Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-86)
RT HON
JOHN DENHAM
MP AND MR
IAN WATMORE
16 JANUARY 2008
Q80 Dr Turner: Liaison at different
parts of the innovation process was not all that it might have
been when it all happened but in DTI. What steps will you take
to ensure that there is a smooth interface between yourselves
and DBERR in innovation?
Mr Denham: I will bring in Ian
on the structural solutions but, to give you examples, areas we
have a common interest, for example, the innovation and service
sector, those are very clearly run as joint projects between the
two departments reporting to ministers. In areas, again, where
there is a huge overlap between DBERR's role as an industry sponsor
and ours in innovation and skills like manufacturing, those are
things that we do and work jointly together with as a department,
so we understand the point you are making.
Mr Watmore: One of the significant
structural changes we made was to appoint officially a director
of innovation who reports in effect direct to me within the department
official-wise and through to Ian Pearson as Minister, and that
is David Evans, if you know David Evans. In the past he very successfully
set up the Technology Strategy Board and I think has a very good
track record. He is now the lynchpin around which the innovation
official work is now happening. BERR have an innovation adviser,
whose name has gone straight out of my head but who is part of
David's extended team for shaping the policy. We are also, interestingly,
in shaping the policy being much more open in the way that we
are doing the policy-making. We are trying to be innovative in
the making of the policy and so we have thrown it open to a very
broad church of people to contribute, not in the post-policy consultation
phase but in the formulation of policy itself. For example, we
recently held a very successful workshop on public service innovation
at which we had people like NESTA and the Design Council and the
Innovation Unit and all sorts of people from a social entrepreneurship
and social innovation background contributing to the debate as
well as private sector companies. That is the way we are trying
to have a clear focus on innovation, connect with it and be much
more broadly connected as well.
Q81 Dr Turner: One of the other difficulties
that we have in this country, and particularly it relates to the
innovation process, is the lack of appeal of engineering to young
people and the entrants into engineering as a career, which really
exercises the Royal Academy of Engineering which wants to see
that children right from primary school see engineering and science
as a key 21st century career choice. How are you going to be able
to help in this process to make it apparent to young people that
engineering is an attractive and sexy career choice because it
is vital for our economy?
Mr Denham: There are many different
strands to this and one of the things that David Sainsbury has
asked us to do is rationalise the many hundreds of initiatives
around stem subjects, including engineering, down to a few. One
of the ones which I think is of proven worth is the STEMNET ambassadors,
which gives a great many engineers who are going into schools
talking about modern engineering as a profession. I am very keen
that we look at the whole situation from schools through university
and into employment because it is also the case that we train
four engineers for every one who goes and works as an engineer.
That is partly because engineers are really good. They are problem-solvers,
they are project managers, they have a scientific background.
They are therefore attractive to a lot of employers who are looking
for those skills who do not need them as engineers but I think
we need to increase the supply, and I think there is also an important
discussion with the employers about capitalising on the investment
that we make at the moment.
Q82 Mr Boswell: I have two completely
different questions on higher education, Secretary of State. Can
we start with students and, leaving aside the observation that
perhaps being the first badge minister for students is about as
short-term an activity as being an England football manager, can
you tell us what is happening in student consultation? There are,
I gather, to be five student juries, there is going to be a national
student forum. Maybe you can even tell us who the new student
minister will be.
Mr Denham: No.
Q83 Mr Boswell: Is it all going to
make a practical difference to your informing your policies?
Mr Denham: Some of the student
juries have taken place, some have yet to be completed. I think
the last one is on 4 February. The national student forum we hope
to launch I think in the next couple of weeks, so I need to check
for the committee on that. The practical effect I think it is
going to make is that when you get into these discussions students
raise different issues. Students raise issues like contact time,
students raise issues like the contrast between the wealth of
information on the choice of undergraduate degrees and the paucity
of information on masters degrees. Many students are now choosing
to do masters. Students, because we have gone outside (and the
NUS has been very supportive on this) the traditional NUS catchment
area; raise all the issues of part-time students, people with
families, people working from home. In other words, it is broadening
the agenda and I think it will enable us in our discussions about
higher education to put forcefully on the agenda for providers
and ourselves issues that I would not say we would not know about
but that probably would not come through as promptly if we were
not talking to students directly.
Q84 Mr Boswell: And no name yet?
Mr Denham: No, no name yet. I
think we need to be careful because I think you will anticipate
what is going to happen. I think today is the day that any possible
change in the fortunes of the student minister would be confirmed
so we need not get ahead of ourselves.
Q85 Mr Boswell: Thank you for that.
Now I have an even naughtier question. We generally expect the
Secretary of State to give us the whole bang, but he will know,
quite apart from the short term worry about ELQs which we will
discuss in another context, it is now next year that the whole
review of higher education student funding will take place. I
would ask him to give us a brief take in conclusion first of all
on the recommendation of our predecessor committee, Education
and Skills, about looking at part-time and full-time students
to be treated as one group. Secondly, is there any insight he
can give us, given the emphasis in further education on employer-led
and demand-led activity, on the extent to which he sees any scope
for tweaking the financial envelope for higher education between
what might arguably be called useful subjects and those which
are of more general interest? The third point is within contrasts
between higher education and further education, and indeed skills
training and apprenticeships. For most students at HE you have
to pay to some extent, although you may get a rebate, of course,
for it. For most FE activities the students themselves are not
involved but in some respects the packages, including, of course,
the public support package to the providers of the FE services,
are less generous than they are to HE. How is all that going to
be factored into the review?
Mr Denham: Let me say, Chairman,
that my approach has been to say very clearly that I am not going
to engage in a debate publicly or privately about the fees review
until 2009 for the very good reason that all of the other issues—widening
participation, links between business and higher education, the
internationalisation of higher education, the relationship with
FE provision, yes, undoubtedly issues about what is likely to
be a growing proportion of part-time students, not least because
of demographics and the need to raise the skills of the older
workforce—I really want to work through with the university
sector to form a vision of where we want to get to and then put
the fees review in the context of that vision as a strategy for
higher education.
Q86 Mr Boswell: Does that mean we
may get a document in terms of the vision thing?
Mr Denham: I do not want to commit
myself but I would not want to rule it out either. I think we
need to look at that, even within our existing resources. You
have raised the point about tweaking resources to encourage business
and higher education links. You made a suggestion, Mr Boswell,
that we do that in terms of distinguishing between courses. There
are other ways in which the links can be enhanced. We have already
announced a £100 million package for employer co-funded courses
with higher education to encourage more engagement and there may
be more things of that sort that we need to work through. My personal
view, Chairman, is that the last time round when we debated fees,
when I was a protagonist from the back benches, as I recall, all
of these issues got mixed up together and so the question about
what you were trying to achieve with higher education got entangled
with what you were going to going to pay for it and how. If I
could achieve a situation where we could have a consensus about
what sort of higher education we want and the role it should play
and then we have the focused discussion about how we pay for it,
although I accept that that you cannot divide things quite that
simply, I think we will have a much more constructive debate next
year when the fees review takes place.
Chairman: Secretary of State, on that
note, that was deja" vu for 1997 and Lord Dearing's
report, which did in fact try to do that but it was the fees issue
that got hijacked on that occasion, so we wish you well on that
particular review. Could I say that it has been a pleasure this
morning meeting you, Secretary of State, and indeed Mr Watmore,
and we wish you both well in your posts and we feel deeply envious
that we have not got them.
|
