Delay to consultation on potential major policy change by the Westminster government suggests that there is no agreement yet between departments on what they want from any change, and that universities may be denied a “fair hearing”, sector figures said.
In its interim response to the Augar review of post-18 education in England in January, the government said it planned “to consult on further reforms to the higher education system in spring 2021” – such as minimum entry requirements and changes to student loan terms – before setting out a full response to Augar at the next spending review.
Disagreement between different parts of government over whether to include a cut to the tuition fee cap in any consultation could be one sticking point holding things up: while some suggest that such a plan will be in the consultation, the universities minister has previously downplayed such a possibility.
Sources in the sector and in education policy did have firm expectations that a consultation would be published last month.
Now some suggest that it could be published in the week that Parliament goes into recess, which happens on 22 July; others suggest that there is talk of delaying it to as late as September.
Another source said there were suggestions that the consultation was ready to go, in the form of a set of options.
With the spending review expected to come in November, the window to hold a genuine consultation is shrinking. That will raise concerns in the sector that any consultation will be a sham, leaving no scope to help shape government policy.
“I don’t think there’s any agreement yet in government” between No 10, the Treasury and the Department for Education “about what they want from the consultation and from the eventual Augar response”, said Andy Westwood, professor of government practice at the University of Manchester.
The objectives being weighed inside government will include saving money or addressing value for money, with different potential means such as restricting student numbers or changing loan terms to recoup more outlay, he added.
While the DfE seems convinced that a shift away from full degrees to Level 4 and 5 provision “will deliver better value for money” and increased productivity, the Treasury and No 10 have been playing their cards closer to their chests, Professor Westwood continued.
The Treasury and No 10 may have “other things on their mind, and it may be that a wholesale reorganisation of FE/HE and the underpinning student finance system isn’t what they want to be doing now”, he said.
There was “also a big dose of politics in any decision”, on “symbolism” and alignment to the “blue or red wall” and “levelling up”, he added.
Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former policy adviser to Conservative universities ministers, said that given recent delays on decisions over participation in European research and “11th-hour guidance on campus reopening during the pandemic”, it was “no real surprise to find ourselves still waiting for news on future funding plans for the sector – not least since universities in London are still awaiting the outcomes of the Office for Students’ consultation on the potential removal of the London weighting promised by the end of June”.
Dr Beech added: “At a time like the present, when university finances are already stretched from the Covid-19 pandemic, higher education institutions need all the certainty they can get to enable them to plan effectively for the year ahead.
“They also need ample time to respond to any new funding proposals to ensure that all nuances and impacts are fully communicated and appreciated. Putting consultation papers out at this late stage in the year would not give universities the fair hearing they deserve.”
