Examination of Witness (Questions 160-179)
BILL RAMMELL
MP
31 JANUARY 2007
Q160 Mr Marsden: It does suggest
that perhaps in the future you are going to need to put more resources
in (and I mean no disrespect) via your Department to supplementing
and supporting those initiatives, does it not?
Bill Rammell: Yes, I do think
we need to be alongside the universities supporting them within
this process, and that may have resource implications.
Q161 Jeff Ennis: In his opening remarks,
the Chairman mentioned the fact that in evidence that we have
taken some institutions see Bologna as an opportunity, others
see it as a threat. Where do you stand on this?
Bill Rammell: As long as we get
it right, it is an opportunity. I think it is moving in the right
direction. I think we need to ensure that all universities in
the UK do take this seriously because ultimately it will affect
our competitiveness. Let me give you an example of what I mean
by that. If you look at the number of UK institutions that have
taken on the Diploma Supplement, we have got about 50% who either
have done it or are in the process of doing it, but there are
some significant variations between different elements of the
sector. For example, in the 1994 group of universities, 67% of
those who replied to the survey have taken on the Diploma Supplement,
only 32% of the coalition of modern universities. I think there
is a real interest for every university institution to embrace
this process.
Q162 Jeff Ennis: It appears to me,
Minister, you are implying that some of our institutions are being
a bit complacent on this. If that is the case, what do you see
is the scale of complacency and what would you like to do about
that to make sure that we have got the complexity edge, as it
were, when Bologna unfolds?
Bill Rammell: I do not want to
overstate it, but I think there is a risk of complacency. We bank
on the fact that generally we are rightly regarded as having high
quality and therefore we think this process is going on but it
should not concern us. I said earlier, one of the real benefit,
both financially and for a whole series of other reasons, that
has come in recent years is the expansion of overseas students
coming to this country. Unless, as this process goes forward,
we make clear that we are embracing it and we make clear, if you
come here, you have a qualification that is easily translatable
and comparable elsewhere within the broader Europe, given the
competitive pressures that exist, I think we could begin to lose
out. I am determined that that does not happen, and with Universities
UK we are arguing that whilst we cannot stipulate it, it is important
that every university embraces this process. For example, the
UK Higher Education Europe Unit, which is governed by universities,
has repeatedly, I think, produced some very impressive material
getting across the arguments to institutions.
Q163 Jeff Ennis: So you do not think
any of our institutions need a kick up the backside on Bologna
then?
Bill Rammell: I am not a Stalinist
in higher education terms, and it is not my role to kick them
up the backside. It is my role to actually say: "This is
important. It is happening. You need to embrace it", and
that is something that I and the Department constantly do.
Q164 Jeff Ennis: In many respects
we have got more to lose being at the top of the league in attracting
Western European students and other international students into
our country if the Bologna Process becomes successful. How do
you see the trends unfolding in that regard? We are very good
at setting targets as a government, I think currently 5% of the
student intake is foreign students into the UK. Have we got any
target figures as we go down the Bologna track?
Bill Rammell: We have.
Q165 Jeff Ennis: To maintain that
or to increase, or decrease, or whatever?
Bill Rammell: Under the first
phase of the Prime Minister's Initiative we not only met our target,
we exceeded it in terms of attracting overseas students to both
further and higher education. Under the second phase of the PMI
that we launched last April, it is much better funded than the
first phase, and we have set ourselves a target by 2010-11, an
additional 100,000 overseas students. I think that is achievable.
If you look at all the evidence, actually the market is growing
in that there are more people from different countries throughout
the world who are aspiring to higher education but the pressures
are more competitive, and that is (1) why you need initiatives
like PMI, and (2) you need to ensure that the opportunities that
students get when they come here are as competitive as possible.
For example, the change we made last year to allow all post-grads
and many under-grads to work for 12 months after they complete
their studies made us much more competitive.
Q166 Jeff Ennis: So the addition
of another 100,000 students to 2010, I guess you are basing that
increase on the total increase in the number of international
students across the whole piece, shall we say, rather than taking
them from any other individual European institution?
Bill Rammell: We have broad planning
assumptions about where those students are most likely to come
from, but that is going to be across the globe. The biggest single
element of the growth in overseas students in this country has
actually come from China, not Europe.
Jeff Ennis: Yes, I am aware of that.
Q167 Chairman: Minister, there is
one worrying thing about all of this. It is almost like an Alice
in Wonderland picture for me. Let us be chauvinist. We have the
best higher education system in Europe. It is the most attractive
to foreign students. Would we in financial services say, "We
are the centre for financial services in Europe, if not in the
world. We are going to try and help the rest of Europe be as good
in financial services as we are so Europe becomes more attractive
to financial services"? I have not heard that argument. I
have not heard it in steel making, I have not heard it in any
other sector, but here we have a process that says, "Let
us go out and make the rest of Europe more competitive as an attractive
higher education destination because that will do us good."
Quite honestly, Minister, in any other industry that would have
been laughed out of court.
Bill Rammell: I am not sure the
analogy is correct, and the alternative is that we step away from
the process.
Q168 Chairman: No, we do not. We
are successful now.
Bill Rammell: Absolutely. Can
you let me finish. We step away and we say, "We carry on
as we are. You do what you will." The problem is that they
will get on with it, they will continue with this process and,
given the competitive pressures that exist, over time, for some
of our institutions, I think that could hit them competitively
in that they have ended up in a situation where a system of comparability
and compatibility is developed elsewhere in the broader Europe,
we are not part of it and just at the one level of overseas students
coming to institutions in this country say: "Hold on a minute.
