Examination of Witness (Questions 40-59)
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2003
MARGARET HODGE
MBE, MP
Chairman
40. Oxford?
(Margaret Hodge) Oxford take 10% as compared to a
benchmark of 13%.
41. The London School of Economics?
(Margaret Hodge) They have met it this year, you will
be pleased to hear, they take 16% as against a benchmark of 16%.
These are the latest figures published in December 2002. Maybe
it is your efforts that have paid off at the LSE, although if
you look at the statistics the LSE was one that came out of HEFCE
that did particularly well in the latest set of statistics. The
legacy is one of social division in those that go to the more
prestigious universities, will what we are doing worsen that?
What I would say to you is that the mixture of additional funding
we are giving to students from low income backgrounds and the
introduction of the Access Regulator should ensure we do make
some inroads in what has been a divided system for generations.
Time will tell. You will have me back and test me on that.
Mr Simmonds
42. Minister, do you recognise that there are
some potential students who will be deterred from entering university
and going into higher education at whatever level because of the
policy you are supporting today of increased student debt via
top-up fees?
(Margaret Hodge) I think that is an interesting question.
Getting rid of the up-front fee inevitably adds to the debt. The
judgment we made was that the up-front fee was a greater inhibitor
to access than increasing the debt. If you put the debt alongside
the additional earnings, if you put it alongside the fact you
are not charging interest rates and if you put it alongside the
fact we are only charging in relation to income, so it is entirely
income contingent, you only pay as you earn, I do not think it
ought to be an inhibitor. The other thing I would say to you again
is, as I said in answer to Meg Munn's question, the mixture of
the new grants that we are introducing and the fact that we are
carrying on with our fee remission scheme for the first £1,100,
the introduction of bursaries by those universities that will
be charging variable fees, all that ought to ensure that the system
encourages more working class students to go to our top universities.
As you know, it is a passion that drives myself and the Secretary
of State.
43. I am intrigued by that answer because what
that says to me in code is that you do not think it will deter
anybody from going.
(Margaret Hodge) I think I am saying something more
positive than that.
44. If that is the case I would like to know,
Minister, how many sixth forms you have gone to and spoken to
about this. Certainly my experience in my constituency, and the
experience of other Members across all parties, is we are hearing
completely contrary to what you are saying.
(Margaret Hodge) Well I am surprised. I must go and
speak to the sixth forms that you speak to. I have spoken to a
lot of sixth forms, indeed I have been round with the AimHigher
campaign that talks to children in Year 9 and I have to say it
is quite easy. We have a job to do to raise aspirations amongst
young people from lower income backgrounds so that they see university
as something for them, but I think the levers we are putting in
place and programmes we are following have been pretty effective
at doing that. I would suggest if you have not been on one you
should go on one of the road show AimHigher days and see what
it does to young kids. I have now been on four or five of those.
45. Minister, I am sure we all agree we want
to raise aspirations, and I am representing a relatively socio-economic
challenged rural constituency, and we want to do so just as much
as those representing urban constituencies but what I am intrigued
about is that you do not seem to have come across anybody in a
sixth form you have spoken to who tells you they are deterred
from going to university because they fear the level of debt will
be increased because of the top- up fees that you are proposing.
Have you never had that experience?
(Margaret Hodge) Have you really talked to young students
of that age and see why they choose to come out of full-time training
and education?
46. This is not a complex question to answer.
(Margaret Hodge) Have you really talked to young students
as to why they choose to come out of full-time training and education?
If you did do that you would find that things like earning money
now is a much stronger reason for their coming out of full-time
education now at 16 or 18 than the issue of debt. All of the evidence
we have suggests that that is the case. Having said that I accept
that fear of debt is one of the factors that could affect people's
behaviour and people's choice. I believe that what we have put
in place in terms of the new grants and the new student funding
regime will allay that. I think if we go out and explain our policies
well, which we certainly intend to do, that will cease to be an
inhibitor.
