University science provision
52. We have long been concerned that the trend towards
research concentration in a small number of institutions might
lead to the closure of some science departments, particularly
in chemistry, physics, engineering and mathematics. In our Scrutiny
Report 2003 we noted that the disappearance of such departments
from some regions could prevent some students from pursuing these
subjects to degree level. We are also concerned that a lack of
regional research capacity in some subjects could hamper the Government
in its support of university-business links at a regional level,
and could harm the economy and local services. In our Scrutiny
Report 2003 we recommended that, in order to maintain sufficient
demand for these subjects, "the Government should consider
establishing bursaries for undergraduates to study shortage subjects,
such as physical sciences and engineering. These should cover
the full cost of the charged top-up fee". [75]
This approach was dismissed by the Government in its Response.[76]
53. In 2004 the Government has taken a number of
steps to address this problem. In a speech to Universities UK,
the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Charles
Clarke, said that "there are numerous examples where rational
market decisions by individual institutions don't necessarily
meet the wider regional or national interests. We need to take
into account subjects which simply can't be dealt with completely
through the laws of supply and demand".[77]
HEFCE have proposed a number of measures to help prevent the closure
of university departments of strategic national or regional importance,
including a requirement for universities to give a period of notice
before closing a department; and the possibility of HEFCE providing
additional funding to departments if there is a powerful case
that falling provision in a particular region would hinder student
access to important disciplines. In our Report on our introductory
session with the Director General for Higher Education, Professor
Sir Alan Wilson, we noted that "the Director General for
Higher Education needs to be clear about what his role is in intervening".[78]
HEFCE's proposals establish the principle of Government intervention
and represents a significant shift in policy. We welcome HEFCE's
tacit, if belated, acknowledgement that Government intervention
may be necessary to secure adequate provision of university science
teaching at a regional and national level. We hope that it will
act swiftly to ensure that the problem does not get any worse.
54. The measures detailed above did not prevent Exeter
University from announcing, in November 2004, that it would be
closing its chemistry department, as well as its departments of
Italian and music. In December we met informally with the Vice
Chancellor of Exeter University, Professor Steve Smith, to discuss
the reasons underlying the University's decision to close its
chemistry department. Government answers to questions about the
closure of Exeter University's chemistry department have all reinforced
the view that "higher education institutions (HEIs) are autonomous
organisations and as such are responsible for their own academic
direction and strategic use of funds. The decision to close undergraduate
chemistry provision is therefore a matter for Exeter University
alone".[79] This
answer fails to acknowledge the Government's responsibility for
ensuring that there is adequate chemistry provision at a national,
or even regional, level, an omission that is inconsistent with
HEFCE's acknowledgment of the principle of Government intervention.
The Committee remains concerned about the strategic provision
of science subjects in English universities. We announced an inquiry
into this issue on 21 December 2004, and will be taking written
and oral evidence early in 2005.
66 
