List of conclusions and recommendations
Impact of withdrawal of HEFCE funding support
1. There
can be little doubt that the withdrawal of HEFCE funding support
for the tuition fees charged to ELQ students will increase substantially
the fees such students will have to pay, if the full cost is passed
on to them. (Paragraph 5)
Written submissions to inquiries
2. We
consider it unacceptable for there to be no memorandum provided
from the Government. We expect government departments fully to
comply with all reasonable requests for written submissions before
they appear before us in future. (Paragraph 8)
Policy on funding ELQ students
3. We
accept that it is for ministers to decide priorities for funding
and that it could be reasonable that public policy should give
priority to students who have not studied for a first degree.
This does require, however, a full rationale for, and justification
of, the policy, scoping of its effects and a proper examination
of possible unintended consequences, such as reducing the potential
of adult learners to retrain and re-skill, which Leitch and others
have argued is so vital, both on economic and social grounds.
(Paragraph 11)
4. Where resources
are switched in line with those priorities, it is the responsibility
of ministers also to demonstrate that there is unmet demand and
that the reallocation will produce outcomes in line with the Government's
policy and without unforeseen or unacceptable consequences. (Paragraph
12)
Justification for the policy
5. In
our view, there is little evidence that withdrawing state funding
for students taking ELQs in itself goes either with or against
the grain of the recommendation in the Leitch Review of Skills
to provide professional development with up-skilling and re-skilling
as priorities. Furthermore, Leitch does not impel the Government
to withdraw funding for ELQs nor require it to be maintained.
We recommend that the Commission for Employment and Skills undertake
a review of the effects of the withdrawal of institutional funding
on ELQ students and the institutions which principally educate
them. (Paragraph 17)
6. We recommend that
the Government make explicit its policy to assist people looking
to re-skill and obtain professional or technical development and
that this must be done in time to contribute to the major review
of fees policy and other higher education strategies which Government
intends to undertake in 2009. (Paragraph 18)
7. In our view the
Government has not shown convincing evidence that the withdrawal
of funding for ELQ students and the phased re-allocation of the
resources will meet its policy objective to encourage more suitably
qualified individuals to start higher education for the first-time.
In the absence of research on, or any analysis of, the groups
to whom the redirected resources are targeted, we cannot see how
the Government is certain that the funds taken from ELQ fees will
meet their intended purpose efficiently or effectively. While
we recognise that the expansion of the higher education sector
has occurred in the teeth of substantial scepticism about the
demand for, and value of, extra university places, we could find
no convincing evidence that ELQ students were preventing access
for first-time undergraduates or that there was a significant
unmet demand from first-time undergraduates, though we accept
that such evidence is not easy to collate. (Paragraph 23)
8. We conclude that
the Government should have carried out a full analysis of unmet
demand, including the annual 100,000 individuals who apply but
do not enter higher education and of their reasons for not starting
higher education, before it switched resources away from ELQ students.
(Paragraph 24)
9. In their response
to this report, we ask DIUS to explain what has happened to the
£20 million the Minister said would be redistributed in 2008-09.
We question the Government's case that switching funding from
ELQ students would increase opportunities for first-time graduates,
in the apparent absence of newly funded extra places for first-time
undergraduates in the first year of the scheme. We ask the Government
to explain the rationale linking funding and places. (Paragraph
25)
10. We found no convincing
evidence that "perpetual students" were absorbing public
resources or impeding the access of other students to higher education.
(Paragraph 26)
Timing of the change
11. We
see no evidence that there is a pressing reason to make the changes
to ELQ funding in 2008-09 and believe that the Government should
have waited for the 2009 review of fees, which would have been
able to weigh funding of ELQs against other priorities. (Paragraph
29)
Consultation on policy
12. The
Committee accepts that the consultation on the implementation
was open and that as a result DIUS and HEFCE have made some changes
to the original package. We conclude, however, that DIUS should
have carried out public consultation about the principle, merits
and consequences of the policy rather than exclusively on the
implementation of the package. (Paragraph
32)
Part-time students
13. We
saw no convincing evidence that part-time students would gain
from the redistribution of funds away from ELQ students. We welcome
and endorse the priority, and funding, that the Government has
given to part-time students to improve their skills and we recognise
that the Government has made improvements in support for part-time
students. However, overall support for part-time students remains
precarious and we conclude that these proposals are in danger
of undermining improvements and current progress.
