Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Gareth Thomas (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 September 2011. It occurred during Opposition day on Opportunities for the Next Generation.


Opportunities for the Next Generation

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen set out in his opening remarks what Labour would have done had we been in office. The Minister will recognise that we have in place a detailed policy review, but there was absolutely no reason why his party needed to cut university funding by as much as it did or needed to see—as a result—university fees rise so much. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman is taking places from universities with international reputations and seeking to auction them off to the lowest bidder. He makes much of student choice, but it will not be students who decide which universities get extra places in that auction. The Minister, under pressure back in April, praised London Metropolitan university for keeping its fees below £9,000, but just days after his praise London Met announced that 400 courses were being closed; and in July, Carl Lygo, the chief executive of BPP, one of the new providers that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see do more, said that his institution would be forced to increase staff-student ratios as it expanded. With higher tuition fees on the one hand, and cuts in courses and worse staff-student ratios on the other, this is a Government who clearly think that such measures are a price worth paying. ““And the…financial cost””—these are not my words, but those of the independent Higher Education Policy Institute—"““to students and taxpayers—is likely to be considerable.””" As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the Secretary of State—in his more saintly past—railed against the levels of personal debt. Now he aspires to huge increases in the levels of debt that students face on graduation. If that were not bad enough, the Higher Education Policy Institute also found in its analysis that"““social mobility is likely to be…””" a"““…victim of the Government's plans, and the new methods of allocating resources and controlling numbers look likely to reinforce…disadvantage rather than remove it.””" The Conservative party is damaging social mobility and entrenching disadvantage. Why, who on earth could have predicted that? Almost 2,000 university nursing places and 4,000 university teacher training places have gone this coming academic year; 10,000 extra student places were axed last year by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws); and 10,000 extra places are being axed next year. Each one is an opportunity gone for the brightest and best of the next generation to fulfil their hopes and their ambitions. The apprenticeships guarantee scheme has been axed, EMA has been ended, there is rising homelessness and we have a Government in need of a plan B. They are leaving young people with a more uncertain future than at any time in the recent past. The Government need a serious strategy for growth; they need a plan B; the motion offers them one, and I commend it to the House.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
532 c950-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Apprentices Women Housing Education maintenance allowance Higher education Public expenditure Young people VAT Unemployment Future Jobs Fund
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk