E-mail from the University of Wales College, Newport
The following paragraphs set out the University of Wales College Newport’s response to the Richard Commission.
The context
The University of Wales College, Newport (UWCN) is a well-established provider of higher education which prides itself on serving the needs of South East Wales and providing a focal point for future economic regeneration as a Community University. In 2002 UWCN was recognised as a full member of the University of Wales, and is currently seeking approval of a new title from the Privy Council to reflect this change.
In 2003 the total number of students was approximately 9,500 (2,450 in Franchise Centres). UWCN’s undergraduate students are primarily drawn from South East Wales (around 75% of students), particularly from areas with a history of low participation in higher education. The rest are drawn from around the UK and overseas.
UWCN also continues to pursue an active research and enterprise agenda as part of its mission. In particular, it gained a ‘5’ in the most recent Research Assessment Exercise (the highest score awarded for this unit of assessment) for Art, Media and Design.

Consultation issues

General comments
In general, UWCN has welcomed the devolved arrangements relating to higher education and acknowledges the considerable achievements which the Assembly, and the Higher Education Funding Council have made in the first term. The Assembly has, in our opinion, provided a greater focus and champion for policy issues relating to higher education in Wales than under the pre-devolution arrangements.
In particular, UWCN has had a level of beneficial contact and involvement with the policy makers which was not possible under the pre-devolution arrangements. The Minister of Education & Lifelong Learning, for instance, has made a number of visits to the University in person.

