Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
BILL RAMMELL
MP AND PROFESSOR
DAVID EASTWOOD
17 JANUARY 2008
Q100 Mr Boswell: As I understand
the way you have formulated this with Professor Eastwood, we are
looking at an objective of securing an additional 20,000 full-time
equivalents which might be, on a realistic presumption, 40,000
part-time, at half rate, or even more than that. Can I just be
clear, as an additional figure to this, separate from that which
you seem to accept is our understanding, the CSR talks about an
additional 50,000 student numbers by 2011, so is this 20,000 FTEs
embraced within that CSR target or is it additional? In other
words, is all of this implicit in the CSR target or is this an
extra recruitment that you seek to achieve?
Bill Rammell: It is part of the
overall CSR package, and I think you may be ahead of me because
the HEFCE grant letter has not actually been released. It will
be very shortly and, of the additional number, and I think it
is likely to be higher than the 50,000 growth figure we are talking
about, the 20,000 redirected is within that figure.
Q101 Chairman: Minister, both in
the debate and again today and even before this Committee before,
you have made a passionate defence of your policy, as indeed did
the Secretary of State. Why did you not, therefore, have a consultation
on these principles to actually engage the broader community before
actually going down this road?
Bill Rammell: Let me turn that
round. Where was the consultation that the interests of eight
million graduates should be put ahead of the 20 million people
in the workforce who do not have degree-level qualifications?
In terms of the priorities that we set out within the HEFCE grant
letter, that has always been a matter for the Government and ministers
to give those steers. What we have done, however, additionally
to that is, rightly, consulted on the detailed implementation
and during the course of this morning I want to give you further
indications of the changes I am minded to ask HEFCE to consider
compared to the original proposals.
Q102 Chairman: If I could respond
there just very briefly because I do not just want to have the
debate between us, there is a clear issue here about a government
policy which is about upskilling right throughout the agenda,
and I think nobody on this Committee would disagree with that,
but there is also a very, very fundamental issue about reskilling
people with inappropriate qualifications of which this is an essential
principle, and it is that principle that perhaps the Government
could have engaged in with both the community and indeed, if you
like, employers, students and the universities which would have
in fact enabled you to deal with a lot of the angst which is in
the system. Do you, with hindsight, feel that you could have handled
this better?
Bill Rammell: Government ministers
very rarely publicly admit, with hindsight, they could have handled
things better.
Q103 Chairman: You are an exception!
Bill Rammell: With conviction,
I do not think we could have gone about this differently. I think
we did it in the right order. We set out the policy steer, but
we have been consulting on the detail. In terms of re-skilling,
we need to remember we are redirecting less than a third of the
money which we spend through HEFCE on ELQs and we have been rightly
consulting on the detail. There is protection and there is going
to be protection for re-skilling in terms of foundation degrees
and in terms of a whole range of strategically important and vulnerable
subjects. A final word, and I should have said this to Mr Cawsey,
whilst you need to go to Sandy Leitch, I am absolutely clear that
what we are pursuing is absolutely in accordance with the Leitch
analysis, that the higher you go up the qualifications chain the
more you should rely on co-financing.
Q104 Chairman: I think the condemned
prisoner who is told he is going to be condemned to death and
you then consult on the method of execution is really what we
are talking about. I wonder somehow whether that is a satisfactory
way to move forward, but I will leave that hanging in the air!
Bill Rammell: Where was the consultation
on the original funding?
Q105 Chairman: Minister, I think
there were huge consultations in 1997 following the Dearing Report
on the principles behind the Government's policy before it was
implemented and I think in terms of top-up fees there were big
issues there. Perhaps this is a similar momentous moment as to
when there is a change of policy.
Bill Rammell: Except I will have
to check the record, I do not recall Dearing addressing the question
of ELQs.
Chairman: I did not say on ELQs, I said
it would be on the issue of expansion of numbers.
Q106 Ian Stewart: Which trade unions
have been consulted?
Bill Rammell: This has been a
wide consultation and trade unions have had an opportunity to
input their views. I personally have discussed it with University
College Union and the National Union of Students as well.
Q107 Ian Stewart: Has anybody thought
about consulting the industrial unions because if we are looking
at making a flexible labour market, surely it would be sensible
to consult the industrial unions as well?
Bill Rammell: In respect of the
Higher Level Skills Strategy, which I think is a key element of
this overall process of change, the TUC have been part of the
working group I have been leading looking at those issues.
Q108 Mr Marsden: Professor Eastwood,
can I come to you in terms of HEFCE's responsibilities in terms
of assessing the impact of the policy. There is a statutory duty
to have regard for eliminating unlawful discrimination and promoting
equality but, in addition to that, the Government has said very
strong things about the need to improve the conditions for and
the admission of students with disabilities. I would like to know
what assessment there has been of the impact of this policy on
students with disabilities.
Professor Eastwood: As we always
do, we have conducted a full sector impact assessment. That will
go to my board next week and it will be published in the normal
way thereafter.
Q109 Mr Marsden: Does that include
a section on students with disabilities?
