Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-117)
MR DAVID
BELL AND
MR JONATHAN
THOMPSON
14 JUNE 2006
Q100 Mr Marsden: Notwithstanding
the admirable work that they do do, we have had HEFCE before this
Committee in the past and it is fair to say we have charged them
with complacency and short termism on a number of different areas.
Do you not really have to have one or two people in your own Department
who are pushing them to be more proactive, looking at the funding
issues and the economic and educational trends over the next 10
to fifteen years?
Mr Bell: Absolutely. We are doing
that. I think it will not be a great surprise to you that there
is a cross-government interest in this in relation to science,
innovation and business, not just nationally but internationally
so we are very much on this case. The supply of high quality staff
to universities is part of that equation because if we do not
have, as you suggested, high quality staff our universities are
not going to be able to compete in what is now an increasingly
international market for higher education. I absolutely accept
that.
Q101 Mr Marsden: I know you are going
to be asked some quite detailed questions about the comings and
goings of the RAE discussions, but I want to ask a broader question
which again is one that this Committee has looked at in the past.
That is the relevance of the funding that you put via the RAE
into higher education for the overall performance of higher education.
You will be aware of the fact that there are a number of examples—many
of them not publishable for libel purposes—of academics
who have been poached as part of the RAE exercise by universities
to go and do books or pieces of work there and who do little or
no teaching on the back of it. The criticism has been throughout
this process that the over-emphasis in terms of funding on the
RAE has not given enough implication in higher education to teaching,
to outreach work, the social inclusion work that younger academics
in particular cannot do if they are entirely focused on the RAE.
Is it not appropriate to use the fundamental re-examination of
the RAE beyond 2008 to fundamentally re-examine also the balance
of the funding which you give between the RAE and between those
broader definitions of success in higher education?
Mr Bell: I think the consultation
paper covers certain conversations I have had with vice chancellors.
There are a range of views about the impact of RAE. Our view is
that the RAE has been extremely beneficial to the quality and
standing of UK universities' research and therefore we think it
has served its purpose very well over the past 20-odd years, but
we are now embarking on this consultation exercise. I suspect
what will happen perhaps is along the lines that you suggested,
that people will want to debate those other points about the balance
between research and teaching. I am slightly nervous about drawing
too sharp a distinction that somehow the RAE has completely skewed
the behaviour of every academic in every university. That is not
the experience that I hear, not just from vice chancellors as
I said but from university lecturers, that actually the quality
of research is often informed by the teaching experience on a
day-to-day basis and obviously the teaching experience is helped
by the quality of research done by academics.
Q102 Dr Blackman-Woods: I have a
series of questions on consultations but first could I pick you
up on your last point? I would have thought there was a difference
in skewing between the research intensive universities and ones
who are not research intensive. I think the information that we
hear is that particularly for those Departments or institutions
which are research intensive there is a skewing away from teaching
towards research because it brings in so much money. I just wondered
if there was any acknowledge of that in the Department and therefore
any consideration of what might be done about that.
Mr Bell: I think the difficulty
on this one is that you really do hear such a range of opinions.
I can think of recent conversations with folks from research intensive
universities and I have heard a whole range of views from people
who would advance the argument that you have advanced there and
then others who would say it is incredibly important. I think
the consultation paper actually made that point, that there is
a wide range of opinion about the benefits of the RAE. I think
it is fair to say if you look at the consultation paper there
has been no attempt to hide some of the perceived difficulties.
I know they are actually laid out so this is not some sort of
paper that says that everything in the Research Assessment Exercise
has been perceived to be beneficial. We try to acknowledge in
the paper that there are criticisms of the Exercise, I accept
that.
Q103 Dr Blackman-Woods: If we can
look in more detail at the consultation paper, in paragraphs 1.10
and 1.11 I am just wondering if you are danger of creating some
confusion with two systems because you seem to be suggesting that
panels can lead to the metric system at least to some extent or
they can carry on doing the RAE as it was originally planned.
Is there not a danger there that the panels will use different
criteria if they moved to the more metrics basis?
Mr Bell: We have to be very sensitive
to that point because this is obviously high stakes. I think there
is a recognition in the paper that if you take the so called stem
subjects they are already arguing for greater use of metrics and
we are suggesting that that is something that they may wish to
do as part of the RAE and the panels have to come to a view on
that. On the other hand, again recognised in the paper, those
in the arts and humanities would feel that the metrics are less
robust.
Q104 Chairman: Why are you using
this metric system? It defies all common use of English language.
You are suddenly into higher education funding and are talking
about metrics.
Mr Bell: I am using the terminology
that is within the paper and essentially it is using some harder
measures of research.
Q105 Chairman: Why did they not say
that? It is confusing.
Mr Bell: Part of the problem is
that it is simply a shorthand to draw a distinction between on
the one hand what you might describe as qualitative judgments
about research as well as some assessment of the number alongside
a system that is more quantitative. In simple terms that is the
distinction. Please forgive me for using metrics as the shorthand.
