§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke)With permission, Sir, I should like to make a statement on the Government's plans to meet the greatly increased demand for university education which will arise during the next decade, and the acknowledged national need for more university-trained scientists and technologists.
The universities have already made proposals to the University Grants Committee which, taken together, would increase the number of students from 84,000 in the academic year 1955–56 to 106,000 by the mid-1960s. Of this increase, it is expected that about two-thirds would study science or technology.
This increase could not be met without building much new accommodation of all types. The Government are convinced that this is a sound long-term investment, and, accordingly, my right hon. Friend has given authority for university building projects up to the value of £10.4 million to be started in 1957, £12 million in 1958 and a further £12 million in 1959, over and above the large sums required for the expansion of Imperial College.
These amounts are instalments of what will be needed over a longer term, and they compare with starts of £4.8 million for the current year, which means that the present rate of starts is to be more than doubled.
But, large though this increase is, the Government believe that the universities should be encouraged to expand even more. The University Grants Committee has advised us that a larger expansion would be desirable if resources can be made available. It would like to invite the universities to consider still further expansion to meet national needs. The Government are giving further thought to this in consultation with the Committee.
It is certainly our intention to ensure that the universities and the technical 1751 colleges will, together, be able to produce at least the number of qualified scientists and engineers which the Committee of Scientific Manpower recently estimated to be needed over the period ten to fifteen years hence.
§ Mr. M. StewartI should like to put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I say, first, that I am sure we are all glad to hear that this increased provision is to be made for university building; glad, too, that the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made recognises that the sums to be provided in the next three years can be only a beginning to the solution of this problem?
The three questions I should like to put to him are these. First, can we be assured that in the increased building which is to be provided, proper provision will be made for facilities for the social life of a university which, as was recognised during the debates on technical education, is an important part of a liberal education? Secondly, can we be sure that, with the increased number of students and the increased provision of buildings, the provision of university staff will keep in step with these arrangements? Thirdly, in view of this provision of increased places at universities, will it not be all the more important to secure a wise selection of students and to make sure that suitable persons are not prevented from going to a university by lack of means? As this is bound up with the policy of some local education authorities in the matter of awards, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Education bear that in mind?
§ Mr. BrookeI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his approach. He will appreciate that my statement opens up large matters which, no doubt, should be further discussed on future occasions.
In answer to his questions, I would say, first, that the building plans certainly include provision for facilities for social life for the increased number of students in the universities. Secondly, we have not forgotten that the increased numbers of students and the increased facilities will require increases in staff. Thirdly, it is the Government's desire that all those boys and girls who have the mental and general abilities to profit by a university education shall get that opportunity. I would remind the hon. Gentleman 1752 that, of course, during this period we shall be securing the benefit of the bulge passing out of the schools.
§ Mr. WoodburnIs this a United Kingdom programme? If so, will the money be spread over the whole of the United Kingdom and not concentrated only on, say, Oxford, Cambridge and London? Will the expenditure be co-ordinated with the local authorities and with what they want to do for students? Many boys and girls are by-passing this type of education. Their ability to profit by it is not being developed to the full extent because of some of the considerations my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has mentioned. Will these provisions be made in conjunction with the Minister of Education and the appropriate Minister for Scotland so that those boys and girls may be enabled to carry on their education at universities? The provision of all this money will be futile unless we can get the students.
§ Mr. BrookeIt is a United Kingdom programme. As I think the right hon. Gentleman realises, the University Grants Committee is a United Kingdom body on which Scotland is represented. We are aware that there are many who leave the schools prematurely at present and who might benefit by a university education, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in close touch with the Minister of Education, and any other Ministers who may be concerned, so that we can so arrange our affairs that the very best use is made of the abilities of boys and girls.
§ Mr. GowerCan my right hon. Friend say whether the University of Wales will benefit under this programme?
§ Mr. BrookeI said that the University Grants Committee is a United Kingdom body. I am quite sure that it will bear in mind the needs of the Principality.
§ Dr. KingIf a university education is the good, long-term capital investment we all believe it to be, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the universities are fed by the secondary schools, and convey to the Minister of Education the need for co-operating with the Chancellor in the policy of putting back the building of the secondary schools he stopped this year?
§ Mr. BrookeThis is a co-ordinated policy. I do not think that the House would wish me to make a comprehensive statement on all educational intentions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my statement that it is the desire of the Government that all boys and girls who are worthy of a university education shall receive it.
§ Mr. UsborneDoes the Treasury realise that it is also important to produce more teachers, particularly for the primary level? Is the right hon. Gentleman considering continuing, in this programme, the expansion of teacher training colleges, which, I gather, have been curtailed?
§ Mr. BrookeThat is outside my responsibility at the Treasury.