HC Deb 02 August 1956 vol 557 cc1722-34

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

The time which has been allowed me on the Adjournment debate is short, so I wish to come straight to the first of the two separate but related topics that I desire to raise this evening with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education.

I may speak with some little feeling, but I hope not irresponsibly, for I was in fact for ten years engaged in education as a lecturer and teacher, and subsequently I have seen the other side of educational problems in an administrative capacity as a member of the largest education authority in the world, and for some period as vice-chairman of the Further Education Committee of the London County Council.

I want, first of all, to raise the question of Circular 307, especially in relation to what, I am sure, will be its very damaging effect on the London County Council's evening institutes, although I am certain that Circular 307 will be a blow to learning and culture everywhere.

As the House knows, the London County Council and, I think, Londoners in general have taken great pride in the unique scheme of London evening education. It is a pride which is shared, nowadays at any rate, by all political parties. The system has a list of glorious achievements associated with the names of Sir Robert Blair, the Rev. Stuart Headlam and many others. I like to recall that Dame Edith Evans got her first insight into dramatic literature in one of the evening institutes of the London County Council not far from this building.

London's evening classes started a long time ago, long before the London School Board existed. In 1904, five years before I was born, there were 140,000 evening students in schools under the authority of the London County Council. By virtue of long service and experience, many of these evening institutes have become cultural and recreational centres, sometimes in drab areas and sometimes in anything but drab areas, and are regarded by many people as being the equivalent of social and recreational clubs.

Gibbon and Bell's History of the London County Council has this to say about them. The institutes are not only places of instruction; they are clubs with a very active social life, including football and cricket teams, camping, debates, dances, whist drives, concerts, dramatic performances and a canteen or refectory. This genuine club spirit is perhaps the keynote of the most successful institutes, and this is true of those for women as well as of those for men; and it is not the least valuable service of evening education that it has provided many otherwise isolated men and women in London with means of becoming members of a community of friends with similar interests. In fact, the evening institutes of London occupy the place of what other authorities many years later have come to call community centres.

Now comes Circular 307, which, as the House knows, directs the local education authorities to increase the fees for students over 21 attending part-time or evening courses to not less than 10s. a term. That in the case of London will be tantamount to an increase of 200 per cent.

There are two things about the circular itself to which I should like to draw attention before I refer to its effects. First of all, there is the timing. The circular was issued on 27th June, and yet local education authorities, as I understand, had to confirm their acceptance of the proposals by 31st July. Thus leaving only a month in which to consider them and to make the complicated re-arrangements. That is an extremely short time for so vast a task.

One used to hear a good deal, not from the Parliamentary Secretary but from other of his hon. Friends when they were on this side of the House, about Whitehall interference. This seems to me to be Whitehall interference with a vengeance. I am not surprised to find that, according to a newspaper of 30th July, even the Northamptonshire Education Committee—and I shall be surprised if that is a Socialist body; I should think it is almost exclusively Conservative—passed a resolution strongly protesting at the terms of the Minister's Circular and the lack of time given to local authorities to consider and implement them.

I gather that this resolution was in fact an Amendment of a much stronger one which had urged the Further Education Committee to refuse to make any revision in its present fees. I am sorry that the banner of revolution was not raised more resolutely in Northampton. Still, it does indicate that the time factor has made matters very difficult. Local authorities submitted their details to the Ministry many months before this, and this short time which has been allowed is something very much to be deplored. They should have been informed much earlier.

The other factor, which is perhaps even more important, is that this is, I believe, the first time that the Minister of Education has ever directed a local authority as to what fees to charge. In the past, it has asked authorities to cooperate in reaching a particular sum, but this seems to be a new departure. It is a new precedent and a further example of Whitehall interference which, I should have thought, the hon. Gentleman and his friends would have been the last to tolerate. I hope it will not be repeated.

In London, we have always prided ourselves on the fact that fees were nominal; originally, they were merely registration fees. The intention was to get people to come to the institutes. We took the view, and Londoners have taken the view over the generations, judging by the support they have given both to the institutes and to those carrying out the policy of providing this instruction, that this expenditure was an extremely fine investment for London. One got the young people off the streets and provided, as I say, clubs for instruction, for profit and for learning, for everyone.

