Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
PROFESSOR BRENDA
GOURLEY, PROFESSOR
DAVID LATCHMAN,
MS GEMMA
TUMELTY AND
MS SALLY
HUNT
17 JANUARY 2008
Chairman: Good morning, and could I welcome
our witnesses to this, the first session of a short inquiry looking
at the Government's policy on equivalent and lower qualifications.
It has produced quite a lot of interest and a huge amount of evidence
which I actually have in front of me today, which is a pile members
have to carry around with them wherever they go. Our first session,
which is a tight session with roughly 40 minutes, is Professor
Brenda Gourley, Vice-Chancellor of the Open University, welcome
to you; Professor David Latchman, Master of Birkbeck College,
University of London, welcome to you, David; Gemma Tumelty, the
National President of the NUS, National Union of Students, welcome
again, Gemma; and, last but by no means least, Sally Hunt, the
General Secretary of the University and College Union, the UCU.
Could I say at this moment that I do apologise to all the literally
hundreds of people who have written to us asking to be oral witnesses
this morning, it just would not have been possible to take evidence
from everyone, and I am just going to call for any declarations
of interest from my Committee before we start.
Dr Iddon: I am a member of the University
College Union and I have another registered interest.
Q1 Chairman: Thank you. Could I start
with you, Professor Latchman? The Government has claimed that
it is public policy to give priority to students who have not
had the opportunity to study for a first degree. That is perfectly
reasonable, is it not?
Professor Latchman: I think it
sounds perfectly reasonable and it is a nice simple line. The
problems are twofold. First of all, that by doing that, we will
restrict support for a number of people who are re-skilling in
order to take advantage of changes in the labour market—women
returning to work, people who have had disabilities and so on,
and people who simply want to change careers. So on that level
we will be disadvantaging those people. Secondly, if we do disadvantage
those people and we gain money by doing that, Government says
that money will go into recruiting new first time students. I
do not think we or the Government believes there is a huge demand
for more full-time students.
Q2 Chairman: We will just come back
to that but the actual principle of the Government's policy you
are saying that you do not agree with, that in a limited pot of
money, and I think you would accept that there is a limited pot
of money, and you have to have priorities, the priority for you
would be for students with degrees to get a second degree rather
than a first one?
Professor Latchman: No. What I
am saying is there are reasons for people wanting to do second
degrees, and the second part of the answer was going to be that
the extra students we might be able to teach for the first time,
that you are and the Government is referring to, will be predominantly
part-time students. There is no evidence of huge demand there.
What we need to do is take the time to resource the part-time
sector properly so that it can actually recruit those hard-to-reach
students into part-time studies, as the Secretary of State repeatedly
said we should, and that is not going to be achieved by removing
large numbers of resources from the part-time sector, so it is
an argument about the part-time students currently studying for
ELQs and an argument about where the other students are coming
from in a sector where the part-time sector has had its legs cut
off.
Q3 Chairman: Just for clarity, as
far as Birkbeck is concerned, the majority of ELQs that you offer
are at the lower level, are they? Graduates gaining other skills?
You target mainly re-skilling --
Professor Latchman: Yes, graduates
gaining further skills, either people doing further Bachelor degrees,
or people who are doing further Masters.
Q4 Chairman: As a rough proportion,
how many of the total number of students are actually doing a
lower qualification?
Professor Latchman: It depends
on your definition of lower qualification.
Q5 Chairman: Not at Level 4?
Professor Latchman: All our qualifications
will be level 4 and above.
Q6 Chairman: Professor Gourley, the
basic policy of the Government which is firstness, applies at
level 2, level 3, level 4. Why is that not right?
Professor Gourley: I think what
you have to do is put it in perspective. We are talking about
£100 million here and in the context of the higher education
budget that is not a lot of money. It is a lot of money to individual
institutions, of course, and to the part-time sector but it is
not a lot of money, and the risk that you are entertaining -
Q7 Chairman: I am trying to deal
with the principle.