Professor Eastwood: It does.
Q110 Mr Marsden: Specifically?
Professor Eastwood: Specifically,
and our advice is that there are no particular issues relating
to students with disabilities.
Q111 Mr Marsden: If you will forgive
me saying so, that seems to me to be slightly complacent. The
reason I say that, in the context of what the Chairman has just
said about re-skilling, is that there will be a number of potential
students, leave aside the number of students with lifelong disabilities,
who have acquired disabilities in a 10 to 20 year period which
means that in order to pursue useful employment they will have
to re-skill themselves. Would you not agree that is precisely
a group whose interests ought to be addressed? In light of that,
would you not agree that perhaps you ought to be thinking again
about your assessment of the impact on students with disabilities?
Professor Eastwood: We did two
things, and I took it you were asking whether we had done a sector
impact assessment and my answer to that is yes.
Q112 Mr Marsden: On what?
Professor Eastwood: On the whole
range of equalities issues.
Q113 Mr Marsden: For the purpose
of time, I would like to focus you and concentrate on disabilities.
Professor Eastwood: As far as
disabilities are concerned, our advice is it does not have a disproportionate
impact. That said, we do recognise there are particular issues
relating to learners who may have acquired a disability subsequent
to their first degree and that may be relevant and we, along with
a series of other issues, will keep that matter under review.
If there are issues to be addressed there, they will be addressed
downstream.
Q114 Mr Marsden: I hope that under
review means you will do something about it. Can I come on to
a second area, which is the area of the impacts particularly on
newer universities? As I am sure you have, we have had evidence
from Million+, which is the organisation that represents a large
number of post-1992 universities, that over £42 million of
the reduction fund will fall on those universities, many of whom
have pioneered wider participation. The principle of this might
be something the Minister wants to comment on. Is there not a
danger that the law of unintended consequences is going to restrict
many of the laudable aims you have for supporting the agenda for
new universities?
Professor Eastwood: In terms of
overall impact, if my memory serves, the post-1992 part of the
sector is -2.5 and the pre-1992 part of the sector is -2.1, so
there is a differential but it is not a huge differential. As
you rightly say, a significant part of the redistribution of numbers
will be redistribution towards widening participation.
Q115 Mr Marsden: I did not actually
say that.
Professor Eastwood: My apologies.
Q116 Mr Marsden: That is what you
wish to say.
Professor Eastwood: I inferred
that. I think what you said is a significant proportion of post-1992
institutions had been notably successful in widening participation.
My point was going to be that notwithstanding the hit that they
take as a result of the ELQ decision, the fact that we will be
continuing to drive widening participation will mean there will
be very substantial opportunities for those institutions to continue
to widen the participation and to receive additional student numbers.
Q117 Mr Marsden: Minister, you may
want to come in on this. I want to pursue this particular point.
Genuinely I do not have any doubts about your intention to pursue
the widening participation, nor do I have any doubts about the
strength that HEFCE has applied to this. I have very significant
doubts about the law of unintended consequences. Have you done
any analysis in the post-1992 universities as to how the unit
costs of departments will be affected if, as a result of withdrawing
funding, a significant number of students from ELQs in particular
courses are no longer there?
Professor Eastwood: That is analysis
which will be done by institutions because it is institutions
that determine the distribution of that block grant.
Q118 Mr Marsden: Do you not even
have a view on it?
Professor Eastwood: Clearly the
distribution of ELQ students across programmes varies, it varies
by programme and it varies by institutions. That is the reason,
as the Minister was saying, why it is important to understand
two other things: first of all, the new policy will be phased
in over the three-year period and, secondly, we are cash-protecting
all institutions. We are cash-protecting institutions through
that three-year period so they will have ample opportunity to
make adjustments in provision, recruitment and additional student
numbers as appropriate.
Q119 Mr Marsden: I am aware of that.
Bill Rammell: The whole of the
debate is focused on the reduction in respect of ELQs without
factoring in, first, where the £100 million will go, and
I think the kind of institutions you are talking about, based
upon their track record, are very well placed to receive some
of those redirected funds and, secondly, the overall growth in
the higher education budget of two and a half per cent above inflation
in the next three years. Additionally, although legally it is
not within my powers to direct specific allocations of funding
to particular institutions, we will within the HEFCE grant letter—and
it may be helpful if I read this to you—be saying that:
"I hope Professor Eastwood and his colleagues will consider
carefully the position of institutions most affected by this change
to the funding rules in allocating the new funded places that
are being created". That, along with the growth, along with
the redirection of £100 million, should give a significant
degree of reassurance to the institutions that are affected.
Mr Marsden: Chairman, all I would say
to that is there is a lot of hope and expectation in there, but
there has been precious little modelling to suggest it. If you
take my local post-1992 university, the University of Central
Lancashire, if you have a class of students in there, 30 of whom
are on a particular course and ten of whom disappear immediately
because they are no longer getting ELQ in funding, that is going
to put enormous pressure on that university and universities across
the piece to close some of those courses. By the time you get
the benefit of your recirculation policy those courses may no
longer exist.
| 