Already, of course, the county has, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, raised its fees a little on several occasions, but a fee of 10s., or 12s. in literary institutes, is now, under the Minister's instruction, to go up to 30s. This is bound to have a very serious effect on the cultural and recreational work in London's Further Education. Furthermore, it comes at a very strange time. The Ministry's Circular on Technical Education, in paragraph 11, talks about the need for a wide, liberal cultural education, and almost simultaneously with the issue of that circular we have this action on the part of the Minister which makes the provision of such a cultural and educational programme for a large number of citizens very difficult.

What is the effect in London likely to be? I am speaking only of the non-vocational classes at the moment. In those classes there are now about 80,000 students who would be affected. Our experience in the past has been that, whenever there has been an increase in fees—although there has never been an increase of this magnitude—there has always been a falling off of students. The best estimate that the council's officers can give is that there will be at least a falling off of between 15,000 to 20,000 students. This is serious and very much to be deplored.

I hope the Minister will not adduce as a defence of this 200 per cent. increase the suggestion that some people come to evening institutes in motor cars, or have television sets. For two large groups of students, that is not true. The young people, men and women over twenty-one, who come to these classes, some to learn how to make furniture for their homes, some to learn home decorating or to learn language or develop an interest in opera, do not have motor cars and those sorts of things. No such argument for this imposition can be adduced in their case. Nor can it be put forward in the case of the elderly people, people who have perhaps retired or lost a partner, man or woman, who come to evening institutes in great numbers to get their recreation in pleasant and cheap surroundings. They are not the sort of people who have the luxuries or semi-luxuries which are sometimes used as an argument for increasing charges.

It is tragic that this direction should be given and this imposition made on what is a quite remarkable system of continuative education. What will be the saving? In London, the collective saving in one year, even if the number of students does not fall below 60,000, will probably be only £60,000. That sum is really quite unrelated to our national economic difficulties and cannot possibly be a justification for it. The risk that we run is that the whole of this great achievement of London's evening education will be threatened.

I do very earnestly ask the Minister, even at this stage, as one who has been both student and lecturer in an evening institute, that he should think again. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor will never, I think, live down the rather petty economy which she attempted to impose upon the Workers' Educational Association. I hope that the reputation of the Minister will not be similarly tarnished by what is really a gross interference with a very fine and successful educational experiment, the financial results of which are quite unrelated to the economic distress of the country.

I come now to the other matter with which I am concerned, the shortage of students for technical courses, especially in technical colleges. I believe that there is a very serious shortage. If these courses do not attract a sufficient number of students of the right type, then, as it seems to me, all the plans in the White Paper on Technical Education, Cmd. 9703, will fall to the ground. In paragraph 154 the White Paper itself says: Success in carrying out the plans described in this Paper depends on attracting many more students and placing them in the right courses. Further, I agree for once with what the Prime Minister said in his speech at Bradford in January of this year, that the country which is likely to win the prizes is not the country with the biggest population but the country with the best education system. I am sure that is right.

Such figures as I have been able to collect at this stage seem to indicate that there is an alarming shortage of students for courses in technical colleges. I call in evidence the Minutes, which I have had an opportunity of seeing, of the London and Home Counties Regional Advisory Council for Higher Technological Education. This body, as the Parliamentary Secretary will know, is a very important and responsible body consisting of the chairmen of the local education authorities for London and the Home Counties, and others.

The figures which I am going to quote are figures which were revealed by various representatives in May. They are, therefore, relatively up to date. Before I come to the figures, there is one further point which ought to be made clear in regard to these figures, namely, that this particular body covers the most important region, I suppose, in the whole country; it is certainly the region with the greatest population, nearly 8 million, and containing a great many of the technical colleges. If anything, the position here will be somewhat disguised by the fact that there are so many colleges in this area, and it may be that elsewhere the situation is even more serious.

