Letter from Bill Rammell MP, Minister
of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to
the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 22 July, addressed
to John Denham, Secretary of State for the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills, concerning points made by Professor Reesy
Pro-Vice Chancellor of Cardiff University, at the recent evidence
sessions relating to your Committee's inquiry into the impact
of devolution on cross-border services in Further and Higher Education.
In his absence I am replying on behalf of Bill Rammell who is
Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education.
I welcomed the opportunity to contribute, with
my officials, to the inquiry at the oral evidence session on 15
July. I am glad members of the Committee found the session constructive
and worthwhile.
Turning to the points from Professor Rees' evidence
that you include in your letter. I believe there is already a
good deal of communication between officials at all levels across
Further and Higher Education with colleagues in the Devolved Administrations.
Some of this is formalised, but more is informal. Where there
is UK-wide responsibility, there is a range of mechanisms for
UK-wide involvement and strategic planning. For example, the Research
Base Funders' Forum, including representatives from Administrations
and Funding Councils in the four countries of the UK, is well
established and informs priorities and planning at a strategic
level. Also, Devolved Administrations had an opportunity to contribute
to negotiations on the Seventh Framework Programme and are involved
in an ongoing dialogue through the Framework Programme Network.
However, in addition to official level contacts,
I agree that there may be scope for more formalised Ministerial
discussions. I suggested in my oral evidence that I should add
formal bi-annual meetings with the Welsh Assembly Government to
existing contacts. I can see a benefit in also exploring this
idea with counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and will
put a proposal to them after the recess. I believe a targeted
ministerial meeting covering aspects of FE, HE and Research Policy
would be a more appropriate mechanism than using the Joint Ministerial
Committee, which I do not believe is the appropriate forum for
seeking consensus or making agreements on policies.
You mention that Professor Rees said Welsh Higher
Education Institutions do not receive their "fair" share
of research funding from DIUS. I think there may be some confusion
here. In my evidence, I explained that the UK-wide Research Council
funding is allocated on the basis of research excellence. Earlier
in her oral evidence Professor Rees supported this by saying "I
do not think any institution in Wales is against research funding
through Research Councils following excellence, what we are really
concerned about is the lack of core funding that we have in Wales
for higher education vis-a-vis England". She went on to add
"I do not want to talk about Research Councils, because actually
I think we are all fairly happy with the way that the Research
Councils operate, but it is the other side, the QR". The
QR block grant of funding (that can help act as pump-priming for
research) is part of devolved HE policy, so DIUS only funds QR
in England (via HEFCE). If Professor Rees is concerned at the
level of QR in Wales, she would need to address those concerns
to the Welsh Assembly Government, who provide QR funding in Wales.
You also ask about a "debate on a UK-wide
science strategy", where Professor Rees in her evidence expressed
concern with having several different science policies. I believe
it is because of the importance of a joined up approach to science
funding that science is a reserved matter. I am clear that when
the Government sets out science policy it does so in view of the
UK as a whole. A key foundation of the policy is the Science and
Innovation Investment Framework 2004-14. The allocation of the
Science Budget for the CSRR2007 period clearly and repeatedly
emphasises the UK-wide nature of science spending. Against that
background, I see no need for a national debate at this time.
I and my officials stand ready to answer any
further questions that arise from your inquiry and I look forward
to reading your final report.
27 August 2008
|
