Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-123)
IAN WATMORE,
BILL DICKINSON
AND ZINA
ETHERIDGE
13 OCTOBER 2008
Q120 Dr Iddon: And you believe them?
Mr Watmore: I do, yes.
Q121 Mr Wilson: The Times Higher
Education in July raised questions about the viability of
HEFCE, In particular, it was very concerned about the levels of
micro-management that were being put upon it by the Department.
There are concerns, I must say, throughout the sector that this
is the case. Is it not the case that the Department and Ministers
clearly do not believe in HEFCE's role any more and that there
is no strong case for continuing with it in the way that it is
being managed currently?
Mr Watmore: All I can say, in
sympathy with the very last answer I gave, is that I have not
heard any of our Ministers talk about HEFCE in that way and I
do not have any evidence that we are going to abolish it, re-shape
it, whatever.
Q122 Mr Wilson: Do you accept that
there is micro-management?
Mr Watmore: To be honest, it is
very hard for me to judge because—
Q123 Mr Wilson: Have you looked at
the annual letter to HEFCE over the last, say, ten years?
Mr Watmore: Yes, I have seen the
documentation, but I think the reality is that one of the strengths
of creating DIUS was to give the university sector a prominence
which it, frankly, never used to get in the old Department of
Education. I was not part of the old Department of Education,
so I am going on what people have said, but they have always said
that in the old Department of Education, schools had the predominant
focus of attention from Secretaries of State and Ministers. One
of the reasons for creating the new department was because universities
are such an important, vital, vibrant and successful part of our
country and our economy. Therefore, I think it is really significant
that we were created for that reason and I think it is a real
statement of this Government's faith and commitment to the university
sector. This is something that is very visceral to the Prime Minister
and to all the Ministers I have spoken to. They see this not just
as something to be preserved because we are good at it and it
is one of those great things of British life; they really passionately
believe, and have evidence to support it, that the university
sector is great for the economy and great for social mobility.
If you put those two things together, it is something to reinforce
behind, not neglect. Ministerial commitment is very strong. Now,
does that translate in some quarters to people saying that is
micro-management? That is for others to judge. Your question was:
does HEFCE work; is it to be restructured/abolished? From my perspective,
HEFCE is a very good organisation run by a very good Chief Executive.
We rely upon it significantly. I have not heard ideas in the frame
for completely restructuring or doing anything materially different
to it. Since, as you know, David Eastwood has announced his departure
from the organisation next spring to go to Birmingham, very imminently—in
fact we are already out there really—we are taking all these
positions on a recruitment for his successor. That will, I think,
give you more evidence than I can give here that we intend to
commit to HEFCE's future.
Chairman: On that note—Rob, I know
you have a lot of other things to ask—we do have a number
of issues that we have not raised, which we will write to you
about if we may, Ian, to get some responses. May I thank very
much indeed Zina Etheridge, Bill Dickinson and the Permanent Secretary,
Ian Watmore, for being very frank and good witnesses this afternoon.
We have enjoyed your company. Thanks to my committee.
|
