Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
PROFESSOR BRENDA
GOURLEY, PROFESSOR
DAVID LATCHMAN,
MS GEMMA
TUMELTY AND
MS SALLY
HUNT
17 JANUARY 2008
Q40 Mr Cawsey: I want to talk a little
bit about this whole issue about re-skilling people that are coming
back for training because of that. The Government has said that
people will be able to update and broaden their knowledge and
skills through foundation degrees. For those wishing to top up
their qualification, for example, from a higher national diploma
to an honours degree, ELQ funding is protected as well as courses
that employers co-fund. Do you think that these exemptions provide
enough safeguards for people looking to retrain and re-skill,
and if not why not?
Professor Latchman: No. We have
to remember these are proposed exemptions and we are awaiting
the outcome of the consultation, but at the present they do not
and the reason they do not is they have been designed to add up
to a certain saving. So there was a bottom line saving of £100
million. The exemptions that have been put in are designed to
make sure that, without the other things that are not exempted,
we save £100 million. So why is pharmacy not exempted when
veterinary medicine is? Why are we in a situation where psychology
which leads to lots of medically relevant qualifications is not
exempted? Because they cannot make the saving if they exempt psychology
because psychology is the biggest ELQ subject nationwide. So these
things are not logical. I am sure we will find in your pile of
papers people who argue that the entire part-time sector should
be exempted and we would certainly support that; I do not think
it is realistic if the policy comes in but certainly something
that says people who are returning five years after initial study
should be exempt, five years or more, because that will get at
these mythical serial learners who have to be got rid of at all
costs, but would not affect people trying to re-skill. So subject-based
exemptions, unless you have a logical debate, without having the
bottom line having to be £100 million, are nonsensical.
Q41 Mr Cawsey: We do not have to
argue that it has a bottom line at all, and we might argue that
the principle is sound if the exemptions are right. What would
you say to that and what do you think those exemptions should
therefore be?
Professor Latchman: We have said
already that we all do not accept the principle, and obviously
it is for the Committee to make up its mind, but if one did accept
the principle the exemptions should be exemptions along the lines
of either everyone studying part-time, or people studying a certain
number of years after their initial qualification. We should not
try and second-guess the value. You might say there is no value
in a philosophy degree. Actually, in a survey of employers, they
reported that philosophy degrees are one of the degrees they most
want because people have the ability to think logically with a
philosophy degree.
Chairman: I am delighted to hear that!
Q42 Mr Cawsey: We are just looking
for the evidence of the Chairman thinking logically!
Ms Hunt: If I could just comment
on that, I think you will probably find in some of your evidence
examples of where people are giving you different ways of doing
that. One of the ones we have looked at quite carefully is from
the University of Sunderland and that shows exactly why the exemptions
will not work because a lot of their investment is working in
the cultural field with the local community. It is not going to
be something that says it is health or pharmacy or one of those
key areas that I think we would expect to have put in front of
us if we were looking to justify that. I think David is right,
we have to look at this in a more organic way. We are not against
it for the principle's sake. We simply think you have to take
a stand that says either you are saying access or not and the
moment we start going down the road of judgment as to which subject
we are in danger because we are judging the outcome, and I do
not think any of us believe that is possible. We strongly believe
that the principle is one that should be accessible and that what
we should do is refer this back into the funding review, because
that is the only way, credibly, we can advise you and the Government
in terms of fulfilling the objectives that we all want.
Q43 Chairman: May I just come in
with a rider? Sally, there are so many inequities within the education
system in the way in which FE students are treated, both full
and part-time, the way in which full-time HE students are treated
as opposed to part-time, why pick on this as the inequity which
has got to be fought at all costs rather than some of those massive
inequities which appear elsewhere?
Ms Hunt: I will come back and
argue the corner on all of those areas any time you ask me to,
with pleasure. What we have been asked to do today, though, is
give you a view cross sector from the employers, from students
and from staff, as to whether we think this consultation is credible
and the recommendations coming out of it are ones that are logical
in terms of government policy. We are telling you as clearly as
we can that we do not know what happened in this consultation
and we ideally hope you will be able to elicit from HEFCE the
other options they possibly put to Government; and we would like
to know how this fits in with the Leitch agenda because we will
support that—I am hearing a deafening silence from those
I might think might support. We are here to help with that but
we are not going to put one group against another. Come General
Election time we will give you a view on the whole lot but at
the moment let's concentrate on this. I do not think this is right.