47. There is no way that you would accept that
a pupil in a secondary-modern sixth form who has ambition to go
on to university, who may be the first person in their family
to do so, will not be deterred from doing so because of the level
of debt they will incur by going through that process?
(Margaret Hodge) It is a factor to which they will
have regard but the other factors are more important. I do not
know how often I have to say this to you. Let me put it to you
another way, would you if you were in government introduce a system
whereby higher education for both fee and maintenance support
was entirely free?
48. I am very intrigued by your answer, it seems
to be contradictory to what people are saying to me on the ground.
(Margaret Hodge) You have not answered the question.
49. You are here to answer the questions, not
me.
(Margaret Hodge) The interesting thing is that responsible
politicians have to look at the alternatives and see what decisions
they can take. The only alternatives I have seen from the Conservative
Party is to put a cap on aspirations by not increasing the numbers
going into higher education and the only alternative I have seen
from the Liberal Democrats is to cut degrees to two years and
force people to stay at home. Those are the two options. I think
what we have done, which is not to put a cap on aspirations, to
ensure there is proper choice for students as to whether they
stay at home or go away and that they can undertake a 3 year honour
degree if they want to but to provide a student funding regime
which supports them at the time at which they are studying and
particularly supports those from low income groups is a much better
way. If you have other ideas during this consultation process
let us know.
Mr Simmonds: I am not going to get an
answer.
Chairman: We want to talk a little on
research now.
Jonathan Shaw
50. Minister, 75% of the funding for research
goes into 25% of the institutions.
(Margaret Hodge) Yes.
51. You want to further concentrate that, what
are we looking at 80/20, 90/10, 95/5?
(Margaret Hodge) Again we have not set a specific
figure and it will be for HEFCE to determine the distribution.
What we have said from the evidence we have seen, particularly
round academic salaries at the top level, at the professorial
level of the top American universities, is we do need to put additional
funding into our top research institutions here to ensure that
we can compete and keep the best researchers and that is for the
level of revenue. On the capital level we also have to make sure
that the facilities are in place so that they are attractive to
the world's best researchers so that they want to carry out their
research here in England.
52. It will be at least 76/24, it will be less
than it is at the moment.
(Margaret Hodge) It will be more concentrated, in
that range somewhere or other.
53. Is there not a contradiction in the White
Paper then if you are saying that you want to nurture and provide
opportunities for research in institutions but you are going to
concentrate it in another, explain that?
(Margaret Hodge) There is no contradiction. There
is a lot of extra money going into research, some of it will be
used to concentrate additional resources at the top end so that
we can keep the best researchers, other will be used to fund identified
new research which is developing and in areas of emerging research
and new disciplines.
54. How will it emerge in universities other
than from where it is concentrated?
(Margaret Hodge) HEFCE have to lay down the funding
regime. There are two separate areas. The first is, where there
are new emerging disciplines of research, nursing might be one,
some of the applied medicines might be one, creative industries
another. And areas of emerging research. We would want to fund
research that is not yet world class but where the discipline
is strategically important to the future economic prosperity of
the nation, that is one. Second, you want to fund improving research,
I call it on the escalator of improvement, if you look at the
funding over time there are some departments where they have been
sort of stuck at a level and not going up or down, they are not
improving or indeed some have declined.
55. Are these the Level 4s that you are talking
about?
(Margaret Hodge) We will want to fund those that currently
have the Level 4 classification where they demonstrate that they
are improving departments.
56. That means you will continue them to the
next round or are you going to pull the rug?
(Margaret Hodge) We want to fund those that demonstrate
they are improving departments.
57. Let us be clear about this, the next round
goes up to 2008, is that correct?
(Margaret Hodge) Yes.
58. All research institutions that are at Level
4 will they continue to get the funding up until 2008?
(Margaret Hodge) We will want to introduce our new
policies on the funding of research before 2008.
59. The answer is that they may not.
(Margaret Hodge) They may well not.
| 
