Provost's Perspective: what does the outcome of the general election mean for UCL?

The opinion polls, we now know, were wrong.

It seems around 3% of voters were telling the pollsters one thing, only to do another in the polling booth. I read an interesting analysis of this phenomenon at the weekend, but what does the result mean for UCL?

While some of my thoughts will, of necessity, be speculative, the fact that we face a Conservative majority government for the next five years makes it easier to anticipate what is coming than would have been the case had the voters returned the widely anticipated hung parliament.

Let me start at the heart of things - the future funding and financing of higher education, science and research more generally. Before the election, I was concerned that none of the political parties had a long term and sustainable solution for the funding of higher education for home/EU students, either undergraduate or postgraduate.

The Labour Party's plan of £6k tuition fees and promise of a £3k top-up to universities apparently offered a more attractive option to students than then the current fees system. However it would have depended on finding new money from additional taxation and would then have required effective hypothecation of that taxation income to higher education. Over time it was all too likely that greater government priorities would have threatened the £3k, leaving universities such as UCL with a considerable funding gap and several unpalatable choices for institutions and students alike.

In contrast, the Conservative Party was remarkably silent on this key issue and my expectation is that they will simply continue with the current system of a capped £9k tuition fee and repayment via the income contingent loan system. They will either do nothing more, or they may possibly seek to tweak the system to improve the recovery of student loans over time.

The outlook for higher education funding

Students may be consoled by the current cap on home and EU fees. However, UCL does need to grapple with the fact that our costs as an organisation are currently rising by three or four per cent per annum. At some point this issue will have to be addressed by the new government. Many feel that we will need a new higher education bill to sort out this and other issues (such as the regulation of private providers) but with a small majority, I doubt the new government will be in a rush to place this in the Queen's Speech.

On the funding of science and research, I am more optimistic. George Osborne is pro- science and research and he has openly supported maintaining funding to HEFCE and the research councils at flat cash over the last five years. Although such protection was good, the absence of any inflationary uplift for research is, after five years, beginning to hurt. There will most likely be a comprehensive spending review in the Autumn and we need to make the case for why research matters and the impact that we can have on the nation's economy in good time.

We must be clear that basic research across all disciplines can have as great an economic impact as the more applied end of the research spectrum, but above all we need to present a coherent story of major and important advances from such additional investment, if we are to convince those that hold the purse strings. We must also be alert to the likely increased influence of regionalism within England with respect to the distribution of research capital , and to be prepared to make the appropriate counter-arguments.

Likely challenges of a Conservative government

A Conservative government does, of course, also present some significant challenges to higher education with respect to issues such as immigration and also the proposed EU referendum. On immigration, we need to constantly remind government that bringing the best and the brightest to Britain to study or to work in our universities is of immense value to our nation.

Immigration enriches our university, our city, and the country we live in and many that come will make a positive contribution to our economy through their ideas, enterprise and innovation. We have to work with Treasury and with the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) to persuade the Home Office to understand the importance of immigration to our future economic success.

Against that background, it was with interest that I learnt that the new Secretary of State for BIS, announced earlier this week is Sajid Javid. He is the UK- born son of an immigrant of Pakistani descent. A worked example of the benefits of immigration in such a powerful position in government has to be of value in tackling this issue.

UCL and the European Union

Students who attended the UCLU Question Time event last week will have already heard me nail my colours to the mast of being very clearly pro-European. I've written before about the serious consequences to UCL if the UK were to withdraw from the European Union and this is a subject on which I am prepared to speak out passionately on behalf of UCL. .

With a Conservative leadership, the proposed referendum on EU membership is now definitely going to occur, towards the end of 2017 at the latest. David Cameron is allegedly going to attempt to broker a 'new deal' for the UK with the EU in advance of the referendum, but clearly there is no certainty of the outcome being positive. In my view, higher education must work closely with industry to explain clearly the many benefits of full EU membership, not only to the way we function as a university, but to the nation more generally.

How UCL can lobby effectively

My final thoughts relate to the amount of lobbying and influence that will be needed to help guide this new government in the right direction with respect to policies that ultimately help our higher education system remain internationally competitive. The one thing I learnt when I was Chair of the Russell Group is that there is no quick fix and that effective lobbying is best done largely behind the scenes, with politicians and their advisors and officials at multiple levels and across all relevant government departments.

I talked at the UCLU Question Time event about some of the ways that we've lobbied in the past in an attempt to protect the interests of UCL students. These include the ongoing pressure we've bought to bear to stem the government cuts to capital funding in higher education - a tendency which has put increasing pressure on universities' provision of student facilities and accommodation.

The new government may bring particular new pressures to bear in which UCL needs to engage in debate. Earlier this year, UCL joined with other universities to express our concerns about proposals within the coalition's Counter Terrorism and Security Bill, which would have required staff to report suspicions of radicalisation on campus - an approach that we saw as unworkable. With a Conservative government in place, UCL may experience a renewed need to lobby on this matter.

Persistent clear messages are essential. Occasionally it becomes necessary to take a strong stand in the public domain, but that should generally be used judiciously, as it may just simply entrench opposing views. Please rest assured that UCL's voice and views will be heard as we address each of these future challenges.

Professor Michael Arthur

UCL President & Provost

Comments? Please provide your thoughts on this form.