APPENDIX 2
Supplementary evidence from HEFCE following
Evidence session on Monday 27 March 2006
What specific steps did HEFCE take to seek to
protect the supply of chemistry places in the south east following
notification from the University of Sussex of its proposed restructuring
of chemistry provision?
1. We were informed by the University of
Sussex on Thursday 2 March 2006 about its plans for the restructuring
of Chemistry. Our regional consultant for the South East of England,
and the University of Sussex, had an initial conversation with
the University Registrar on 3 March 2006, followed on Thursday
9 March 2006 by a visit to the University.
2. In order to maintain chemistry provision
in the South East of England we contacted three other universities
in the region and reached a provisional agreement with them that
will ensure no loss of capacity of overall student undergraduate
numbers in the region whatever the outcome of the review of chemistry
at the University of Sussex.
3. For the academic year 2004-05 in the
South-East region of England there are 405 home full-time first
degree entrants to single subject chemistry and combined courses
which include chemistry as a named subject. Of these 405, the
Department of Chemistry at the University of Sussex currently
has 20 undergraduate students in each year.
What written guidance has been provided by HEFCE
to universities on the consultations that they should undertake
in the event of proposed closures or restructuring of departments?
1. HEFCE published in June 2005 the Report
of the Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subjects Advisory
Group chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts. This Report strongly supported
HEFCE's role as a broker to sustain or develop human and/or physical
capacity within higher education and that this role should be
further enhanced (see Annex A for an extract from the Report HEFCE
2005/24). The Report argued that this approach relied on heads
of institutions having informal early discussions with HEFCE when
considering closing departments in strategically important subjects.
The group preferred this option to the formal 12-month notice
period recommended in the 10 Year Science and Innovation Investment
Framework.
2. HEFCE did not issue direct written guidance.
Rather it worked with the sector's representative bodies (Universities
UK and the Standing Conference of Principals—SCOP) to discuss
the best way of implementing this approach. We were concerned
to ensure that our interventions did not create greater turbulence
and that we should act informally as a broker, respecting institutional
autonomy while seeking to secure the supply of provision in strategically
important and vulnerable subjects.
3. As a result of these discussions, Universities
UK and SCOP wrote to their members on 30 September 2005 (copy
of Universities UK letter attached as annex B). Subsequently,
HEFCE staff reinforced the voluntary approach message in meetings
with the Regional Associations. Generally, the sector has welcomed
this approach and has followed the advice. In some cases, issues
are raised as part of the meetings between by HEFCE regional teams
and the senior management teams of higher education institutions.
With the appropriate notice, the HEFCE is able to analyse the
issues, take account of nearby provision, and, if necessary, engage
in discussions with neighbouring institutions to secure the supply
in the region. Where appropriate, discussions are also held with
the Regional Development Agency to see whether they wish to work
with the HEFCE on a joint intervention.
4. At the Committee hearing on 27 March
2006 our Acting Chief Executive, Steve Egan, said that in certain
circumstances we may want planning powers. Those circumstances
would be if we could not rely on higher education institutions
to work with us at an early stage in the development of their
thinking to ensure adequate provision of a subject at a regional
or national level. We believe that we should be able to gain assurances
from higher education institutions that this should happen. We
will work with the sector to see how we might strengthen the existing
voluntary guidance. If, as we suspect, we are successful then
there would be no need for further powers.
March 2006
| 
