Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-63)
PROFESSOR BRENDA
GOURLEY, PROFESSOR
DAVID LATCHMAN,
MS GEMMA
TUMELTY AND
MS SALLY
HUNT
17 JANUARY 2008
Q60 Ian Stewart: The OU and Birkbeck
have both proposed that for returners after five years or more
there should be a subsidy. How do you identify which of those
returners or re-skillers will be for employment purposes and which
are not? In addition to that, what percentage of those studying
for an ELQ would benefit from such a change? And, of course, have
you made any estimate of how much such an exemption would cost?
Professor Gourley: 75% of our
ELQ students are studying five years after their last qualification,
but can I just say that there is no question that part-time students
are in effect a marginal activity in most institutions because
they do not attract top-up fees and the kind of income that are
attracted by full-time students, so the kind of courses that are
offered to part-time students are a much more marginal activity.
Take out the ELQ students and it is possible that a whole lot
of courses will become uneconomic and not capable of being offered.
There is no question at the OU that the number of course offerings,
the number of options, will be reduced.
Q61 Chairman: Sally, just putting
aside Birkbeck and the OU, because you are dealing with the Sunderlands
and the Middlesbroughs --
Ms Hunt: The key to remember is
if you start from the premise of continuing education across the
piece, and it does not matter whether it is pre-`92, post `92,
whether it is Ruskin or not, whether it is Oxford, Oxford Brooks—I
have a list as long as my arm that tells me this is across the
country. What is also important is remembering that when we say
continuing education we have to say these are not just percentages
but students sitting in a room, next to each other; some will
be coming back, yes, after five years, some will be coming back
to re-skill, sitting next to someone else doing that same course—teaching
is not organised according to funding streams but according to
disciplines, and this is going to impact. Whilst I am very pleased
that we can sit here and talk together, employers and unions together,
what I am not willing to say to you is that there is not going
to come a point where we are going to be sitting arguing with
each other and I resent that frankly, because it should not be
for us as trade unions to be saying that in order to defend our
jobs we have to attack the people that I know three years ago
once this goes through stood here in front of you saying: This
is a policy that will impact not just on students and the economy
but the people I represent. And it is across the country and it
is coursewide, which is why we are so concerned about it.
Q62 Ian Stewart: When Professor Gourley
explained that the OU would still try to provide the same number
of, maybe even more, courses, what about the universities like
Manchester Metropolitan University, which is in the Manchester
area the university that concentrates on part-timers. What is
the implication there, Sally?
Ms Hunt: Looking at my figures
here, Manchester Metropolitan we are looking at and what we can
see, if I take an FT, it is going to be the equivalent of 666,
and FT is quite important because if you multiply that up, in
terms of a whole range of institutions, whilst you can say it
is marginal, and I do understand the use of language, Brenda,
what that does not mean is it is something that is not going to
affect people. It is. What I have is data. You have it in your
evidence; you can pick any one of your cities. Frankly, you can
sit in any one of your constituencies and say: Which of the population
I represent am I going to say is not going to be funded? I am
afraid there are real concerns. Just as matter of interest myself
I looked at what would happen in Hull because I thought OK, that
is probably one of the areas where Alan Johnson will be quite
interested because he is the Minister for the NHS and he will
want to have a look. When I look at that we are talking 1,500
odd places from that area and when I ratchet that in terms of
real figures it is going to impact. Why your question was important,
sir, was this: you cannot cherry pick. You cannot pick a strategic
direction that is not going to exclude people who are going to
go back into the job market. I say again, I genuinely think on
this one is Government is right, I think it is cross-party. It
is right, we all know, to have lifelong learning; we all know
that Leitch was right; we all agree that learning is not something
that stops at 21 or we are all in deep trouble, but this is really
going to cause difficulties, and it is something we genuinely
ask the Minister to think again on because we know that cannot
possibly be the outcome they expected. I do not think they realise
the range.
Q63 Dr Iddon: What is the key question
we should be asking the Minister from each of you?
Ms Hunt: What were the options
considered? Who supports this? I would like to know what Sandy
Leitch has said to him.
Ms Tumelty: Why should this group
of students be considered in separation from other groups of students
and why are we not deferring the decision about the entire funding
of the sector, which is going to be happening next year, `09?
Professor Latchman: What is the
urgency to rush this through now before the review, and what were
the other options that were considered for saving the money? What
are they going to do with the money saved?
Professor Gourley: Bringing more
people into higher education is much more complex than just providing
the places. It is to do with the same thing that keeps young people
from higher education, leaving school too early and all that sort
of thing. There is a complex set of social and cultural factors.
What is the Minister doing to address those kinds of factors and
prompt the demand, because at the moment the demand is not necessarily
there.
Chairman: We will try and put most of
those questions to him. Can I just say finally we have received
478 submissions to this inquiry; 470 of them have been critical
of the Government's proposals, and 7-8—one is a bit dodgy!—are
in favour. But could I, in summary, say you seem to have, if I
have got you right, the issue, first of all, about the lack of
evidence to make the decision; there is the issue of timing, why
now; there is the issue of lack of consultation on the proposals;
but, above all, all of you have emphasised that this is a principle
for which you are fighting. Can I thank each of you coming this
morning; you have been splendid witnesses. Thank you very much
indeed.
|