I should like to draw attention to four or five items. In part-time courses for Part III of the examination of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the total enrolments for this region, with a population of 8 million, as I say, are likely to be not more than twelve in 1956–57! That is an estimate made by a responsible body. Enrolments for 1957–58 are not expected to exceed 60, and for 1958–59 are not expected to exceed 100. Next, for the four years diploma course in electrical engineering, the figures for the Borough Polytechnic for the four years are 10, 21, 9 and 13. For Woolwich Polytechnic, the figure is 13 in year 1. The representatives from Enfield and Kinston asked for the matter to be reconsidered in the autumn of 1956. The Northampton Polytechnic stated that there was an "insufficient response", which presumably means that there is no course at all. These are all technical colleges in an area where transport is relatively good and where there must be a great collection of potential students for these courses.

In connection with sandwich diploma courses in chemical engineering, it is stated that it would be advisable for one course to operate for … two years before a second course in the region is considered. It appears, therefore, that there is to be only one course in this very important subject in the whole region. I observe that the ordinary national diploma in building course at the Polytechnic is being closed, as the course at the Southend Municipal College has already been closed.

Dealing with sandwich diploma courses in applied chemistry, an extract from the minutes states that: A course at Acton"— in which I have a special interest as some of my constituents attend— did not start in 1955–56 owing to 'insufficient enrolments'. A course proposed at South-East Essex Technical College received 'support from industry insufficient to warrant a start in 1956–57'. Woolwich Polytechnic reported that replies received to a proposed course are 'not very encouraging' and no course is being offered. The Committee 'cannot recommend the Council to support other sandwich courses in chemical subjects at present'. Those are random figures throughout the region but I do not think anyone could say that they are anything other than alarming, particularly against the background of the Government's own White Paper on Technical Education, in paragraph 56 of which, it will be recalled, we are told: The Government now propose to raise the capacity of advanced courses at technical colleges as soon as possible from 9,500 to about 15,000. I am not quite sure exactly what the figure of 9,500 existing students means. It seems to me that most of them—almost 8,000, I should say—are evening or part-time students. At least, that is the Government's intention, but the figures I have given seem to show how far it has failed.

It may be that it is still too early to assess the facts and that by September we shall have a better idea of the figures. I hope, however, that if this alarming indication of shortage of students for these vital, important courses continues, the Minister will take the House and the country into his confidence. If we do not achieve better results than this, obviously the whole of the proposals must be redrawn and an entirely new start made.

I should like to suggest one or two reasons why the response may be so poor. As the Minister has recognised and as the White Paper states, we are still fighting the status bogy in that many schools and parents consider that a technical college has an inferior status and parents try to get their children to attend somewhere with a university status. It is interesting to note that of the technical State scholarships given in 1955–56, of which 103 out of 125 were taken up, only 13 appear not to have been taken up at universities. Obviously there is much to be done, but I have seen no indication of what the Minister intends to do to overcome the existing impression and to elevate the status of the technical colleges.

I am quite certain that the grant of £240 for sandwich courses is far too small. If we are to attract young men and women who have any personal financial commitment, it will only be those who are far-seeing or are prepared to make great sacrifice who will leave their jobs and undertake courses at this rate of payment. I gather that the professional civil servants have already made representations to the Minister about this and I hope that some improvement can be effected.

Thirdly, I do not know whether help could be given to small firms, who, after all, comprise 96 per cent. of all industrial establishments. There are difficulties for small firms in releasing people, and certainly in paying them during their absence. The best of the employers make some payment in addition to any award which a student may receive. Until something can be done in the direction of small firms, however, there is likely to be great difficulty in making the sandwich courses attractive.

Fourthly, I hope that the Government will encourage members of their own professional staffs to apply for and take advantage of sandwich courses. I gather that only 60 places were offered to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and one other establishment. This does not seem to me to be setting a good example.

Finally, there is the general problem of trying to get more people to remain longer at school so that they can be qualified to take advantage or gain entry to the advanced courses. It is still a tragic fact that some 74 per cent. of our boys and girls leave school at the age of 15 and do not usually have sufficient educational requirements to gain admission to advanced courses.

Much more could be said, but I want to give the Minister every opportunity to reply. We know that the United States and the Soviet Union are making tremendous strides in training scientists and technicians. I am sure that we in Britain can do the same, but it will require a new attitude, on the part not so much of the Minister, perhaps, as of the Treasury. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication tonight that he is facing up to this challenge.