If I get this qualification and I have no particular link with
the United Kingdom and I then want to go and work in France, in
Germany, in Russia or elsewhere, I am not easily going to be able
to do that." I think that could hit us, and that is why I
think the process is happening, we need to embrace it and we need
to influence it in our national interest.
Q169 Chairman: Is there any limit
on how many international students we want in the UK?
Bill Rammell: In terms of capacity
there would ultimately be a limit. I do not think we are anywhere
near that limit yet. I think it is important to make clear, because
sometimes when I read some articles in national newspapers an
impression is created, or a statement is made, that actually overseas
students are a drain on our resources and undercut the opportunities
to British students, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Q170 Chairman: We are not making
that point. I am not making that point.
Bill Rammell: No, but for the
record, because this will go elsewhere, I am making that point,
if I can, because actually they add about five billion to our
economy and create other opportunities for British students.
Q171 Chairman: They do. I know you
are a fantastic Member of Parliament for Harlow, everyone knows
that, but some of your constituents in Harlow, and mine in Huddersfield,
might say that the core remit of UK higher education is to educate
UK citizens and their children. Is that not true?
Bill Rammell: Of course it is,
but there are examples course by course where, were it not for
the participation of overseas students, because of the economics
of this, that course provision would not probably take place for
British students. So this is actually bringing something to the
table that benefits students in my constituency and in yours.
Q172 Chairman: Good, but there is
no institution in this country which has got so many overseas
students that you think they are vulnerable financially in terms
of viability if markets changed?
Bill Rammell: Whilst we have certainly
promoted the recruitment of overseas students, we have also made
clear to institutions that, in terms of your overall strategic
financial plan, you need to watch this very carefully, and if
you are over-exposed in one particular market and there is a sudden
downturn in that market for economic reasons or for geopolitical
reasons, you might find yourselves over-exposed. I certainly say
to every institution I deal with, and I say this corporately,
"You need to monitor that and watch it very carefully so
that you are not over-exposed.
Chairman: We want to go on to the last
section and talk about the 2007 ministerial meeting. David is
going to lead us on this.
Q173 Mr Chaytor: Minister, at the
ministerial meeting in May, who takes the lead? Is it the Government
or is it the universities? Who is negotiating on Britain's behalf?
Bill Rammell: It is ultimately
an inter-governmental process. I said at the beginning of this
discussion that in order to become part of the Bologna Process,
the minister responsible for higher education has to apply, but
I will certainly do it side by side with Universities UK, and
literally, as at the last conference and at this one, Drummond
Bone and I will be sitting side by side and we do agree and we
will agree common positions.
Q174 Mr Chaytor: You do agree and
you will agree. So what are those common positions?
Bill Rammell: Very much what I
have talked about today, that we want a system that follows the
practice in this country of three cycles, a system that is based
on learning outcomes rather than time served. We will use the
opportunity to argue for more a generalised reform of the higher
education process so that it moves more towards the system of
university autonomy that we have within this country. We will
seek to resist some of the protectionist instincts that sometimes
come forward from some of the participants in this conference,
and we will seek to ensure that it continues to be a light-touch,
bottom up approach that is based on comparability and not on standardisation.
Q175 Mr Chaytor: Is there anything
that takes place elsewhere in the European Union that we can learn
from? Are you rejecting the model of HE that applies in all the
other 26 European Union countries?
Bill Rammell: No, I am not.
Q176 Mr Chaytor: What can we learn
from the French, the Germans, the Spanish, even the Azerbaijanis?
Bill Rammell: One example was
the point that Gordon made that, in terms of a system of credit
accumulation, I think in a number of broader European countries
they are further down that track than we are and I think part
of what works in this process is not just that supra-national
framework but it is actually just the discussions you have one
to one with counterparts who are dealing with some of the similar
challenges that you have got and you learn from that experience.
Q177 Mr Chaytor: Earlier you were
a little bit sceptical about a top down approach for a credit
transfer system. The Burgess Report reckons that by 2009 English
universities should have in place a voluntary credit system whereby
their degrees will be described in credit terms. Is that target
likely to be met and how important is it that that date is met?
Bill Rammell: I think we have
got the best chance of meeting it than we have had for a generation
in this debate. I think there has been progress. We have now got
a timetable, and although it is not my decision—this is
a decision for English universities—nevertheless, I think
it is in their interests and the interests of students, more broadly,
that they sign up for that process within the time span.
Q178 Mr Chaytor: If some universities
resist, does the Government not have a view of that? The Burgess
Report came directly out of the 2003 White Paper; so what is the
point of publishing a White Paper which stresses the importance
of credit transfer systems, setting in motion a process that leads
to that, and then finding that a number of universities just do
not play ball at all?
Bill Rammell: Bearing in mind
the previous comments we have made that there is real benefit
in not having a Stalinist minister of higher education who just
says, "Do this", and you do it, nevertheless there is
the power of persuasion, there is the power of financial incentives,
there is the monitoring of best practice so that we show that
for those institutions where it has developed there are real and
tangible benefits. I think that is the way to go rather than me
or the Secretary of State just prescribing this from the centre.
When I travel to some other European countries and talk to my
counterparts about the way that works, actually that centralised
system of planning does not work desperately well on the ground,
because they might actually give the fee out from the Secretary
of State's office but it often does not happen.
Q179 Mr Chaytor: Do you think HEFCE
should be incentivising credit transfer systems?
Bill Rammell: I think it is one
of the issues that we will look at as this process develops.
| 
