University admissions - House of Commons - 25 October 2004

Speech delivered on Mon 25th Oct 2004

4.38 pm

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): The Minister has just challenged us to find a better deal; he may find that, at the next general election, when we offer the young people of our country the chance to get rid of top-up fees and current tuition fees, and offer to introduce grants for less well-off students, they think that that is a better deal.

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1165

The most prosperous countries are those that invest the most in higher education. Ensuring that our most capable citizens get a place at university is critical to the future of our economy, so there is no question but that university admissions policy is an important subject for us to debate. However, it is staggering that the official Opposition have chosen this subject as its top priority. Had this been the Liberal Democrats' Opposition day, there is no way that we would have let the occasion slip by without using it to allow the House to scrutinise last week's hugely significant change of policy on our troops in Iraq. Matters of life and death and war and peace are the most crucial that any Government have to decide, yet the official Opposition simply have nothing to say. So university admissions it is.

There are two important principles. The first is that access to higher education should be fair. It should not depend on people's ability to pay or on their background. It should depend only on their ability to make the most of that higher education. That is why we oppose any tax on learning. Labour taxes learning by imposing tuition fees and top-up fees. The Conservatives intend to tax learning by imposing commercial rates of interest on student loans. Under both parties, access is about a person's ability to earn, not to learn.

The second principle is academic freedom. The state has no business—I hope that we all agree on this—interfering in academic decision making. It is not competent to do so. The state has a legitimate and important role in ensuring a level playing field in university admissions, but it should not interfere in the management of admissions. That is the crucial distinction. Hon. Members will be aware that Conrad Russell's contribution to discussions on higher education will be sorely missed. As he so succinctly put it in another place: "the market cannot select and the state cannot manage"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 June 2004; Vol. 662, c. 569.]

Starting from those two principles, Conservative policies fail on two counts. First, the motion speaks about "academic merit", but their policy would result in some top-class students from disadvantaged backgrounds being excluded from university by the fear of debt. Secondly, the Conservatives agree that the state is a bad manager of higher education, but they show no understanding that selection cannot be left to the market if we are to ensure fairness in admissions. The motion suggests that Government intervention is a threat full stop, but to allow universities complete freedom to use taxpayers' money without accountability is an abrogation of responsibility that is as short-sighted as it is unjust.

Recently published performance indicators from the Higher Education Statistics Agency reveal only a marginal increase in representation from traditionally under-represented groups. In particular, the top research institutions continue to lag behind. The Sutton Trust finds that pupils from independent schools are far more likely to attend a leading university than their counterparts in the state sector with the same grades. Its report states: "While 45 per cent. of independent school students who obtain the equivalent of an A and two Bs go to a leading university, only 26 per cent. of state school students achieving the same grades do so."

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1166

That is not acceptable. It is the duty of public policy makers to do something about it. Taxpayers' money is involved and it is shocking to see the Conservatives so cavalier about its use.

Dr. Evan Harris: Is not the situation even worse than that? Increasing research shows that of those students who get the same grades on the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service tariff but who come from different academic backgrounds, such as a top independent school with a high teacher-student ratio compared with an inner-city comprehensive, those from the comprehensive do better. We need to move away from simple A-level predictions across the board as a way of judging who would best benefit from higher education.

Mr. Rendel: That is the last time that I take an intervention from my hon. Friend because he deals with what I was about to come on to. However, I am grateful to him for making that good point.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Since the hon. Gentleman will not answer the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), perhaps he will answer me. What proportion of young people from independent schools, compared with state schools, get three As at A-level?

Mr. Rendel: If the question is what I think it is, I am afraid that I do not know the answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us.

Mr. Jackson: The figure is 46 per cent.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful for that piece of information, although I am not sure where it gets us.

Mr. Chaytor: Surely the real purpose of the question put by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is not the proportion of those from independent schools with three A-levels but the relationship of those with three A-levels from state and independent schools in terms of the proportion admitted to our leading research universities. That is the issue.

Mr. Jackson indicated assent.

Mr. Rendel: I hope that was the point I was making, which is why I was a little confused about the hon. Gentleman's question.

The Conservative motion is critical of a higher education admissions policy in which class is seen as the principal issue. Our criticism of their policy is that they seem intent on making sure that class is very much the issue. They are content with a situation in which fewer than 10 per cent. of pupils—those who attend private school—are privileged above the rest, because admission to university is almost wholly dependent at present on A-level grades.

How do we know that A-level grades are not an adequate measure of the potential of our best students? There are two pointers, one of which has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). It has been shown that young

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1167

people from state comprehensives, on average, achieve better results in their university finals than young people from independent schools who have the same A-level grades.