Going back to the point, we have also said in the paper that the
shadow exercise that goes on across the whole of the 2008 exercise
should help us to inform what we might do beyond 2008. I think
we have managed to get the right balance here; we have tried to
give freedom to those who want to make better use of the metric
as well as trying to learn some of the lessons from the whole
exercise to inform what we do in future RAEs.
Q106 Dr Blackman-Woods: Can I add
another complication then? I think we should point out that the
consultation paper does make it very clear what is being considered
at the moment under the metric system but presumably you are going
to be open to suggestions about the refining that. My concern
is that 3.2 and 3.3 make it clear that there is an acknowledgement
at the moment that the metric system does not relate very well
to some subjects. It actually says it is not applicable to all
subjects; you will have to think about applying it to some subjects.
The question is, if you are devising the system and are consulting
on a system that does not relate to all subjects, why are we doing
it and what is going to happen to the subjects where it does not
fit very easily?
Mr Bell: Because of that divergence
of opinion in the higher education system and beyond about the
RAE I think it would have been difficult for us to have said that
we would never look at this again. Of course there had already
been a commitment to think about the RAE beyond 2008. There is
a sense in which, if we had not done so people would have said
we were not prepared to look at this; on the other hand in doing
it we have tried to recognise that the decisions you make about
research and research quality may differ between groups of subjects.
I think what we have tried to do here is to indicate, certainly
on the subjects where you may use the metrics, what the options
might be for the future and make it very clear that it is about
those subjects that we are looking at under the metric but there
is, as you say, a separate discussion about how you would judge
the quality of research in subjects that do not lend themselves
quite so easily to the quantitative measurements. I think to be
fair that is acknowledged in the paper.
Q107 Dr Blackman-Woods: Also, the
list of consultation questions at the end of the consultation,
most of them are about the detail of the metric system. It is
only when you get to the very last question where it asks if there
are any other issues that should be taken into consideration,
are there any other ways in which you can accomplish the distribution
of research funding. Given where it sits in the whole paper it
is fair to question whether the Department really wants to hear
about other methods or whether it does in fact just want to concentrate
our attention on the metric system itself.
Mr Bell: My experience of these
consultation papers is that even if you do not put that kind of
open ended question in people usually take the opportunity to
comment. That is there not as an afterthought; that is there as
a serious question. If there are people and organisations and
institutions who think that this is not the right direction to
take the funding of the quality of UK research then what other
ideas are on the table? I think it is as genuinely open as that.
I think, however, it would have been wrong for us not to put some
options on the table so that people do have some technical annexes
behind that so they can really scrutinise the implication of each
of these options. That is not in any sense intended to close down
the discussions.
Q108 Dr Blackman-Woods: I think there
is a general question about whether you and your officials think
that the RAE system has improved the overall quality. You can
improve the volume without improving the quality. Do you think
there has been an improvement in the quality of the research?
Mr Bell: Our idea is that there
has been improvement in the quality of research and I think, as
we do in other sections of the paper, we can point to a number
of measures we have taken into account. Some of those are international
peer assessments of research; some of those are fed by the drive
to improve the quality of research at the level of the individual
institution. Although there are all sorts of arguments and debates
within the academic community about the value of RAE I think it
is certainly the case that most people would agree that it really
has focused the attention of the universities to ensure they have
rigorous processes for improving the quality of research. The
argument often then is whether the RAE is either the best means
to secure that improvement or does it then have a number of side
effects that you have described. We argue very strongly that RAE
over the past 20 years has been a powerful lever to improve the
quality of UK research. The only other comment I would make is
that if you look at the standing of UK universities in research
terms worldwide we are still very, very highly regarded and I
do not think that that is an accident in the light of the measures
the system has taken to improve quality.
Q109 Chairman: You know school staff
backwards—that is no surprise with your background—but
you seem less comfortable and assured when you are talking about
higher education; even your body language changes a bit. Can I
say to you, as Chairman of this Committee, that I do hope you
are going to get out there into the higher education sector? I
was in York on Friday and I spent half a day with York University.
It was very instructive to spend the time with a very successful
and expanding university.
Mr Bell: I think I have acknowledged
that higher education is the area that in my professional background
I have least experience of and I freely admit that. I think I
am the first permanent secretary ever to have been a tutor of
the Open University. I would make the point that I have taken
a lot of time and effort since starting to get out to universities;
I have met all the groupings of universities and I have actually
met the unions and all the bodies involved. To put it clearly,
if for no other reason, as the accounting officer of this Department
I have to know this inside out.
Q110 Chairman: You will know that
there is a real discontent out there in higher education about
how part-time students are being treated. There is a very real
concern that recent changes in HEFCE have changed the balance
between those universities who have a lot of part-time students
and those who do not. There is a very serious concern and worry
out there that here we are with your Department and this Government
committed to 50% of people going to university in this country
and a lot of those people are going to be going on as part-timers
and suddenly there has been a shift in here and within the Department
pushing the money away from the part-time people, that are going
to be taking the brunt of the expansion allowed of higher education.
That is a real concern. Are you aware of that?