6.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper)

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), who opened this discussion, not in the heated manner which he suggested but in a moderate and reasonable way, has raised two rather separate matters. One concerns students in technical colleges and the other the increase in fees for further education announced in Circular 307. It might at first sight appear that there was a strong connection between the two. The connection is, however, slight, because technical education means vocational courses and the impact of Circular 307 on vocational courses is negligible.

To deal, first, with Circular 307, some hon. Members and people outside this House—I am not sure that the hon. Member is in this category—hold the view that all further education courses should be free. That is not my view, nor has it been the practice since the passing of the Education Act, 1944. As is stated in the circular, it seems reasonable that students who benefit from these courses should make a reasonable contribution to their cost.

I have told the House on a previous occasion that even after the increases referred to in the circular have been made, students' contributions will represent only one-fifteenth part of the cost of running the courses. Furthermore, it is my experience that those who make a reasonable contribution to an organisation such as an evening institute or youth club more often than not make the best members. Circular 307 continues the-practice of charging fees and it increases the fees to students over the age of 21 to the extent that they will now pay a maximum of 10d. a week.

In the limited time that remains, I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been advanced in the House by my right hon. Friend and myself, but I wish to say a word about London, with which the hon. Member is particularly concerned. During the last few days, my right hon. Friend has approved fees proposals put forward by the London County Council for classes beginning next September. Generally, the increases in the fees for students aged 21 and over will range from 2s. to 4s. a term, or 5s. to 10s. a year. So the increases will be less than those which the hon. Member mentioned.

The exception is that ballroom dancing will cost 15s. a term instead of 5s. Fees for single classes in evening institutes will go up by only 50 per cent. or thereabouts. The present arrangement for remission of fees in cases of hardship will be continued. Although I do not expect the hon. Member, any more than the London County Council, to accept this action willingly, I think he will agree that as a result of the discussions there has been some compromise as far as London is concerned.

As far as plans for 1957 are concerned, we intend to have a further discussion in the autumn of this year. Even so, I think it is inevitable, as the hon. Member said, that there will be some casualties, though I hope not of the number that he mentioned. It is fairly normal that when the price of anything rises there will be a falling-off in demand. But I hope that it will be confined to the less serious students, and that the remainder will find it worth their while to make a small sacrifice for courses which are obviously considered valuable. I hope that this will be the case and I should like to assure the hon. Member and the House that my right hon. Friend wishes to encourage the growth of this work.

If there was any doubt about that I should point out that in recent months my right hon. Friend has published, a rather valuable pamphlet entitled "Evening Institutes". I do not think that he would have published that pamphlet if, at the same time, he was out to destroy this valuable work, as has been suggested in some quarters. Both he and I have shown our interest and have apologised for the difficulties about the timing of this circular, and I only hope that, as far as the non-vocational work is concerned, the hon. Gentleman's fears will not be justified and that this work will continue in London and elsewhere. I believe that the figures will prove me to be right in this respect.

Mr. Skeffington

The figures of 2s. and 4s. which the hon. Gentleman has given are very considerably less, and I am very grateful for it. Are they per term or per year?

Mr. Vosper

These are the increases per term. The increases per year will be from 5s. to 10s., and will, as the hon. Gentleman realises, be less than was at first thought.

I should like to make it clear that this circular has little or no effect on the vocational courses, and this leads me to a further part of the hon. Member's speech. This is because either the students taking up vocational courses are under 21 and are not effected by Circular 307, or because they are already paying fees at the level mentioned in the Circular.

If I may take the case of the student in London, he would pay, according to the scales already announced by the London County Council before the publication of this circular, 50s. per session for a full degree or a professional equivalent course, and for a Higher National Certificate course, while the fee for a G.C.E. or a National Certificate course—first or second year—will be 30s. per session. Neither of them are in any way affected by the circular, and only those who were taking single subjects have to pay any more. The increase will be 4s. and 14s. per session for the subjects which I have just mentioned.

While it may be argued that all fees in any circumstances are a deterrent, surely these are small amounts to pay compared with the great value of the courses and they do make this argument somewhat ridiculous. In any event, as far as potential technical students are concerned, the recent circular cannot be considered a deterrent. Indeed, I do not think that the hon. Member suggested that it was.

