The White Paper
2. The White Paper proposals are not confined solely
to issues relating to student support and the funding of higher
education, but relate to all areas of universities' activities.
At the outset, the Government acknowledges the successes of the
system:
"We can be proud of our universities. The number
gaining degrees has tripled in the last two decades while safeguarding
quality. Completion rates for students are among the best in the
world. More overseas students are studying here. Our research
capacity is strong and, at best, world class. Recent years have
seen a dramatic increase in the number of new companies spun out
of universities' innovation."[4]
The paper then sets out what the Government sees
as the challenges facing the higher education sector:
"The challenge from other countries is growing.
Higher education is under pressure, and at risk of decline.
We face hard choices on funding, quality and management:
- Higher education must expand to meet rising
skill needs.
- The social class gap among those entering
university remains too wide.
- Many of our economic competitors invest more
in higher education.
- Universities are struggling to employ the
best academics.
- Funding per student fell 36% between 1989
and 1997.
The investment backlog in teaching and research
facilities is estimated at £8 billion.
- Universities need stronger links with business
and economy." [5]
3. The Government is addressing the investment shortfall
by providing a substantial increase in public funding for higher
education:
"Spending on higher education will rise from
a total of around £7.5 billion in 2002-03 to almost £10
billion in 2005-06—a real terms increase of over 6% each
year… This allocation is the most generous for a decade.
It will stabilise the funding of universities, and allow them
to make sustained progress in improving research volumes and quality
and in tackling the huge backlogs in research and teaching infrastructure."
[6]
The Government's proposals for the sector go far
beyond the provision of increased finance, embracing changes relating
to research; relationships between higher education institutions
and business; teaching and learning; the expansion of higher education;
fair access, and funding (both of institutions and of students).
4. We concluded that we needed to examine the Government's
proposals as a whole, not just to look at student funding issues
in isolation, and so in the following chapters we look at each
issue in turn.
5. During our inquiry we took evidence from the Secretary
of State; the Minster of State for Lifelong Learning and Higher
Education; Universities UK; the AUT; NATFHE; the NUS; the Standing
Conference of Principals; the Mixed Economy Group of Colleges;
Sir Howard Newby, Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding
Council for England; Dr Peter Knight, Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Central England in Birmingham; Professor David Eastwood, Vice-Chancellor
of the University of East Anglia; Mr Richard Lambert, Chair of
the Review of Business-University Collaboration; Sir Richard Sykes,
Rector of Imperial College, London; Professor Rick Trainor, Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Greenwich; Mr Phil Willis MP and Baroness
Sharp of Guildford. We received 40 memoranda. We also wrote to
all vice-chancellors and college principals[7]
for their views and received 59 responses. We are grateful to
all those who contributed to the inquiry in these ways. We have
been assisted in this inquiry by Professor Janet Beer, Pro-Vice-Chancellor
of Manchester Metropolitan University; Professor Alan Smithers
of the University of Liverpool; and Sir William Taylor. We thank
them for all their work for the Committee. We are also grateful
to Bahram Bekhradnia of the Higher Education Policy Institute
for organising a seminar for the Committee on issues raised in
the White Paper at the beginning of our inquiry.
1 