Professor Gourley: Yes. I am saying
that there is a risk of moving money from the one group to the
other. Both groups should be supported because the amount of money
is too small against such a large risk, and you are risking the
skill sets that you need for a first world economy.
Q8 Chairman: The Government has a
laudable objective following the Leitch report of actually growing
the number of students with a first level 4 qualification. Do
you accept that is a laudable objective for Government to have?
Professor Gourley: I think it
is an important objective, and there is a lot to fulfil in that.
Q9 Chairman: Given a finite sum of
money in the higher education sector, and it is a huge amount
of money going into the higher education sector, where else would
they find £100 million in order to grow the level 4 first
qualifications, in your view? Where could they find it?
Professor Gourley: I do not think
that £100 million is a very large sum of money to squeeze
out of the sector.
Q10 Chairman: Where would you find
it?
Professor Gourley: Well, they
are finding it in the first three years effectively by eliminating
the inflation adjustment across the institutions, so if you want
to squeeze the institutions it is £100 million across the
whole sector. What you have done so far is take it out of the
part-time sector which has made it very burdensome.
Q11 Chairman: Gemma, why are you
concerned about people who have a graduate qualification having
another qualification when so many young people in particular
are not even getting access to a first qualification?
Ms Tumelty: The issue is there
is no evidence to suggest at the minute that those people who
do not have degrees are being pushed out by people who are furthering
and re-skilling. I have not seen any of that, and certainly I
have not seen that element of competition or that demand is being
unmet. I am worried particularly --
Q12 Chairman: That is not the issue,
though, is it?
Ms Tumelty: I am worried about
the impact on equality as well, particularly with women who have
had career breaks, who maybe need to re-skill or up-skill before
going back into the workplace, which is a really important issue
seeing as women students make up 62% of part-time students, so
they are going to be massively disproportionately affected by
this decision.
Q13 Chairman: Should you not be worrying
about women who have not got a degree in the first place, so many
of whom drop out of school at 16?
Ms Tumelty: Absolutely, but obviously
the Government has said that there will be an additional 50,000
students allowed for in the Comprehensive Spending Review and
in the run-up to 2011. Is this 20,000 additional to those 50,000?
What evidence is there that ELQ students are pushing first-time
students out of having that opportunity to go? The issue is I
have not really seen that, and there seems to be some urgency
but no rationale behind that.
Q14 Chairman: Sally, it does not
matter to you and your members who you teach provided they have
got jobs and students. Why is this important?
Ms Hunt: What is important is
not setting one group of students against another, because certainly
any member of the UCU who teaches in higher education is looking
to make sure that there is access according to what the Government
asks us to do. What I am finding interesting in this debate is
we are asking to set one group of students against another and
what is quite interesting is for once I could actually say there
is a General Secretary who completely agrees with the Prime Minister.
He spoke at Greenwich in October and said: We do not have one
chance; we have 1, 2 and 3 chances; it is lifelong learning and
we have to unlock the door throughout people's lives. What he
did not say is: But you have to carry on paying more and more
if you want to achieve what I have asked you do in terms of re-skilling
population and the working force. What we have to do is recognise
there are definitely going to be cuts. It is not our imagination
that this is going to impact on student access, or that that will
bluntly mean that the members I represent are more at risk in
terms of their jobs. It also means we are sitting looking at a
policy that there is one Vice Chancellor in the whole country
who agrees with it, he happens to run a private university, and
I am in total agreement with the Prime Minister and the Chairman
of the CBI. I think we have to ask some serious questions. In
this consultation, in that huge pile of documentation you have
there, which one says: Yes, Bill Rammell, I agree, thank you very
much for making sure that second chance students, those who are
trying to get back into the sector and re-skill, are not going
to be able to afford it? That cannot be right.
Q15 Ian Stewart: Is the opposition
that you have to this an opposition to the principle, or is it
opposition to the timing and lack of consultation in your eyes?
