16. Memorandum submitted by Amicus MSF
Following the publication of the Higher Education
White Paper, the Amicus MSF NEC have given consideration to its
implications for higher education and the 16,000 AMICUS members
employed in the HE Sector.
We welcomed the proposals relating to more focused
research and we certainly feel that this will provide better support
to manufacturing. We have long called for better links between
the HE research sector and the private sector, particularly in
manufacturing.
We have concerns that the UK has consistently
failed to fully exploit its scientific expertise. Although we
may excel in areas of pure research and early product development,
when this research is taken into production phases on new products,
the value goes elsewhere and we lose out. I believe that the policies
outlined in the White Paper will redress this problem.
We also welcome the recognition given to rewarding
teaching excellence.
Unfortunately, it is in the area of Higher Education
staffing that we have the greatest concerns over the White Paper.
Amicus MSF represents thousands of non-academic staff in the sector,
most of who work as skilled technical and scientific support staff
in university laboratories.
We have long battled to overcome the impression
that the only employees in HE are academics. Unfortunately the
White Paper apparently perpetuates this impression. On pay, it
states: "Over the coming period the Government will pursue
a twin-track strategy for academic pay." There is no mention
of pay for non-academics, yet these employees are all highly skilled
and highly qualified, and are just as important to the success
of any institution's research and teaching. There remains a problem,
apparently not addressed in the White Paper, about issues of low
pay and equal pay that are just as acute amongst non-academic
staff. (Over 50% of HE staff are support staff).
The assertion in the White Paper that the low
pay issues and the recruitment and retention problems facing universities
can be dealt with by market supplements is, in our view, also
flawed and, we fear, potentially discriminatory. Such a course
would also put in serious jeopardy the recently restructured national
bargaining arrangements and does not deal with the underlying
problem of low pay identified in the Independent Review of Higher
Education Pay and Conditions 1999 (Bett report) and the 1998 Royal
Society report on Technical and Research Support in the Modern
Laboratory.
Amicus is prepared to accept modernisation of
pay and bargaining structures, and we have been working to this
effect already. The joint trade unions' and Universities and Colleges
Employers Association's modernising agenda is designed to meet
the government's agenda for higher education but will require
money to fund it and the extra funding is insufficient to fund
the modernisation programme. Over the last few years staff have
absorbed an over 50% increase in student numbers and have received
no recognition of this productivity increase. The Government's
proposals to increase access further will not be achieved unless
we ensure we attract the right calibre of staff, Academic and
Non-Academic, to deliver the Government's agenda of a high class
higher education system.
In relation to top-up fees, although Amicus
MSF has conference policy opposing these, we welcome them being
deferred until after a university course has finished. This will
clearly ameliorate the burden on lower-paid families who no longer
have to pay fees up front. We recognise that no decision would
be easy.
February 2003
| 
