Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
BILL RAMMELL
MP AND PROFESSOR
DAVID EASTWOOD
17 JANUARY 2008
Q120 Chairman: I want to bring in
Dr Gibson, but I think it is fair to say that students who are
on existing courses will be protected. It is important to put
that forward.
Professor Eastwood: Yes. Students
on existing courses are protected, the policy is phased in and
institutions will receive cash protection in addition to the effects
of the increased spend which the Minister referred to. Also, again,
one has to understand the flexibility in institutions in terms
of delivery. For example, if you take a university like the University
of Central Lancashire, it will use its credits flexibly and it
will use unit components flexibly, so there is not a one-to-one
relationship between numbers and programmes.
Q121 Chairman: Professor Eastwood,
the fundamental point here is that as far as our evidence, we
have not seen any modelling from individual universities as to
what will happen in the future as, in fact, ELQ support from the
Government is phased out and they are dependent purely on ELQ
funding from the individual student or, indeed, with a supportive
employer because that will make a profound impact on the size
of the group and therefore the viability of the group. I think
it is that modelling which we would have liked to have seen because
that then gives comfort to institutions but, also, I would have
thought gave comfort to you and to the Minister in terms of the
policy moving forward. Surely HEFCE has got an interest in that
rather than to simply say, "Woe is us, it is just the institutions".
If that could be provided in any way that would be incredibly
useful.
Professor Eastwood: There are
a number of important staging points here. The Minister has already
indicated that the grant letter has not yet reached HEFCE, so
in order to do any modelling we would need to know what the headline
increase in the additional student numbers would be. The other
issue which is important here is that we do have a dynamic higher
education system and the Minister's opening comment referred to
dynamism. If we have a system which is dynamic and responsive,
responsive to student demand, responsive to other agendas, for
example the Leitch agenda, then over time you would expect to
see some redistribution of resource between institutions, that
is what you get in a dynamic market. What we will do, and what
we always do working with institutions year-on-year, is we work
with institutions over the allocation of funded numbers and we
monitor year-on-year the impact of that on institutions and we
will continue to roll that forward and those data are public domain
data.
Q122 Dr Gibson: Minister, this time
you used the phrase "most affected". Have you got a
concept of some who will be unaffected too while our dearly beloved
Russell Group Universities will be just as severely affected as
some of the others?
Bill Rammell: Professor Eastwood
gave the statistic in terms of the overall impact that post-1992
institutions are affected to the extent of two and a half per
cent; pre-1992 institutions 2.1%, so there is some differential,
although it is not very substantive. I think I am right in saying
as well that in cash terms one of the most affected institutions
is Oxford University.
Professor Eastwood: You are correct,
it is.
Q123 Dr Gibson: But we will not have
to close it!
Bill Rammell: I do not think you
are going to see any institution close as a result of these changes.
I understand the lobbying process that takes place and universities
are very effective and skilled at asserting their interests, but
there has been a degree of exaggeration in terms of the unmitigated
impact of these changes.
Q124 Mr Marsden: Minister, you were
making a point there about overall universities, but we know that
the struggle for setting up lifelong learning centres and continuing
education centres across universities has been a very hard one.
Many of them operate at the margins, frankly many of them are
still not at the top list of priorities in terms of that university
funding. How can you be confident that if there are short-term—I
will be very mild and say—dislocations in the student numbers
on those courses as a result of your policies, notwithstanding
the protection which is there for existing people, those centres
of continuing education et cetera will not close?
Bill Rammell: First of all, we
are phasing it in, and I have said that on a number of occasions,
so we will have an ability to manage this process. Secondly, in
terms of those institutions where there is the biggest impact,
and I will talk particularly about Birkbeck College and the Open
University—
Q125 Mr Marsden: I am not talking
specifically about them, I am talking about other universities
where they may have those centres on the periphery, if I can put
it that way.
Bill Rammell: Yes, and that is
why we are phasing it in. In terms of the redirected £100
million and the overall growth which exists within the system,
there will be an ability to ensure that those initiatives in those
departments can continue. If I could expand specifically because
I want to get this out into the public domain, in respect of Birkberk
and the Open University, we do not want to harm those institutions.
That is why I have met with both institutions on a number of occasions,
as has Professor Eastwood, as has the Secretary of State. Birkbeck
has engaged very constructively with us in terms of sitting down
with HEFCE and looking at how we can give reassurance about moving
the institution from where it is today to where it wants to be
in three years' time. The work that Birkbeck is doing in East
London is a very strong step in the right direction. After some
initial exchanges of views I welcome the fact that the Open University
is now engaging with HEFCE on ensuring the HEFCE model adequately
responds to and reflects some of the innovative provision within
the OU.
Q126 Ian Stewart: Minister, I think
you need to realise that in an earlier evidence session we had
the two universities representing the employers, the students'
representatives and the staff representatives and all of them
indicated outright opposition to the principle of this proposal.
Can I now turn it back to the world of work, a main interest of
mine. If employers are expected to pick up the funding shortfall,
will that not penalise those who are self-employed and those who
work in small businesses because they will not be able to afford
the increased fee levels?
Bill Rammell: Let me be clear,
in terms of the redirected £100 million, it is not just employer
co-funding, as I said widening participation would be a major
plank within that. In terms of the self-employed, there still
will be routes through the system to ensure that you can re-skill,
for example in respect of vocational foundation degrees, which
I think in terms of re-skilling should become the trademark qualification
for people who are looking to change careers, and a whole series
of subjects which are exempted. One of the things I am minded
to do is to write to Professor Eastwood as a result of the consultation
to say for that list of exempted subjects HEFCE should undertake
an annual review starting in December so that we ensure the impact
of this policy change on those particularly important subjects
is not adverse.
Q127 Dr Iddon: Bill, you have accepted
that this policy change is going to disproportionately affect
part-time students, I think that is a given, and that is proved
by the fact that you have allocated £20 million towards a
supplement for part-time studies. How have you quantified the
impact on part-time students? In other words, where is that £20
million figure being plucked from, and why this morning have you
changed it to £30 million? What has caused that change?
Bill Rammell: Part of the difficulty
with this debate is that some of the criticism comes across as
though this has been a government which has been negligent on
the part-time front. I would want to reassert what I said previously
to your Committee, this is the first government ever to bring
in a part-time student grant. Two years ago we increased the value
of that by 27%. Also, in last year's Spending Reviews we increased
the part-time premium, I think I am right in saying, between the
Department and HEFCE to £40 million. On top of that at the
start of this process we looked at the change and made a judgment,
along with the growth and the redirected £100 million, on
how much more we ought to give by way of part-time premium and
we have as a result of the concerns which have been put forward.
I am proposing, and it is HEFCE's decision, that is increased
to £30 million. It is not a science, it is a judgment based
upon the amount of money within the system, the demands on it
and the views that are put forward.
Q128 Dr Iddon: Why is this uplift
now of £30 million only being paid a year after the policy
is introduced in 2009-10?
Bill Rammell: Because the impact
of the changes in the first year is very small, it is only 0.2%
of the overall higher education budget, it is £20 million
in total.
Q129 Dr Iddon: Sandy Leitch's name
has been mentioned throughout the discussion, has he been consulted
on this policy change at all? If so, what are his views?
Bill Rammell: Sorry, that question
was put to me earlier. I think it would be wrong for me to reveal
private conversations with Sandy, you will need to ask Sandy that
question. I am absolutely convinced that the policy we are putting
forward is consistent with the Leitch analysis.
Dr Iddon: Perhaps we will ask him.
Q130 Dr Harris: I want to ask you
about some of these exempted subjects. In medicine there are now
said to be about 30,000 junior doctors applying for about 20,000
posts. We are spending a quarter of a million pounds on training
doctors, a third of whom, while perfectly qualified, they have
done five or six years of study and passed continuing exams, are
being told there are no jobs for them to train to be a consultant,
yet you have reserved that as an exempted subject. Is that because
you think we should train more doctors to fail to get into training
positions or is there some future forecast catastrophe going to
happen to strike down thousands of doctors in their prime who
will need replacing?
Bill Rammell: I have not got the
figures immediately to hand, but the figures you are quoting I
do not accept as the impact which is happening on the ground.
I recall last year there was a debate about the number of doctors
who would end up not being placed and the actual evidence at the
end of the day was not borne out by that. Medicine is a strategically
important subject. Under this Government we have rightly expanded
significantly the number of doctors working within the National
Health Service and we want to ensure that we have a continuing
supply of medical graduates who are able to take up those places.
Dr Harris: Of course there will be a
continuing supply because there has been that expansion which
was appropriate at the time, but I do not think anyone is arguing,
Government or its expert group, that we need more medical student
numbers coming through now, I do not think anyone is arguing that.
You can argue whether it is 10,000 or 6,000 that end up disappointed
at huge expense. If you contrast that to pharmacy, which is excluded
from the exemptions, I think it is well known there is a shortage
of pharmacists. I quote a letter from the Council of the University,
Heads of Pharmacy, the 2006 survey: "6.5% of junior pharmacist
posts in the NHS were vacant. Indeed, pharmacists are on the UK
skills shortage list", so that does not seem to make sense.
It sounds as bizarre as putting the medical students in.
Q131 Dr Gibson: If I could add to
that. Also, the Government now has policies where we want more
pharmacists to do things that they are very skilled at and are
not being used. We have realised that they have come out from
their bunkers, as it were, down in the bottom of hospitals and
are using their scientific and technical knowledge to do screening
and all these kinds of things. They are a very important help
to the National Health Service.
Bill Rammell: Yet if you look
at the analysis of the proportions of particular subject category
students who do it as an ELQ, pharmacists is a relatively small
proportion. I am doing this from memory, I think about 5% do it
as an ELQ.
Q132 Chairman: That is inevitable,
is it not, because there is a very small number of people with
degrees in pharmacology?
Bill Rammell: Sure, but the idea
that ELQs suddenly resolve that challenge I do not think is borne
out by the evidence. It might be helpful at this juncture if I
set out for you what I am proposing HEFCE undertakes in respect
of the exempted subjects. There has been a lot of representations
about the viability of particular subjects and the impact of the
ELQ changes. Whilst I understand those worries, I am not convinced
they are well-founded and I do not think we should rush into making
special arrangements. However, we do take the concerns seriously,
that is why I am writing to Professor Eastwood to suggest that
there should be an annual review of that subject list, starting
in December of this year, and that will look at a number of things,
the extent to which a subject has economic or social significance,
the scope for increased demand for that subject for those without
an ELQ, whether there is adequate provision at foundation degree
level, the capacity of employer co-financing to meet the gap and,
lastly, having gone through that analysis, whether there is a
case for exempting entrants to the subject who have an ELQ qualification.
Q133 Dr Iddon: Bill, could you tell
us whether ICT and computing studies are exempted? My view is
that they are not because I think it was Sir David King, in his
parting shot to this Committee a few weeks ago, who said there
is a great shortage of students in those areas, and of course
they are amenable to part-time study as well.
Bill Rammell: That analysis is
correct, although it is relatively recent. If you go back 18 months
to two years, there was not that lack of numbers studying ICT.
I think there would be a danger if at every juncture we changed
the list. You do need some longevity to these judgments. I am
not persuaded at the moment in respect of IT, but what I am saying
very clearly, and this is for HEFCE to consider, is that we should
conduct that annual review and, particularly after these changes,
it should take account of the impact of the ELQ changes in reaching
those judgments and those will be judgments that will come to
Government.
Chairman: I hope it will be looking ahead
rather than just simply looking at numbers because it is the trends
and forecasts that are so important.
Q134 Dr Harris: I have not had an
explanation as to why medicine is in when there is oversupply
and pharmacy is out and there is undersupply this year. A review
next year is too late, it is shutting the stable door after the
horse has died, is it not, because the signal you are sending
out now is that people should not be thinking about retraining
as pharmacists when that is exactly what we need. Is this written
in stone or can you have a look at that or give me an explanation?
Bill Rammell: Before Professor
Eastwood comes in, I am sitting here reflecting on what kind of
dialogue we would be having if I had proposed to remove medicine
from the list of exempted subjects and I think this conversation
would be taking a very different direction. However, I am not
convinced in respect of pharmacy where only 5% are done at ELQ
level, but I am not making that judgment in respect of pharmacy
or medicine forever and a day and I am suggesting we have an annual
review.
Professor Eastwood: I want to
make a specific point on pharmacy, which is an area where there
has been an establishment of a significant number of new schools
of pharmacy, Medway, East Anglia, Keele to name but three. We
have been addressing two issues in pharmacy, one is the overall
supply of pharmacists and the other is the regional distribution
of training of pharmacists. I think that reinforces the point
the Minister makes, that if we are thinking about the flow-through
of pharmacists we have already taken actions which are appropriate.
If you couple that to our commitment to reviewing the position
as we move forward, that ought to give the Committee some specific
assurance in the area of pharmacy.
Q135 Dr Harris: It will not surprise
you to know that I want to say a few words in advocacy of theology.
Oxford University has written and they explained that they have
a long tradition of working with small theological training colleges.
I think the impact on training for the priesthood is going to
be so serious that your assertion to Dr Gibson that you did not
think any institution would close might not apply to those institutions.
They go on and explain that: "Of the vast majority of students
or ordinands who already hold an undergraduate or post-graduate
degree in another subject, the churches are unlikely to be able
to meet the significant increase in sponsoring costs, and salaries
in the churches are not at a level where students could possibly
afford full-cost fees themselves". If ELQ policy is implemented,
it is quite likely, and highly likely they say, that these courses
will close. Can you say anything in comfort to prospective theology
students at least in this life?
Bill Rammell: I hope I can. Having
set out the annual review mechanism, there is one particular subject
on which the Government is going to ask HEFCE to consult and respond
within two months and that is theological subjects where the impact
has been suggested. We are going to ask the Council to lead consultations
and discussions with interested parties on the training of theologians
and religious teachers and to consult and look at the impact and
how that might be addressed, particularly through the potential
of the development of foundation degrees and employer co-founded
provision and I do not set out a limit to the remit of that. I
am asking HEFCE to come back to me on that issue within a two
month timescale.
Q136 Dr Harris: Do you recognise
the further problem or point which has been made by the churches
main committee, which is a coalition of the Christian churches,
that if your objective is social cohesion you need people trained
in their faith rather than amateurs, if you like, to do the engagement
on an interfaith basis, especially, as I would see it, when we
have other policies, like allowing schools to discriminate on
the basis of religion, that tend to segregate even more, so your
social cohesion agenda requires there to be an adequate supply
of seriously trained people who do not train in private seminaries,
because that is kind of insular. The advantage of training within
a university setting is that they are exposed to people outside
their own religion and indeed race because that is often a proxy.
Bill Rammell: It will not surprise
you if I do not accept all of that analysis, however I do accept
that there is force to the argument about social cohesion and
the importance of training faith leaders and it is something the
Government has quite rightly given a priority to. That is a significant
element of the reason why I am saying that theological subjects
should be taken out of the ongoing annual review and I am asking
David to come back to me within two months.
Q137 Dr Harris: What do you say to
the question of whether there is a discriminatory impact, an equality
impact on, for example, women in the population seeking to come
back or, indeed, unfairness as to cross-religions because you
have specifically exempted Islamic studies, we are not talking
about training for the priesthood now? Particularly this issue
about an equality impact assessment, I am not convinced that it
has been done. I understand it is usual when you have a policy
change to conduct one to see if, for example, women or ethnic
minority members of the population are adversely impacted because
there is a positive duty on you, and certainly the public institutions
that you fund, to promote equality, both on race and now on gender.
Bill Rammell: In terms of what
you have said on Islamic studies, I would urge you to wait for
the end of this process because I think there is at least an arguable
case that whilst we have rightly designated Islamic studies as
strategically important, I am not convinced it is vulnerable,
so we need to wait for the end of that process. In terms of women,
if you look at the 20 million adults within the workforce who
are not yet at Level 4, ten million of them are women, two and
a half million women are qualified to A level but do not go on
to degree level and I think that should give some reassurance.
Q138 Dr Harris: They might be impacted
by the cuts you are making, so you cannot just assert that, you
need to do an analysis surely.
Professor Eastwood: Can I take
you back to the answer I gave earlier. We have done that sector
impact assessment and it will be published after it has gone to
the board. The answer on the impact as between men and women is
that it is 7.3 on women and 6.9 on men, so there is a marginal
differential.
Q139 Dr Harris: What are the units?
Professor Eastwood: The proportion
who are affected by the ELQ decision. There is a small difference,
but it is a small difference and it will be covered in our sector
impact assessment.
| 