Now I should like to turn to the more positive side of the hon. Gentleman's speech, concerning the provision of students for the technical colleges. I agree that it is vital that the provision of the colleges, on the one hand, and the supply of teachers and of students should keep pace one with another, and I have no evidence that the three are not, in fact, keeping pace one with another. London and the Home Counties, to some extent, are a special case, and the hon. Member produced some figures which I would not want to contradict. I have a set of figures which, to some extent, prove the opposite.

I do not want to take up time by giving many figures, but, to take eight Polytechnics in the London area mainly responsible for full-time advanced courses in engineering and science, there has, in fact, been a decrease. Between 1949 and 1950, the number was 6,307, and in 1954–55 it fell to 5,482. Part-time day courses increased from 6,888 in 1949–50 to 9,766 in 1954–55.

In the maintained technical colleges, doing mainly part-time work at senior level, it was much the same thing. There has been a small decrease in the full-time work, but a considerable increase in the part-time day release work, and also a considerable increase in the evening work. In the day colleges doing junior and preliminary courses for youngsters under 18, there is a considerable demand for building projects, and I believe that this is some indication that the numbers are increasing rather than falling off.

When we come to sandwich courses, I find that in 1954–55 students in electrical engineering courses in London rose from 43 to 125, and that this year it is expected that they will be doubled again. In 1954–55, 170 students attended six sandwich courses in mechanical and production engineering, and the number rose last year to 249 on the same courses, and this year student numbers are expected to be doubled again.

The hon. Member may think that there is a conflict in the figures here, but I do not think that that is necessarily the case. The figures which I have given all show increases in numbers taking sandwich courses and the signs for the coming year are that there will be further increases. The drop in numbers attending full-time degree courses is largely due to the falling off in further educational training schemes and the fact that the general pressure on the universities and technical courses has decreased in recent years.

As far as the country as a whole is concerned, there are in existence today 107 sandwich courses at all levels, and my right hon. Friend has before him now applications for no less than 34 additional courses to begin next session. I hope the hon. Gentleman will find these figures slightly more encouraging than the ones he has given, but, at the same time, I do not want him or any other hon. Member to read into these figures any indication of complacency whatever. My right hon. Friend is anxious to use every possible means to stimulate recruitment for these and other courses.

I am optimistic, because certain factors, of which the hon. Member mentioned one, are moving in our favour. While, for instance, in 1957–58, the numbers attaining the age of 15 will be smaller than for a long time past, in 1960 this age group will be nearly 30 per cent. higher and, presumably, this will automatically produce a 30 per cent. increase in enrolments. In the second place, pupils are staying longer at school, and so a higher proportion of each age group is qualifying for entry to advanced courses of further education, and this should add appreciably to the numbers. The proportion of pupils taking science in sixth forms is now very high, and this must have some effect on recruitment.

Next, there are the links with the secondary modern school which it is so important to establish, because these schools will, in the future, produce an increasing number of students for the technical colleges. I agree that it is important to establish the status and to increase the prestige of both the technical colleges and the secondary modern schools.

While all these things will help, I agree that there is no reason for not doing everything possibe to stimulate recruitment at this very moment. In addition to pursuing every possible means of publicity, and I think the hon. Member will agree that the technical education White Paper has had considerable publicity, my right hon. Friend has quite recently referred the matter of recruitment of students to the National Advisory Council on Education for Industry and Commerce for advice both on the means of stimulating recruitment in the schools and in industry. As the building programme develops and colleges and courses increase, as I believe they are doing, I think the appeal will make itself felt.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two points on awards. The number of technical state scholarships has now increased to 150, which my right hon. Friend is prepared to increase further if the number of students is forthcoming. I agree that the means of financing sandwich courses at the moment is difficult, but in due course my right hon. Friend will be issuing advice about the financing of students in sandwich courses.

Finally, although there may be a difference of opinion as to the degree of success so far obtained in the recruitment of students, and, maybe, a difference of opinion in regard to the methods to be initiated, I am sure we are all agreed on the importance of this matter, and the need to do everything to stimulate demand, even if at times it threatens to overtake the provision of colleges and teachers. If that is the result of this debate I feel that it will have served a useful purpose, and the results will possibly not be as discouraging as the figures produced by the hon. Member suggest they will be.