Professor Latchman: I think it
is both. The principle certainly in simple terms sounds good but
is far too simplistic, but the problem is it is being compounded
by complete lack of consultation. We have not had consultation
about what other possible sources of this hundred million pounds
there are, we have not had clear evidence of student demand, and
most importantly, as your predecessor Committee investigated,
we have not had proper resourcing of the part-time sector and
the students who want to study part-time in terms of grants so
that we can achieve these hard-to-reach students, and that is
what the predecessor Committee found.
Ms Tumelty: Also, there is going
to be a review into the size, structure, nature, make-up and funding
of higher education in 2009 as was allowed for in the 2004 Education
Act. It seems somewhat putting the cart before the horse to unilaterally
withdraw funding from one particular group of students as we run
up into that review when really, in my view, and I think in all
of our views, if we are going to have this question around whether
we should fund second degree or second chance learners at all,
it should be deferred to the 2009 review when we can look at how
the whole sector is funded, and what support we give to individual
groups of students.
Ms Hunt: I completely agree with
that. It is a really important principle that if you have access
it has to be on an even level. If you have a sector that has to
be open it has to recognise that no policy initiatives should
impact in the way this has. We are not talking just one group
of universities, either those that specialise in research or those
that specialise in developing better access for working class
students. It is going across the board. I have members in Oxford
University, and in Westminster, and throughout the country who
are telling me that continuing learning is going to be hit across
the piece. It is the principle. If we believe that we ought to
be supporting and broadening the base of higher education, what
we must not do is cherry pick in terms of funding between the
sectors.
Q16 Chairman: Should it be the principle
throughout at level 2, 3, as well as 4? It should be a principle?
Ms Hunt: Yes.
Q17 Chairman: Because you cannot
just pick and choose.
Ms Hunt: No. I think for the members
I represent what is important to us is that if we are asked to
develop and launch programmes that encourage students in, and
support the economy, we expect the policies and government to
enable us to do that, and I think unless we actually look at this
across the piece, as Gemma has said from NUS, in terms of the
overall funding review, we are in danger of doing something that
is going to be putting the cart before the horse.
Professor Gourley: I agree completely.
Q18 Mr Boswell: First on the principle,
I wonder if our witnesses can just comment on whether or not any
minister can make any changes without an element of risk ie, special
risk, picking up slightly what Professor Gourley said, and, secondly,
whether you would equally accept that resources, even when you
say they are small change, are limited and therefore one has at
least to set out the agenda for the priorities? Could I follow
that by returning to the issue of retrospection? I was interested
in something specifically in the Birkbeck evidence, I think that
is the only place I saw it, about the use of the student reference
frame retrospectively, and I wonder if the witnesses can draw
out a bit the different effects of actually funding with reference
to something when this was unknown to our witnesses as a decision,
as against something which is going forward and requires an on-going
adjustment? Should I put it crudely, HEFCE might be wanting to
hear from your lawyers on that matter, for example.
Professor Latchman: I could not
possibly comment on that but we are having a debate here about
the principle which is very interesting, it is a debate we should
have had nationwide before this was brought in, and the speed
of implementation has led to the use of this retrospective data.
So that members of the Committee are clear, we will be fined from
our grant on the basis of ELQ students that were recruited in
2005-6 in a situation where there was no question of whether that
was equally valid to non ELQ.
Q19 Mr Boswell: And no debate, I
suppose?
Professor Latchman: And no debate,
so that is the situation because that is the only way that this
can be implemented, and as we go forward the question that has
not been answered, if this policy comes in and is maintained until
2050, is will we still be using 2005 data, or will we be asking
students to register whether they have an ELQ or not? If that
is the case, universities will spend huge amounts of money on
policing this system on behalf of the government because we will
have to investigate qualifications, we will have to find out whether
those things have been properly recorded, and there will be a
huge incentive to students who graduated a number of years ago
to lie because there is no national database that you have to
check it with.
| 