Q44 Mr Cawsey: On the exemption issue
it could look, from the debate this morning, that it is a more
comfortable life to allow people to clock a second and third lap
than try and encourage people on to the track for the first time,
and what the Government is trying to do is open up those opportunities.
Is there a principle where you could have exemptions to free up
extra capacity for that, or are you just against the exemptions
as a principle full stop?
Ms Hunt: I am.
Ms Tumelty: Again, it is the lack
of evidence that I have seen and that colleagues have seen that
says that those who are wanting to go into university for the
first time are being turned away because there are people doing
second degrees. Getting first time degree students into university,
into higher education, has to be a priority as with the wider
participation particularly but also those who need a second, third,
fourth chance should be given that opportunity to do so, and the
Leitch agenda and the wider participation agenda should not be
at odds with each other but should be about making sure we have
the graduates and the second life chancers.
Q45 Mr Cawsey: I do not disagree
but, more simply, it may well be that there is not the demand
at the moment, but if the Government does not do something to
try and create the demand we will all just stop in the comfort
zone and the comfort zone keeps a lot of people out for ever.
Ms Hunt: No, no.
Professor Latchman: The very important
point here, including unmet demand or whatever, is that if there
is demand it will be demand for more part-time places. That is
not going to be achieved in a system where you cut off the legs
of the part-time sector by doing this ELQ, and continue to have
far worse resourcing for part-time students in terms of the support
they get even if they have very low incomes than full-time students.
That is not the way to attract more people. We need debate and
more resourcing for those part-time students.
Q46 Mr Cawsey: That is more an argument
about how you make this proposal work.
Professor Latchman: I think it
is an argument that we should have had a debate about this proposal.
Q47 Mr Cawsey: About the principle
of what we are trying to do?
Professor Latchman: Absolutely.
We should have debated the principle and the way the money could
be used if it was released.
Ms Tumelty: The other concern
is the viability of courses. It is ridiculous to think that ELQ
students are taught somehow in different lecture theatres to other
groups of students, and if this funding is cut then what it could
do is damage the viability of other courses and therefore have
an impact across the sector of those first time students as well.
Q48 Mr Boswell: Do you have any specific
evidence of that? Specific evidence of course is likely to be
at risk because of the higher proportion of ELQ.
Professor Latchman: Yes. Every
single course in Birkbeck has a mixture of ELQ and non-ELQ students.
Q49 Mr Boswell: Are they all equally
vulnerable?
Professor Latchman: It depends
on the proportions and how students react to changes in the fee
regime we may have to introduce.
Q50 Chairman: We have received some
evidence on that and we will obviously publish that with our report.
Gemma, yourself and Professor Latchman have both prayed in aid
of Leitch. Leitch was quite clear in his recommendations that
as far as level 2 and 3 were concerned the State should provide
the bulk of funding but for most of level 3 and level 4, but specifically
4, it should be the employer and the individual, so is not the
Government just simply following the Leitch principle?
Ms Tumelty: I do not think that
Lord Leitch suggested or considered that withdrawing funding for
ELQ students is an appropriate response to the challenge he set
out, and it was a very laudable challenge around meeting the skills
agenda going forward, but certainly I would like to know whether
Leitch supports this as a policy because I do not think it is
actually in line with what his proposals laid out.
Q51 Chairman: He specifically said
at level 3 and level 4 it was the responsibility of the student
and the employer.
Ms Tumelty: Absolutely.
Professor Latchman: The point
is that Lord Leitch has not been asked his view on whether this
ELQ policy is in accordance with his agenda.
Chairman: We might just do that.
Q52 Dr Harris: Gemma Tumelty said
in a previous answer to Ian Cawsey that it was right that there
should be priority given to first time students, and my old public
health boss said whenever there is a priority there has to be
a posterity to compensate because nothing can be a priority unless,
relatively speaking, something is deprioritised. Can any of the
Panel say what they think could be deprioritised that is currently
funded in order to give the priority to encourage wider access
to first time students?
Ms Tumelty: That is not a fair
representation of what I said at all. I said it is absolutely
vital that we are getting more first time students in but that
should not come at the expense of another group of students. I
do not think we should have that priority.
Q53 Dr Harris: What should it be
at the expense of?
Ms Tumelty: We do not believe
that you should pick one group of students against another group
of students in terms of funding.
