Supplementary written evidence submitted
by Unite the Union
COMMENTS ON
"HIGHER EDUCATION—STUDENTS
AT THE
HEART OF
THE SYSTEM"
This response is submitted by Unite the Union. Unite
is the UK's largest trade union with 1.5 million members across
the private and public sectors. The union's members work in a
range of industries including manufacturing, financial services,
print, media, construction, not for profit sectors, local government,
education, the NHS and other health services, prisons and Royal
Mail.
Unite is the main trade union representing scientific
technicians and many academic related staff in Higher Education
in the UK and welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to
this inquiry.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— The
Government's proposals will introduce greater volatility and funding
cuts to the higher education sector, and will cause long-term
damage.
— The
increase in student fees, and shift of the financial burden of
education to the individual, ignores the wider societal and economic
benefits of education and will detrimentally affect access to
education.
— Unite
wants to see a fairer, shared funding system between students,
government and employers.
— Real
terms cuts in resources for scientific research could damage the
UK's growth potential if they lead to less innovation and reduced
investment in skills and training in the future.
— The
stakes are high and the dangers and threats to higher education
are very real. Unite believes such dramatic proposals on fees,
funding, world class reputation and access to higher education
have either not been thought through or have been considered but
discarded because of ideological preferences.
UNIVERSITY INVESTMENT
AND FUNDING
MODEL
1.1 Unite continue to believe that the changes
to the funding model, and the effective cuts in the funding that
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will receive over the coming
years, will be extremely detrimental to the university sector
in this country and the economy more widely.
1.2 The Government continues to maintain that
its assault on Higher Education is because of the national deficit,
and they have therefore been forced to place even more of the
financial burden of attending higher education upon the individual
student. This flows from a mindset that sees higher education
as primarily having a financial benefit for the individual and
does not see the wider economic benefits. High levels of participation
in education is not only desirable, it is an economic necessity.
Unite does not believe the White Paper rhetoric that the Government's
plans will secure a long term place for the UK as the most productive
of the G8.
1.3 In 2010 the level of annual spending on higher
education in Britain was approximately £23 billion each year.
Economic modelling by the previous Government show that this produces
a return of £60 billion for the economy. In other words for
every £1 invested in higher education, the economy expands
by £2.60.[155]
Investment in our education system should increase; to savagely
cut it is economic folly.
1.4 Additionally, the essentially competitive
business funding model that the Government wants to implement
will create volatility in the funding of institutions and undermine
the country's higher education sector. Unite are deeply concerned
that disaster waits around the corner for the sector, the Government
has no Plan B to support the sector when their policies create
chaos and the victims will be our members and a generation of
people who miss out on the opportunities that higher education
brings.
STUDENT DEBT
AND ACCESS
TO UNIVERSITY
2.1 Unite does not support the Government's drive
to load increasing amounts of debt onto students. Unite does not
believe that it is a coincidence that since the fees for higher
education were first introduced, as the Government notes, "since
1998 the UK participation rate for higher education has
slipped from 7th in the OECD to 15th". Currently
students are graduating with record levels of debt, which now
average over £23,000. This is set to rocket further as universities
raise their fees. The long standing and modest target of 50% participation
in tertiary education has been dropped. Unite believe that the
increase in student debt driven through by this Government will
build an even taller barrier to higher education than currently
exists. We should be trying to increase access and participation,
not make it harder. Unite believe that under Government proposals
only the wealthy will be able to afford to continue to study;
many young people from households of low to middle range incomes
will be cut off from higher education.
2.2 It is hard not to believe that the Government's
support for "Fair Access" is tokenistic—the Office
for Fair Access currently has a staff of seven. It does not have
sufficient resources or powers to fulfil the role Government states
it should perform.
2.3 As previously stated in the written submission
to the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee Inquiry,
Unite wants to see a funding system that better recognises the
fact that employers benefit from higher education and the provision
of graduates into the labour market. Employers more generally
need to contribute to the funding of higher education. At present
the best employers provide undergraduate support whilst the worst
do little or nothing. A shared input from employers would spread
the contribution and acknowledge the benefits that employers more
generally receive from a better educated workforce and population.
2.4 Unite's submission to Browne recommended
a couple of options for employer funding, namely:
— A graduate
tax or NI premium payable by employers who take on graduates;
or
— A transfer
of the outstanding student loan to employers with a 25 year repayment
period.
2.5. Securing a structured contribution from
business is also supported by the National Union of Students who
have described Browne's view that if there is to be an enhanced
contribution by business it would be through "the higher
salaries paid to graduates" as complacent and unfair.[156]
2.6. Unite believes that the "Browne Review"
and the Government's proposals represent "a lost opportunity"
to properly fund higher education by striking a different funding
balance between students, government and employers.[157]
"DIVERSITY OF
PROVIDERS" AND
REGULATION
3.1 Unite does not support the Government plans
to encourage a "diversity of providers"—code for
a privatisation of our higher education sector. This will worsen,
not improve, barriers to study. Unite also believes that an unchecked
proliferation of university providers may also threaten and cheapen
the label of "university" in this country and internationally.
3.2 As well as fundamentally disagreeing with
the principle of the Government's plans in this area Unite believe
that the Government plans are made even worse by their seemingly
"light touch" approach to regulation of HEIs and the
funding regime. Unite believe that at the very least there must
be Parliamentary scrutiny of HEFCE to question the regulator over
its role and actions and that it is delivering for students and
the country as a whole.
3.3 Unite have long campaigned for greater investment
in research and science areas that can benefit the British manufacturing
sector, as part of developing a more balanced economy. As Unite
previously noted, although it might be argued that the science
budget in Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) fared relatively
well compared to higher and further education in respect of the
Government's budget cuts, real terms cuts in the resources for
scientific research could damage the UK's medium term growth potential
if they lead to less innovation and reduced overall investment
in skills and training in the future.[158]
3.4 Unite, as mentioned in the oral evidence
presented to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, believe
there should be a balance struck in the sector between courses
that are shaped by employers and business and courses that may
be considered "purely academic". As stated at the oral
evidence, Unite do not support a situation where people from low
incomes are simply funneled into more vocational education as
they need to rely on sponsorship to get through higher education,
with wealthier individuals being able to pick the course they
have a passion for. For example, the Government White Paper states
that there will be 65,000 places to be competed for by students
achieving AAB grades; but this cuts off many university places
from students who are streamed into BTEC qualifications.
CONCLUSION
4.1. Within the White Paper there is no wider
debate on the future of Higher Education and the benefits it brings.
Instead, as Professor Wellings of Lancaster University has stated,
"The thing I'm most concerned about is how we've moved from
a White Paper on higher education to a White Paper on student
numbers control for English undergraduates".[159]
Lord Dearing said in 1997 that "We express here our concern
that the long term well being of HE should not be damaged by the
needs of the short term".[160]
It is Unite's view that the Government is damaging the long term
future of Higher Education for short term political ideology.
7 July 2011
155 Lord Mandelson's speech, February 2010: www.bis.gov.uk/News/Speeches/mandelson-dearing-lecture Back
156
Initial Response to the Report of the Independent Review of
Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (the Browne Review),
NUS (2010)-http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/asset/news/6001/Browne_Response_FINALFFF.pdf Back
157 http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/student__market_rate__interest.aspx Back
158
http://www.ippr.org.uk/articles/?id=4264 Back
159
Times Higher Education, 30 June 2011 Back
160
Times Higher Education, Leader, 30 June 2011 Back
| 
