1 Introduction
1. In April 2005, our predecessor Committee published
a Report on strategic science provision in English universities.[1]
We share the belief of our predecessors that a continued supply
of high quality graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics (STEM) subjects is a matter of critical strategic
importance. In June 2005 we published the Government's Response
to Strategic Science Provision in English Universities.
The Response rejected the Committee's main proposal for future
provision: the "hub and spokes model". To explore in
detail the reasons for this rejection and the practical operation
of the Government's approach, we held a follow-up evidence session
on 2 November 2005 with the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning,
Further and Higher Education, Bill Rammell, and the then Chief
Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE), Sir Howard Newby.[2]
2. Our predecessor Committee's inquiry followed closely
on the heels of the announcement in November 2004 that the University
of Exeter was to close its chemistry department. This announcement,
set against the backdrop of a series of other STEM department
closures, prompted the then Secretary of State for Education and
Skills, Charles Clarke, to write to HEFCE in December 2004 for
its view on "whether there are any higher education subjects
or courses that are of national strategic importance, where intervention
might be appropriate to enable them to be available [...] and
the types of intervention which it believes could be considered".[3]
In response, HEFCE published Strategically important and vulnerable
subjects in June 2005, which outlined how and when HEFCE might
intervene to secure the provision of strategically important subjects.[4]
Responding to HEFCE's report, Secretary of State for Education
and Skills, Ruth Kelly, said:
"I broadly accept the thrust of the Council's
advice […] We respect institutions' freedom to decide what
courses they teach, or stop teaching. But I am also conscious
of national expectations and the potential national consequences
of individual decisions. So I hope you will continue to monitor
whether there are areas where current provision seems out of step
with the national need; consider whether action is needed; and
if so, advise me on what might be done, and who is best placed
to do it".
The Minister urged HEFCE to promote collaboration
between institutions and "encourage early conversations between
institutions where strategic and vulnerable subjects are at risk".[5]
3. On 12 March 2006 the University of Sussex issued
a press release announcing plans to "refocus" its chemistry
department, in essence a proposal to close the department and
replace it with a smaller department of chemical biology. The
announcement was greeted with dismay by many in the academic chemistry
community, particularly in view of the department's strong track
record: it had achieved a five rating in the 2001 Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) and produced two Nobel Laureates.
4. We announced our intention to hold an evidence
session on the changes to chemistry provision at the University
of Sussex with the University's Vice-Chancellor and Head of Chemistry,
as well as the Acting Chief Executive of HEFCE, on 15 March 2006.[6]
The University of Sussex is an independent body—it is not
for the Committee to interfere with its decision-making process.
However, the proposed changes to chemistry provision at Sussex
also provide a test case for the effectiveness of HEFCE's new
role in protecting strategically important and vulnerable subjects.
Our objective has therefore been to examine the processes which
led to the proposal to refocus chemistry at Sussex, with particular
reference to HEFCE's involvement. In undertaking this investigation,
we have also sought to draw out lessons of general relevance to
strategic provision of STEM subjects, in recognition of the fact
that the problems faced by Sussex in relation to chemistry provision
are by no means unique to that institution.
5. The transcript of the oral evidence session held
on 27 March 2006 with the University of Sussex and HEFCE is published
with this Report, along with the written memoranda submitted by
these two organisations. We would like to place on record our
thanks to the University of Sussex and to HEFCE for their prompt
and helpful responses during this short inquiry.
1 Eighth Report from the Science and Technology Committee,
Session 2004-05, Strategic Science Provision in English Universities,
HC 220-I Back
2
Strategic Science Provision in English Universities: follow-up,
HC 576-i Back
3
HEFCE, Strategically important and vulnerable subjects,
June 2005, p 3 Back
4
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_24/ Back
5
As above Back
6
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/scitech150306a.cfm
Back
| 