Q54 Dr Harris: I do not want to push
this too much but if you say that there must be more of something
and there is a limited pot, and I am not in favour of a limited
pot but there we are, it is where we are, what could be cut or
economised to provide for that part?
Professor Latchman: First, as
we have said before, there is no clear evidence that there are
huge numbers of students banging on the doors given the current
regime and the current support for part-time students. Secondly,
we would say if there is a need to release this 100 million, which
is a small part of the budget as the Minister himself has said,
then there should have been a proper debate about what the options
are and that is the key. I do not think it is for the sector itself
to suggest those savings; it is for things to be put forward and
debated against one another.
Q55 Dr Harris: There is the cushioning
arrangement and the phasing arrangements which mean that for three
years there will not be any, it is argued, net loss of income
for institutions. Do you agree that three years is enough time
for you to make other arrangements to protect your 2010/11 or
2011/12 position, or do you not accept the arrangements as you
understand them, that there is going to be protection?
Professor Latchman: I am glad
you asked that last part of the question because there is a protection
and of course we welcome that, but if one takes Birkbeck's situation
the safety netting, of which we will need £4 million a year
in 2010/11 according to HEFCE's figures, is in cash terms, so
that means we lose our inflationary uplift which on our inflation
figures would be around £600,000 year-on-year. We have not
heard whether there will be safety netting for the aspect of the
grant dependent on student numbers. So the core grant is safety
netted but is the widening participation element? That goes on
total fundable student numbers. We could lose another million
pounds in that. Is the capital allocation that we get for buildings
going to be maintained even though that has an element of student
numbers in it? So there are all those issues. Leaving that aside,
during this three year period when we are safety netted, we are
asked to respond with no guarantee of safety netting, and we will
respond. We are already in dialogue with HEFCE about ways we could
do things we want to do anyway about employer engagement and so
on. The problem is that any additional resource we attract in
by bringing in 500 co-funded students, a thousand students from
East London as we have done, and we bring in all those, HEFCE
will say: "That is very nice, your safety netting is reduced
down because you have it on the this other line of your budget
now", but we will not get any new resource to then go forward
to build on those initiatives for further initiatives, because
all we are doing is reducing the safety netting.
Q56 Dr Harris: This widening participation
funding which may not be safety-netted, would you say that if
that is not safety-netted that will particularly impact on those
institutions in terms of a reduction in funding that they suffer,
who are doing most to widen participation?
Professor Latchman: Absolutely.
Q57 Dr Harris: And that would run
counter to government policy and stated policy in this area?
Professor Latchman: Absolutely.
Professor Gourley: I wanted to
respond to the question whether the three year safety netting
is enough to get the institution realigned. I have to say that
it will cause damage but we will manage the first three years
with the safety netting. What particularly concerns us is what
happens after the safety netting because the Open University,
as you well know, creates courses over a longer period of time
than ordinary institutions where you can walk into the classroom
and be a week ahead of the students, perhaps—of course that
does not happen!—but we have longer lead times. Not only
that, of course, but if you are going to take 29,000 students
out of our system that is a serious chunk of our business and
a serious realignment of our resources, and we have to start planning
how that is to be done right now, so we are most concerned about
what happens after the three years rather than what has happened
during the three years.
Q58 Dr Harris: It was raised, I think,
by Ian in an earlier question, but it falls within this category,
what happens to courses which may not be sustainable if lots of
ELQ students are no longer able to do them? The Government say
they are allocating another £20 million in order to cushion
that. Have you any idea in terms of data as to whether that would
be sufficient? I am always troubled by round figures, rather like
50% targets for participation but do you have any data to suggest
whether that is adequate or not?
Professor Latchman: It is inadequate
and we know from HEFCE's own figures that it is. Several years
ago they commissioned a report from JM Consulting which reported
that on a full-time equivalent basis the costs of part-time students
to the institution could be up to 40% more.
Q59 Dr Harris: 44%.
Professor Latchman: So what do
we get now? We get a 10% premium for that under the current system
and your round figure of £20 million will raise that to 13.1%,
so that is 13.1% against existing extra costs of 44%, or around
there depending on the level of the course, and so that is entirely
inadequate. We have been arguing for better support for part-time
for umpteen years. It is ironic that it is only coming at this
moment to the background of huge damage to the part-time sector.
| 
