able to act as a role model and give advice? Does she agree that more universities could adopt schools in socially deprived areas? Through the links thereby developed, they would remove apprehension and encourage youngsters with potential to realise it in full by applying for a university place.

§ Margaret Hodge
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important and pertinent point. It is important that universities move away from their traditional practice, which was simply to wait for applications to come to them. They must go out and engage with the community, and particularly with young people who have not considered university as an option and whose parents probably did not go to university. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that through the excellence challenge programme, we are seeing a sea change in the way in which universities are responding. Every time I visit a university, I am shown the links that they are establishing with young children at school. It is never too soon—we can start at the age of 11, 12 or 13—to raise the aspirations of talented young children in our schools.

§ John Cryer (Hornchurch)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the number of students studying the sciences, particularly chemistry and physics, is woefully low. Is it not plain that the abolition of maintenance grants was a disincentive to youngsters from poorer backgrounds entering higher education in the first place? If they do enter higher education, they tend to do courses that lead to higher paid jobs—it is fairly widely recognised that doing science will not lead to highly remunerated jobs. Is not the reintroduction of grants the answer?

§ Margaret Hodge
There is no evidence to suggest that young people from lower income backgrounds are choosing not to go to university because of the funding system. We are proactive in this matter because we want to reduce the participation gap. Furthermore, although there is a decline in the number of people going into 377 engineering, science and related studies, the causes are far more complicated. Following the Roberts review, we are beginning to see what policies we can implement in our schools and beyond, and across gender, to encourage more young people to take up sciences in schools and go on to study them at university. It is not a question of the money they earn afterwards; they can earn plenty of money, and there are good career opportunities for them in the science-related subjects, too.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
Encouraging high aspirations on the part of poor children is laudable; no one would deny that. But is it not particularly tragic that Her Majesty's Government's education policies have militated against those children achieving their aspirations? Is it not true that abolishing the assisted places scheme and making it harder for good grammar schools to maintain selective systems have damaged the chances of poor children? Would it not be absolutely fatal if universities were to skew their admission standards from an impartial assessment of scholarship?

§ Margaret Hodge
The hon. Gentleman ought to look at the facts which reveal that not many young people from working class backgrounds took advantage of the assisted places schemes. I would be happy to share that information with the hon. Gentleman if he so wishes. Since the Government have been in office, attainment levels have risen among 11-year-olds and 16-year-olds through to 18-year-olds and entry to university. The Government want to ensure that our brightest and best kids get opportunities at all universities. We are asking the universities to ensure that they have sophisticated means to hunt out the best, and many are doing this of their own accord. We want an intellectual elite, not a social elite.