Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the
likely reduction in spend by higher education institutions in
England on student teaching and contact time were the
recommendations of the independent panel report to the Review
into Post-18 Education and Funding implemented.
(Lab)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order
Paper and in so doing draw attention to my interests as set out
in the register.
(Con)
The independent panel chaired by Philip Augar has published its
report to government as part of the review of post-18 education
and funding. It forms an important step in the overall government
review, but it does not constitute government policy. It is a
comprehensive report with detailed analysis and no fewer than 53
recommendations. The Government will continue to engage with
stakeholders, consider the independent panel’s recommendations
carefully and conclude at the spending review.
My Lords, given the 8% real-terms reduction inherent in the
current fee to 2022, and given that even has not promised more money
for further and higher education, will the Minister make
representations to colleagues, both present and future, to
recognise the real damage that would result from a further 20%
cut in funding for teaching and student contact, and that the
value of higher education is derived not from the salary level a
student receives immediately on graduation but from the
liberation of talent and creativity which we will need for the
future?
As I say, the Government are considering the panel’s
recommendations. There is no doubt that the impact of provider
funding as a whole, including tuition fees and grant funding, is
an important consideration. We will work with the OfS to make
sure that overall funding supports teaching costs, access and
successful participation for disadvantaged students and maintains
the world-leading reputation of UK higher education. Overall, we
are committed to ensuring that funding reflects a sustainable
model that supports the skills needs of the country.
(CB)
My Lords, one of the key recommendations of the Augar review is
that the shortfall created by a reduction in fees is filled by a
direct teaching grant from government. How will the teaching
grant be distributed?
That is certainly being discussed by the Government and various
stakeholders, particularly the OfS. It is worth pointing out that
teaching and research represents 49.2% of total higher education
institute spending, which totals £31.3 billion. The teaching
grant to which the noble Lord referred represents £1.4 billion in
funding in 2018-19.
(Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the independence of
the Augar review was compromised by the Treasury insisting that
none of its recommendations should result in increased public
expenditure?
I certainly cannot confirm that; it is the first I have heard of
it. After this Question I will follow the issue up with my noble
friend and find out where he got that information.
(LD)
My Lords, what assurances can the Minister give that universities
will still be able to fund the expensive programmes—science,
technology, engineering, medicine and so on—as well as the
minority programmes, such as less than mainstream languages,
which are still vital, if funding from tuition fees is
drastically reduced?
That, again, is a question for the Government to consider on the
back of the 53 recommendations. Part of that consideration is
looking at value for money and making sure that courses are right
for students, that the student experience is right and that the
contact time, which was alluded to in the Question asked by the
noble Lord, ,
is right for the course and the student.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that from next year universities
will be awarded gold, silver or bronze status for the quality of
teaching at degree level. Student satisfaction surveys show a
strong correlation between satisfaction and contact hours. Can
the Minister confirm whether the plan to take into account the
number of hours of teaching students get and the size of classes
has been abandoned by the Office for Students? It does not appear
in the TEF. The Augar review places a disproportionate emphasis
on graduate salaries, as my noble friend
said, as a proxy for the value of studying. Does the Minister
agree that for many, particularly those studying humanities, the
lack of contact hours fails to represent good value for money?
Contact hours are an important part of the assessment of
universities, and it obviously depends on the course. We leave it
to universities to decide, on the basis of the courses, how many
contact hours are required. Obviously, for medicine the number of
hours is much greater. Dame Shirley Pearce is leading a statutory
independent review of the TEF that is considering all aspects of
its operation. She has conducted a call for views and is due to
submit her report and recommendations to the Secretary of State
this summer.
The Lord
My Lords, any reduction in higher education funding is likely to
have a particular impact not merely on teaching and student
contact time but on the very future of smaller institutions, such
as the Cathedrals Group universities. Does the Minister agree
that, as the Government consider reforms, they need to take into
account, first, the effect of those reforms on the diversity of
the sector and, secondly, their impact on particular localities?
Chichester, for example, is the only university in West Sussex. A
threat to its funding would seriously damage its contribution to
the regeneration of the disadvantaged coastal areas that it
serves.
The right reverend Prelate is right, in that we want to reach out
to all areas of the country, including Chichester, and both small
and big providers. The Augar report comes, of course, on the back
of the Higher Education and Research Act, through which we seek
to encourage high-quality provision and greater competition, to
ensure that students and the taxpayer receive value for money and
that students receive a good experience from the courses they
undertake.
(CB)
My Lords, the Augar report is balanced from the point of view of
funding. Can the Minister reassure us that, should the
Government—whichever Government it is—decide to go ahead with
this Bill, they will take a balanced view and not cherry pick the
cuts in funding rather than increases in funding? If you cut
teaching funding any more, even in a place such as Cambridge,
where at present it is not used to fund research, it will be
transferred. It will damage research as well as teaching, and it
will damage the reputation of our leading universities and their
ability to attract direct foreign funding, as well as their
general reputation in joining in collaboration. I want the
Minister’s reassurance that this matter will be looked at in a
balanced way so that we do not damage both teaching and research.
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I listen particularly
carefully to him, given his experience of Cambridge. It is very
important to say that the UK enjoys a world-class reputation,
with globally renowned teaching and cutting-edge research and
innovation. We do not want to put that in jeopardy.
