Science Research Funding in Universities (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Warsi Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and other colleagues on a report that, even before we have debated it here, has impacted government thinking in this area. I declare my interests as detailed in the register, particularly as pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Bolton, visiting professor at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, an adviser to the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown and a member of the advisory board of the Glynn Institute at the Australian Catholic University.

I will particularly focus on chapter 3 of the report on the findings and comments relating to the Augar review, and on the changes proposed by the review as commented on in the report. I am not sure whether the review is still supported by the current Government but, in the light of the issues raised in the report, I will speak to these two issues: the proposed way in which we determine the value of a university education, with reference to its social and economic outcomes; and the proposals for future funding.

Can my noble friend detail the Government’s approach to the value placed on a course, and indeed on an individual university? When the latest figures put the BAME attainment gap at around 13%, where white pupils and BAME pupils entering a university at the same time and who attain the same degrees achieve markedly different outcomes, and where the Government’s own race disparity audit identified a pay gap post education, how can we accurately assess the value of specific subjects and outcomes when the system has a level of inequality, irrespective of subjects, for a large and growing cohort of our undergraduates?

The pupil premium, introduced in 2011, was a way that the coalition Government, of which I was a part, implemented a levelling-up agenda long before it became a much-used catchphrase. The premium and the various levels of support given to schools as part of it acknowledged disadvantage and recognised that additional funding goes some way to help institutions support those who face additional barriers and challenges. Yet, the review appears to suggest exactly the opposite: a decrease in funding, described by some as a “pupil penalty”.

On my second point, there is a lack of clarity on the dual aspect of the review’s recommendations, namely that a new cap of £7,500 would be accompanied by an increase in government funding. Various proposals had been floated about how the gaps could be plugged. Some of them have been mentioned today, such as increasing the international student intake. However, limiting capacity for domestic students by increasing international students would impact on social mobility, a point made in the report, which argues that due to the funding gap and the financial consequences that a decrease in tuition fees would create:

“The immediate casualties … will … be widening-participation programmes”—


the very programmes the Government seek to support as part of their levelling-up agenda.

I am afraid that the review did not focus on the overall way in which institutions are run, particularly where students’ needs, whether because of background, because they are mature students with dependents or due to complex health and well-being needs, mean that the cost to provide the overall educational experience and support is more than the precise measurement of a specific course’s delivery cost. As the report cites, even in the report done by KPMG and commissioned by the Government, the baseline costs of a course exceed the proposed Augar cap. I wholeheartedly support the report’s finding that the review’s recommended process of attributing value to a subject is far from straightforward and will be fraught with difficulties. Could my noble friend confirm the status of the Augar review and the Government’s current thinking on the review’s proposed recommendations?