Separate policy development for Wales and the experience of the present system

The Assembly has successfully developed a distinctive education policy for Wales in a number of key areas on the basis of existing devolution arrangements. For the higher education sector this is set out principally in its strategy document Reaching Higher, published in March 2002.
In many instances policy has developed on separate lines to the rest of the UK in ways which address the distinctive context of Wales. The reconfiguration agenda is one of the most important examples, responding to the fact that the higher education sector in Wales is characterised by a comparatively large number of small providers. Another conspicuous example is the promotion of Welsh medium provision. Views may differ about the merits of particular policies (it is UWCN’s view that the reconfiguration agenda is being pursued too narrowly, and that amalgamation of HEIs into fewer larger organisations does not necessarily improve the service to students, or improve efficiency), but in general policy development which is tailored to the regional context to this extent is welcomed.
In some instances, policies do not appear to address a distinctively Welsh context. The approach taken in respect of Teaching Quality Assessment and the Research Assessment exercise has been unique to Wales and in some instances has severely disadvantaged HEIs in Wales operating in UK wide and global markets. The Scottish context is very different from Wales because the majority of students studying in Scottish HEIs are from Scotland. Welsh HEIs operate in a competitor environment encompassing many English institutions. The impact of adopting TQA and RAE processes peculiar to Wales has not been sufficiently thought through and the damage to Welsh Higher Education could be significant.
Under current arrangements, the Assembly rather than the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) sets and oversees higher education policy in much greater detail than either Government or the DfES does for England. An example of this is the Reaching Higher Targets set as part of the annual planning process1. Another example is the control of funding, e.g. the ad-hoc release of additional in-year capital funding for narrowly prescribed purposes2. Given the parliamentary role of the Assembly this can be seen as a good example of the operation of democratic processes from one perspective. From another perspective, this raises questions about the appropriate use of resources. Whilst UWCN would support a more independent role for the HEFCW working within a framework established by the Welsh Assembly Government, further micro management of HEIs under the guise of a 'Welsh dimension' would not be welcome. Improvements in collaboration and consistent dialogue between Higher Education Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government would establish a stable and enabling environment. Greater devolution to Wales requires HEIs and the HEFCW to take on more responsibility but the HEFCW must not see this as a requirement for greater detailed involvement in the finances of individual institutions but rather as an opportunity to create an enabling framework and act as an agent for the dispersal of funds. This should diminish the ad hoc release of funds with the associated bureaucracy and 'short-termism' this creates and increase the need for careful planning across Wales.
Relationship with Westminster & Whitehall
The recent White Paper ‘The Future of Higher Education’ as presented to Parliament in January 2003 (Cm 5735) is a useful illustration of some of the issues surrounding devolved arrangements in the field of higher education.
The White Paper
This White Paper which was published by Charles Clarke on 22 January proposed wide-reaching changes to the current system. This included, amongst other matters, new proposals for research assessment arrangements, award of university title, funding arrangements including the introduction of a variable student fee (capped at £3,000), a national student satisfaction survey, and the introduction of a new regulatory body the Office for Fair Access (OFFA).
The report freely interchanges references to Britain, the UK and England, but makes no mention of Wales in its 105 pages and shows no evidence of having specifically considered the implications for Wales. The accompanying booklet designed for parents and students refers once to Wales in its question and answer section – this is to confirm that student support arrangements are based on where students live rather where they study in the UK.
From the Assembly’s first public response it appears that Charles Clarke entered into discussion with the First Minister, Minister of Education and Lifelong Learning, and Secretary of State for Wales regarding the potential transfer of responsibility for the student support system to Wales3. On Friday, 14 March 2003 it was announced that the Assembly Government would not be introducing variable fees for higher education institutions in Wales in the period to April 20074 (reiterating its manifesto commitment).
On 17 July 2003, Jane Davidson confirmed that broad agreement had been reached about the devolution provision in respect of the tuition fee regime, access regulation, and the student support system5. This included an agreement with UK cabinet that legislation would be brought forward to give the Assembly powers to determine student support and set fee levels. An independent study would be commissioned to examine the interests of the HE sector in Wales in this respect. She also confirmed that 2006 was the earliest admissions round for which it would be practicable to transfer the student support system to Wales. On the same occasion she expressed her hope to make a further announcement on the detail of these provisions in the Autumn prior to the introduction of new legislation but, at the time of this response, details are still forthcoming.
Universities UK responded to the White Paper for Higher Education Institutions in England, but recognising that the direct and indirect implications for the rest of the UK were unclear, it left Higher Education Wales to continue their dialogue with the Minister of Education & Lifelong Learning6. No formal response has been published by Higher Education Wales to this or the consequent consultations including research and widening access.
A number of observations can be made on this:
The proposals will have a major impact either directly or indirectly on the HE sector in Wales. Given the degree of competition in the UK sector as a whole, and the extent to which the Welsh and English sectors are connected on a practical basis, Wales will have to respond to the proposals and in a timescale that is largely dictated by the White Paper.
The implementation of these proposals for the most part requires primary legislation (e.g. university title) or powers which have not been devolved (e.g. fee regulation). The application of the proposals to Wales is currently outside of the direct control of the Assembly although, in principle, Welsh interests are represented in the UK by the Wales Office.
Welsh interests do not appear to have been considered, consulted upon in significant degree or adequately represented before the publication of the White Paper.
The main proposals as they relate to Wales still remain unclear, nearly nine months after the publication of the White Paper and despite the fact that the enabling Bill is shortly to be introduced. It is noted that the territorial assumption which exists for Bills and Acts that, unless otherwise specified, provisions relate to both England and Wales, clearly does not apply in the case of the White Paper.
As a result, Wales has at no stage had an opportunity to comment on the proposals as they will affect them to a satisfactory degree or to a degree equivalent to institutions in England. The higher education sector in Wales has also not been effective in voicing its reaction to the White Paper through its representative body.
The process has meant either reduced consultation or delays in implementing the policies or responding to them in Wales. In the case of variable fees in particular, this is a source of major concern.
The lack of a definitive response in Wales to the approach taken in the White Paper emphasises the urgent need for greater collaboration and improved dialogue between HEW and the HEFCW.
Other issues
We note the debate about the extent to which the law and extent of powers in Wales are clear7. This is not an issue which we would wish to comment on directly but we note in passing that in dealing with areas which require legal advice from a number of stake-holders, e.g. merger proposals, devolution arrangements appear to be increasing response times and costs. Systems which would help to reduce this would be supported.
Final comments
UWCN has not attempted to draw conclusions about the most effective model for devolution, though it is intended to assist in this process. It has concentrated on the issues which it feels need to be addressed. In the case of student support the Assembly have already demonstrated the ability to work around barriers to achieve its objectives, and ultimately the clear identification of issues from both Welsh and UK perspectives and a combined approach to addressing them are the most important factors.
Professor James R. Lusty
Vice-Chancellor, UWCN
17th November 2003
1.  See HEFCW Circular W03/34HE
2.  HEFCW Circular W03/15HE ‘Supplementary Capital Funding for Learning & Teaching and IT Infrastructure 2002-3' (17 March 2003).
3.  Jane Davidson, Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, Supplementary submission to the Richard Commission, Ref: JD5256/03 (7 August 2003); Jane Davidson, ‘Jane Davidson welcomes talks on student finance in Wales’ (Welsh Assembly Government Press Release, 22 January 2003).
4.  Jane Davidson, ‘No top up fees for Wales’, (Welsh Assembly Government Press Release, 14 March 2003)
5.  Jane Davidson, ‘Student support and HE funding in Wales’, (Welsh Assembly Government Press Release, 17 July 2003).
6.  Universities UK, ‘University UK’s response to ‘The Future of Higher Education’’ (April 2003), p.9.
7.  Evidence of the Counsel General to the Richard Commission, December 2002.