The second pointer, which my hon. Friend did not raise, is something I discussed with the chairman of the Headmasters Conference last year, live on the "Today" programme. I asked him whether he would expect two hypothetical young people of equal ability, one of whom went to an independent school while the other attended the local comprehensive, both to achieve the same A-level grades or whether he would expect the one who had attended his independent school to achieve better grades. Of course, he dared not say that both would obtain the same grades, because independent schools sell themselves on the basis that young people, of whatever ability, will achieve better grades if they attend an independent school than if they attend a state comprehensive. If that were not the case, few, if any, parents would think it worth while paying the huge fees charged by independent schools. However, if pupils of equal ability achieved better grades at an independent school than at a comprehensive school, the principle that pupils with the greatest potential should be admitted to the best universities could be met only if attention were paid to factors other than A-level grades—in particular, the school they attended. Admitting pupils from comprehensive schools with lower A-level grades than those from independent schools is not only right but necessary if those with the best potential are to obtain the best places.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with research by the Sutton Trust suggesting that we need a system of standard assessment tests and more variable ways of assessing students at 18, or any age, before they go into higher education? The A-level is not a good predictor.

Mr. Rendel: It is one predictor and should not be excluded from the means for choosing who has the greatest potential. A SAT system is one of the other ways in which we could make better choices. Interviews are another, and application forms offer another way for admissions tutors to seek out differences between applicants. There are many ways of making those choices and the Minister was right to suggest that a variety was best.

Even Keith Joseph, when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science, recognised that an unfair distribution of educational opportunity was the unacceptable face of the free market. That is why he rejected education vouchers. Today, the Conservatives propose a voucher-type system in higher education, which would inevitably curtail the expansion of the sector to embrace historically under-represented groups.

There is one point on which we agree with the Conservatives: OFFA should go. Our argument, however, is not that all intervention is wrong, rather that it would make much sense for the Higher Education Funding Council to do the job. We supported university access plans because we believe that universities need to

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1168

be held to account for their use of taxpayers' money; the state should not manage admissions, but it should ensure a level playing field.

The Conservatives do not share our views. No surprise there. What is more disappointing is the performance of the Labour party—a party founded in the noble tradition of the struggle for social justice. The Liberal Democrats support widening participation. Ministers deserve congratulation for their commitment to that objective. Our concern is that their policies tend to have the opposite effect. The Minister said in his speech that there was no such research evidence, but the Government's own research for the student income and expenditure survey tells them that. Summarising her findings from the survey, Professor Claire Callender concludes: "Top-up fees of £3,000 will put even more poor students off university."

There is no question but that fees, particularly top-up fees, are a deterrent and that is particularly true of those who come from poorer backgrounds. It may not be logical, but it is true.

Moreover, the proportion of English school leavers applying to university has fallen in each of the past two years, so there is evidence that people are being put off applying. The Minister said that applications were the important point. Young people are being put off applying to English universities. Six years of tuition fees and the expectation of top-up fees have done nothing for social inclusion.

We must judge the significance of OFFA in this context. The Education supplement of The Guardian reports that Labour MPs feel let down by the pussycat powers of OFFA. Given the late appointment of the director and the time scale involved, the same report points out that "Offa will have less than a day to go through each institution's" access plan. But Ministers told us in a document issued during debates on the Bill that OFFA would impose no "extra monitoring requirements beyond what HEFCE already requires" and that "Normally . . . a simple assurance . . . once a year that" universities "have satisfied their access agreement obligations, would suffice."

OFFA was never going to have real teeth. It was always going to be a bureaucratic irrelevance. Apart from anything else, it does not have the resources to do the job. The only significance of OFFA lies in what it was designed to conceal. It was designed to pretend to Labour Back Benchers that top-up fees would have no impact on widening participation.

Given this background, there is no shortage of scope for a serious Opposition party to contribute to the debate. What is on offer from the Conservatives? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) did a wonderful demolition job on Conservative higher education policy in his speech in the House on 14 September. He referred, for example to the omission of any mention of part-time students from their policy. During the Committee stage of the Higher Education Bill, the hon. Member for

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1169

Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said: "Part-time studies . . . do more to widen participation in higher education than anything done in any other part of our higher education system"—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 2 March 2004; c. 427.]

He was right. Why, then, not a single mention of part-time students in Conservative policy? That puts into perspective their efforts today to claim to defend the disadvantaged student.

