---

Science in Higher Education

I will address the hon. Gentleman’s comments later. I do not think that there is any evidence anywhere in the advanced world that central Government Departments dictating to universities which subjects they should deliver is the way to a sustainable future. A significant debate is taking place in the European Union about why our higher education institutions are not competitive compared with those of the United States. In fact, we are in pole position. We have a much better record, and it is based largely on university autonomy and an ability to play to strengths. It puts our universities in a much stronger position competitively than some other universities elsewhere in the European Union. That consensus is widely accepted. However, the Government are concerned about the overall strategic position, which is why, in stark contrast to the comments of the hon. Member for Reading, East, we have increased funding for higher education by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since we took office. He spoke about bolts out of the blue that have hit universities—for example, the pay settlement. I remind him that the universities collectively negotiated the pay settlements. I do not see how they could have come as a bolt out of the blue. Nevertheless, we spend more than £10 billion a year on higher education—or rather, that is the sum that we allocate to universities to be spent. After a generation of reductions in the units of resource, the vast majority of which took place under Conservative Governments, we are maintaining funding per student in real terms during a period when the number of students in the system has increased by well over 200,000. I ask the hon. Gentleman to compare and contrast that with the last five years of the previous Conservative Administration, when funding per student fell by almost 20 per cent. in real terms. I am prepared to take constructive criticism on the Government’s record—we can, and need, to do more—but I will not take lectures from the Conservative party about support and funding for our universities. Any vice-chancellor in this country will favourably compare the funding regime that exists today with the one that existed in the run-up to 1997. Let me pick up on some of the specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) raised some important questions. He has been pressing me strongly on these issues for a considerable time. I know that correspondence has gone directly from the university to him about the sustainability of some of the increases in investment and the fact that they will follow through. There is a responsibility on university authorities to explain that clearly. We are shortly to meet a delegation that he is bringing to the Department, and I understand that he has generously opened the meeting to the hon. Member for Reading, East. I was interested as well in the hon. Gentleman’s website, on which he says that the decline in numbers is driven by the Government’s desire to put easier subjects on what he describes as the school menu. I do not know where that comes from. There is no central Government directive on which subjects students should study. One of the problems that we face as a country and as a society is how we can enthuse and interest many more young people in the study and teaching of science. Yes, there are things that the Government can do, should do and, indeed, are doing, but we are discussing wider societal forces. We must collectively contribute to how science is depicted in our media and in our culture. The hon. Gentleman also talked about what he described as the scourge of league tables driving a decline in the study of science teaching. Unless my understanding is mistaken, I do not recall Conservative Front Benchers calling for the abolition of school league tables, and I am not sure about the purpose of that point.