Mr Bell: Yes, that issue has been
brought to my attention and it is something the Department is
considering talking to HEFCE about. Every grouping of universities
I have met is able to advance a case about how the funding arrangements
disadvantage their particular part of the university system. Every
grouping that I have met has something to say about the funding
mechanisms. That is not to suggest that we must be getting it
right because everyone is annoyed; we might be getting it wrong
because everyone is annoyed. That point has been made to me.
Q111 Chairman: Even in FE many people
think that it is the part-time students who are the neglected
child on the block.
Mr Bell: I have spent a lot of
time thinking about the kind of world that we are going to be
in in higher education in the future. Yes, we will continue to
have a very strong element of the full-time student in their teenage
years and early twenties but increasing we are going to have people,
I think, coming back into higher education who are going to be
funded in higher education by their employers. People are going
to come into higher education via further education. There is
a huge amount of really exciting territory. Coming to this area
relatively fresh it is incredibly stimulating and interesting
area which I am diving into with some relish.
Q112 Dr Blackman-Woods: I was wondering
where in the priorities of the review was the situation of getting
those universities who at the moment are weaker in research to
enable them to do more research, so trying to move towards an
ending of the binary system of higher education. I wonder whether
you see the binary system as a problem and then to what extent
this review could help them with that.
Mr Bell: I know the consultation
paper does not make any specific reference to that point. One
of the things that I certainly picked up in conversation with
groups of vice chancellors at very different kinds of universities
is just quite where they pitch their stall. You might say that
all universities should be encouraged to do more and more research.
Vice chancellors from whatever kind of university do see that
as important, but it is the case—and will continue to be
the case—that some universities will be more research driven
than others partly for historical reasons, partly for the nature
of the work that is done. I do not think we are looking explicitly
in this document as to how to address that but I do think it is
a really interesting question for individual universities themselves
to decide quite where they pitch their stall.
Q113 Jeff Ennis: Changing the subject,
this Committee has recently received correspondence from Mr Tony
Thomas, the Chief Executive of the Field Studies Council because
he is worried that the implementation of this dedicated schools
grant may have a negative impact on the future of field trips,
they may be squeezed out et cetera in budgetary terms. Could you
give me some reassurance with regards to that specific point?
Mr Bell: In the spirit of humility
I am not aware of the contents of that specific letter but I am
more than happy to respond directly. I can only agree with you
in relation to field studies, external visits and trips and so
on. I would make the obvious point that the decisions about outside
trips, field studies and so on are decisions that have to be made
by individual schools. That responsibility remains there. It is
quite difficult to nail down the evidence on this one, about whether
you are seeing an increase or a decrease in terms of all kinds
of external visits. We know that there is evidence, for example,
that adventure trips and field studies are under some pressure
but we also note at the same time that a lot more schools are
taking pupils out into the local area, doing local studies and
so on. I am just making this caveat from my previous experience,
that it depends quite how you measure it. I have said in front
of this Committee in a previous guise that I think the outside
visit, the field trip, the adventure trip is such an essential
part of a rounded education. We have to do everything we can—and
it is not just about money—to encourage teachers to keep
doing that very valuable work.
Q114 Chairman: Tony Thomas, Andy
Simpson and other people from the RSPB very much impressed this
Committee with their evidence and we did show very clearly that
the safest place for your child was on a school trip. Secondly,
a trip adds immeasurably to the student's experience if it is
done properly, interpreted well and followed through well.
Mr Bell: I will certainly come
back to you on that one. [4]
Q115 Stephen Williams: Who is driving
this review of research funding, is it the Treasury or is it the
DfES or is an example of joined up government, or is the Treasury
now leading the way on policy in this area?
Mr Bell: The responsibility for
policy in this area lies with the DfES but of course other government
departments—not just the Treasury, the DTI and so on—have
had real and proper interest because higher education research
is not just about education but about the other things that I
described earlier.
Q116 Stephen Williams: There is a
joined up press release from the Department yesterday. The financial
secretary to the Treasury, Mr Healey, stated: "The Government
is committed to ensuring the UK remains the centre of world class
research" we are all agreed with that, but it goes on to
say "with scientific outputs fuelling innovation and productivity".
Do you share the view that there might be a suspicion out there
that what the Treasury wants is a focus with research onto science,
engineering and the stem subjects and there might be a fear amongst
the arts and humanities subjects that research funding is not
going to be so generous to them?
Mr Bell: I hope that fear would
not be there because actually it lays out quite explicitly in
the RAE consultation paper the value of research based on curiosity
(I think that is the terminology) which may not be scientific
or innovation type research but it can also just be research for
the sake of finding out more about the past or whatever happens
to be studied. There will always be a proper balance to strike
in terms of where we put public money in relation to research
because research is hugely significant in terms of science and
innovation but I do not think there is any suggestion anywhere
in government that we do not believe that academic research in
terms of expanding the boundaries of knowledge more generally
is not important; of course it is terribly important and I hope
we will cover that in our consideration of all research in the
future.
Q117 Chairman: Permanent secretary,
you have given us good value for money today. Jonathan, can I
thank you too. It is a very good first engagement in your new
roles. We look forward to a good and positive relationship over
time. There are issues that we have not discussed today but we
will be seeing you shortly.
Mr Bell: Thank you very much.
4 Ev 23 Back
| 