(Paragraph 37)
14. The
result of the policy may be that, with an increased reliance on
co-funding, employers will have greater influence over the choice
of courses part-time students take. Those who are self-employed
or who work for small or medium sized businesses will have reduced
opportunity of co-funding. We have therefore concerns that the
withdrawal of ELQ funding will remove the flexibility in the system
that allows individuals without employers' support to acquire
new skills to be able to change employment and meet the needs
of a changing economy. (Paragraph 40)
15. We
conclude that the Government needs to publish its policy as an
employer on funding its employees' fees when they become ELQ students.
(Paragraph 41)
Impact assessment
16. We
are disappointed that HEFCE appears not to have pressed the Government
to allow it to carry out a full impact assessment study. We recommend
that in future before embarking on major changes such as the withdrawal
of ELQ funding, the Government ensure that a full sector assessment
of the impact of the proposals is carried out and the results
published with consultation exercises.
(Paragraph 53)
17. We
recommend that HEFCE publish the sector assessment of the impact
of the policy of withdrawing funding for ELQ fees as soon as possible,
in order to facilitate further analysis where necessary.
(Paragraph 55)
Data used by HEFCE for modelling
18. We
recommend that HEFCE institute a speedy appeals system that will
allow higher education institutions to challenge the data about
ELQ students on which grant, including the safety net, is calculated.
(Paragraph 57)
Transitional arrangements
19. The
Government needs to explain in detail how the safety net will
work so that institutions can adequately plan their finances for
the period of the transitional arrangements. In particular, the
Government must clarify the points raised by Professor Latchman.
(Paragraph 61)
20. In
our view three years is an adequate period for transitional arrangements
and the higher education sector as a whole could not reasonably
expect a longer period. It should give most higher education institutions
enough time to make adjustments to their courses and to attract
first-time students to fill gaps left by withdrawal of ELQ funding.
We recommend that this be the subject of a short, sharp, interim
review by HEFCE, with whatever recommendations to Government prove
necessary. (Paragraph 62)
21. We
recognise that additional measures may be needed to assist those
higher education institutions particularly badly hit by the withdrawal
of funding for ELQ students and recommend that the Government
provide for such additional measures. (Paragraph
63)
Exemptions proposed by HEFCE
22. We
welcome the immediate review of support for those studying theology
as an ELQ and recommend that the Government exempt those studying
theology as an ELQ from the withdrawal of funding. (Paragraph
66)
23. We
conclude that the exemptions proposed by the Government are inconsistent
and unsuitable for determining state support for the fees of ELQ
students. We conclude that the Government ought to have asked
HEFCE to design exemptions from the withdrawal of funding for
ELQ students that aligned with the Leitch review to focus on students
and courses likely to provide the greatest benefit to the economy
or to meet skills shortages. Of the alternatives offered, by Birkbeck
College for example, we conclude that the best case could be made
for part-time students following courses that lead to re-training
and hence value to the economy. Given the proposed policy of the
Government, there is, however, no feasible alternative to the
subject-specific basis for exemptions. (Paragraph
68)
24. We
recommend that the Government in responding to this Report clarify
the effect that the widening of the exemptions and the provision
of additional resources for part-time students will have on £100
million ear-marked for first-time students and whether resources
will be taken from other parts of the higher education budget.
(Paragraph 69)
Reviews of exemptions
25. We
recommend that the Government bring forward from December to the
summer the first annual review of the exemptions for the withdrawal
of funding for ELQ students, widen the terms of the review and
carry out a full consultation as part of the review. We further
recommend that the Government set out the financial consequences
if the proposed reviews extend any exemptions; in particular,
will there be offsetting withdrawal of exemptions for other ELQ
students? (Paragraph 70)
Policing the arrangements
26. We
recommend that the Government produce as a matter of urgency comprehensive
and clear guidance for higher education institutions and students
to ensure that they understand and follow the funding rules on
fees for ELQ students. The guidance needs to clarify the responsibilities
of higher education institutions, whether they have a duty of
due diligence and who should bear the financial consequences for
an ineligible ELQ student who either unwittingly or by deception
obtains government support for his or her fees. (Paragraph
73)
Conclusions
27. The
announcement of the decision in September 2007 to withdraw institutional
funding for those studying for equivalent or lower qualifications
has the appearance of a decision taken in some haste, the full
effects of which and consequences for other policies such as the
need for re-skilling have not been fully examined. The matter
would have been better left until the independent review of variable
fees due in 2009. The transitional arrangements and exemptions,
while welcome, are inconsistent and may well prove inadequate.
As the Government has decided to proceed with the changes to ELQ
funding, the first annual review of the exemptions provides an
opportunity for a full review of the scope and operation of the
exemptions. We support the Government's aim of encouraging more
first-time students to enter higher education; but without due
analysis and evidence of the likely effectiveness and impact of
the change, we cannot support the decision to cut funding to ELQ
students in this way. (Paragraph
74)
| 
