---

Science in Higher Education

I will address it, although the point that I am trying to make is that the funding record, through both public and private resource, of the Government towards our universities is demonstrably better than that the previous funding record. However, there is an issue about the funding weighting, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that HEFC is considering that. However, it is not as simple as it might seem at first sight. If funding is redistributed towards a particular set of subjects, the money in the funding envelope will inevitably have to decrease, which raises challenges in itself. As I said, the matter is being considered. We need to get some of the debate about the closure of science departments into context. Physics is still taught as a major subject at some 50 UK higher education institutions, and chemistry is taught at 70. Universities are playing to their strengths in a competitive market. For example, Exeter university closed its chemistry department to strengthen physics while Newcastle university reduced its physics provision to strengthen chemistry. All the closures are reported and we hear much less about the areas that receive extra resources. The freedom of universities to decide the courses they teach and their pursuit of excellence help to make our higher education system the success that it is, but few universities can compete at a level that ensures that they are excellent in every subject. The increasingly global nature of higher education and the forces of competition will push them towards specialising in the areas where they are excellent. Although market forces are and will continue to be crucial in determining the success of the sector, the Government’s policy is not simply to let the market rip. In accepting the advice from HEFC about how we might strengthen and secure higher education subjects and courses of strategic importance such as science, we stressed to universities that in return for not intervening in departmental closures we expected them to work in partnership with each other and HEFC to manage shifts in provision effectively and to ensure no loss of capacity overall. To take the example of Exeter university again, when it closed its chemistry department, which received a lot of publicity at the time, extra places were made available at other universities within the south-west so that the overall numbers did not decrease. We also need to do more to provide the right kind of provision within our universities to ensure as much access as possible. Developments such as foundation degrees, which are designed alongside employers’ needs, are a helpful part of the way forward. We are also doing much more to try to stimulate demand for science subjects in our universities. Whatever we do at university level, it is the demands of young people, and the subjects that they study, get involved in and get enthused for in our schools that are the critical influencing factor. We are devoting more resources: extending the opportunity for young people to study triple science at GCSE, piloting 250 after-school science clubs, and improving careers information. We need to get across to young people that the graduate earnings premium for a STEM subject in this country is about 25 per cent. more than for a non-STEM subject. That can shape young people’s decisions. We certainly need to do more to support the professional development of science teachers and lecturers.