HC Deb 26 June 2003 vol 407 cc1181-4
1. Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)

What progress has been made in areas of traditionally low higher education take-up in improving that position over the last six years. [121694]

2. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East)

What proportion of students entered higher education from social classes D and E in autumn (a) 2002 and (b) 1997. [121695]

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)

The proportion of young people from low-skill families entering higher education is about the same now as it was in 1997–18 per cent. for social class D, and 15 per cent. for social class E—which is why we have introduced the aimhigher campaign. The gap between progression rates into higher education from aimhigher areas and the rest is closing. Latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service suggest that this trend is likely to continue. Applications for 2003 university entry are up 2.6 per cent. in aimhigher areas, compared with 0.3 per cent. elsewhere.

Mr. Pike

My right hon. Friend will know that in Burnley there is a low take-up of higher education. The town's future prosperity depends on more people going on to higher education and, when they have done so, returning to work in suitable employment in the area. Will the Government continue to do all that they can to encourage more people to take up higher education and monitor that to see exactly how they are succeeding? That is important to the future of education, not only in Burnley, but in many other places.

Mr. Clarke

My hon. Friend is correct. When I visited Burnley recently, I discussed with him and colleagues the way in which we could address those questions. I pay tribute to the work that he and his friends and colleagues are doing to raise education standards throughout the town, as that is the way forward, provided that we can get the link between universities, nationally and regionally, and Burnley to encourage people to believe that a university education is a realistic proposition.

Dr. Iddon

Bolton institute in my constituency tops the league on access to higher education, with 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of its students coming from the very backgrounds that we are discussing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a cost both for attaining and maintaining that position? Furthermore, there is an added cost for keeping those students in higher education, given their higher than average social and financial problems, to prevent them from dropping out.

Mr. Clarke

I pay tribute to the work of Bolton institute. There is a welcome for many of our proposals in the White Paper on the importance of recognising the work of such organisations. My hon. Friend is right that there are additional cost factors, which are already reflected to some extent in the Higher Education Funding Council funding streams, but that is one of the matters that we need to return to and examine carefully.

Mr. David Ruffiey (Bury St. Edmunds)

The Secretary of State will be aware that in the 25 weakest universities there is an average drop-out rate of one in four. Those students are not getting any qualifications at all, despite having started a course. In light of that rather depressing fact, will the right hon. Gentleman consider dropping his wholly unrealistic target of getting 50 per cent. of all 18-year-olds into higher education?

Mr. Clarke

With respect, we had a full debate on the matter yesterday, instigated by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench. Not many Conservative Members were present, and I know that he could not be there. One of the issues that we discussed was the fact that the drop-out rate has remained roughly constant since 1997. However, we are committed to a 50 per cent. participation rate because we believe that the future economic and social strength of this country is dependent on a highly educated, highly trained population, and that is what we need to achieve.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does the Secretary of State maintain the position that he took on 9 January, when he said that the difference between the chances of access to higher education of the higher and lower social classes is a public disgrace."—[Official Report, 9 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 300.] We share that view, but could he explain to the House how, by charging the poorest students in the land top-up fees from 2005–06, he will encourage those students into higher education? On the target of 50 per cent. of students being in higher education by 2010, will he include in that overall target a specific target for young people from lower socio-economic groups?

Mr. Clarke

I have had correspondence on this matter with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who made a number of mistakes in a letter that he wrote publicly. I had to correct them, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman has still not replied. However, in the White Paper—we will legislate on the basis of its proposals, which were debated fully in the Opposition day debate earlier this week in which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke—we addressed the matter very fully indeed. Those proposals will increase access rather than reduce it.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic prosperity, social well-being and quality of life are vastly enhanced for people who study to a higher level? For people in my constituency, the two great determinants of getting into higher education are aspirations at the age of 11 and access to further education through FE colleges. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the response to the White Paper, those two points are given great prominence? Although debt is an issue, will he take it from me, as the first person in my family to go into higher education, that aspiration at the age of 11 is the single most important factor?

Mr. Clarke

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. She puts her point extremely clearly and I can give her the assurances that she seeks. A proposal to scrap fees completely, as has been suggested by the Opposition, would lead to a situation where about 50 people in every sixth form in the country would not be able to go on to higher education, so in my hon. Friend's schools in Rochdale, if the Opposition came into government, the opportunity and the aspiration would be removed.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

On Monday the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education rightly said that the surest way to widen participation was to improve results in schools. The Department's own figures show that in areas with grammar schools, 32.1 per cent. of children achieve A or B grades at GCSE, compared with 23.1 per cent. in comprehensive areas. Is not the Secretary of State worried that by attacking the remaining grammar schools, the Government will take opportunities away from the brightest children from ordinary families and thereby make participation worse, not better?

Mr. Clarke

The hon. Gentleman's presumption is wrong. We are not attacking particular groups of schools and will not do so. The issue of education standards should be carefully examined when considering the best system of education in any locality. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of his party, that the Conservatives would bring back the 11-plus in every part of the country? Is that what he believes should happen? When will they publicise it? Will they have the confidence to put that policy to the country?

Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the aimhigher campaign. I recently had the privilege of sitting in on the aimhigher roadshow at Stuart Bathurst school in my constituency and found it extremely impressive. Can he assure me that that way of communicating to schools will be rolled out throughout the country to all schools with the clientele that would benefit from it?

Mr. Clarke

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There has been a great deal of positive experience from the aimhigher programme in various parts of the country. When respected community leaders such as my hon. Friend give it their personal endorsement, that adds to the effectiveness of the programme. I congratulate him on doing that and hope that other colleagues in all parts of the House would consider doing so too.