The Conservatives' plans are highly regressive. That is the conclusion of, among others, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Higher Education Policy Institute, the National Union of Students, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the Association of University Teachers. Under Conservative policies the poorest 30 per cent. of students would face a 25 per cent. hike in loan repayments, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. If a newly qualified teacher or nurse were to try to repay their loan over five years, that would eat up 30 per cent. of their take-home salary, before rent, fuel and food. A graduate teacher who repaid their loan over 20 years would end up paying back the equivalent of almost two years of total salary.

Chris Grayling: I know the hon. Gentleman has taken a careful interest in the Conservative higher education policy. Will he confirm the inaccuracy of his most recent comments? He know that our policy retains the income-contingent system of repayments that the Minister praised so lavishly and said would be no deterrent at all to anyone going into higher education.

Mr. Rendel: I can confirm that the level at which graduates start paying and the amount that they pay once their income rises above that level is the same as under the Government's policy. That is my understanding, and it does not negate either of the two comments that I have just made. It is irrelevant to both. If graduates choose to repay over five years to avoid having to pay massive interest, that would eat up 30 per cent. I did not say that they had to; I said if they choose to. The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my comments. The Conservatives want the poorest to pay extra so that the richest do not have to pay any fees—a sort of socialism for the rich. So much for removing class from their higher education policy.

There is a measure of agreement in the House that perhaps the most important consideration when discussing fair access to higher education is the system of qualifications at secondary school. It is noteworthy that a Conservative motion on university admissions contains nothing about the importance of secondary education. It is widely recognised that individuals who are disadvantaged lower down the educational ladder are much more likely to be disadvantaged in university admissions.

A fair system of student funding and support and an approach to admissions that takes account of potential as opposed to exam results alone are important parts of the equation, but so are rigorous efforts to ensure that no child is left behind in our schools. The key is to increase the numbers from lower socio-economic groups who stay on at school after 16. Tomlinson's model neatly fits the "climbing frame for learning" that the Liberal Democrats propose in our paper "Quality,

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1170

Diversity and Choice", which recognises different routes into and paths through higher education, catering for part-time as well as full-time study and valuing vocational as well as academic learning. That amounts to a far more joined-up approach to education policy.

The widening participation agenda in higher education cannot be viewed in isolation from the further education sector, schools or early-years provision. In the past two years, a formidable lobby has been constructed in support of our universities. Liberal Democrats want a similar dedication of purpose to deal with the needs of our colleges.

Conservative understanding of educational progression is that of the royal route from school to school sixth form to full-time higher education. However, nearly as many young people take A-levels at sixth form colleges and general further education colleges as at state secondary schools. Young people at the former institutions tend to come from lower socio-economic groups. That is why further education colleges are so important in the widening participation agenda. The need to build strong progression routes from vocational level 3 to higher education is also important.

Conservatives have little to contribute to that wider agenda. The headline proposal in their exams policy was announced by the leader of the Conservative party on 18 October. He stated: "We will change the system to ensure that the highest grade of A-level should only be awarded to a fixed proportion of students sitting the subject that year."

The absurdity of such a position is clear. It means that the standard represented by the A grade will vary from year to year. Two students who receive the same mark a year apart could receive a different grade, depending on the overall performance of their year group. That has obvious implications for their chances of going to university and makes it impossible for employers to judge fairly between candidates of different ages on their academic qualifications.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has said that the fixed proportion will be the top 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. That means a reduction of between a half and three quarters in the numbers awarded the highest grade this year.

Mr. Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman reject the Tomlinson recommendation that a minority of those who currently get the A grade should get the top grade in future? Tomlinson proposes that the top grade should be A-plus and A-double-plus. If the hon. Gentleman criticises the idea of reducing the numbers who get the top grade at A-level, he explicitly rejects a Tomlinson finding.

Mr. Rendel: I was referring to norm referencing. The Tories have got it wrong because norm referencing means that one cannot accurately compare years.

The Liberal Democrats would redirect funds towards early-years education. The importance of early-years education has already been mentioned and we want the Government to move further towards the goal of universal child care provision, building on the progress that has already been made. Those policies are important because they contribute to the wider distribution of educational opportunity, with long-term benefit in access to higher education.

25 Oct 2004 : Column 1171

The Conservatives are hunting a pussycat that they have chosen to believe is a tiger, while their credibility on the main issues diminishes by the day. It is sensible to say that the state should not try to make academic judgments, but it is not sensible to say that public policy has no role in ensuring fairness and a level playing field in university admissions.

Class should not be a factor in determining educational opportunities, but claiming that economic and social circumstance has no impact on the life chances of many in our society is an irresponsible denial of reality. Subsequently to pursue policies that will deepen rather than heal social divisions is unforgivable.