Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to state first that I've not made a statement that "the amount of research undertaken by the universities constitutes the primary indicator for university funding". It is important that it is noted that the current funding framework distributes funding in particular proportions, which I will not mention here for the sake of time. I will leave the framework for the hon James to see the figures as to how we distribute funding.
Nevertheless, the most important thing I need to say is that no review has been finally decided on yet, although I am considering the possibility of appointing a review of the funding framework during the course of next year. Although the current funding formula has worked reasonably well, it has come under criticism as a result of certain weaknesses which I would like to see corrected. The main weakness of the formula is that it applies to all institutions in a "one-size-fits-all" manner. The former Department of Education has long been committed to a differentiated higher education sector. I, in common with most higher education experts in this country and abroad, agree with this vision. We have different needs as a country, and no institution can meet all of them. Currently we have a formula which applies equally to traditional universities, universities of technology and comprehensive universities. In addition, it applies to both research-rich institutions with a greater number of postgraduate students and those whose research capacity is smaller.
There is currently no consideration to increase or decrease funding of specific categories of university subsidy. The Department is certainly also not planning to reduce research or other funding to any specific university. Institutions will continue to operate on the basis of the current funding formula until it is changed. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]