HC Deb 29 November 1956 vol 561 cc727-38

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

10.37 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings (Burton)

I am grateful for this opportunity of bringing before the House the important question of awards to university students. I say honestly at the start that the purpose of this exercise is to try to persuade the Minister to appoint a working party for a full-scale review of the whole problem of university awards. I do so because the last full-scale investigation was eight years ago, in 1948. I do so also because we are now facing several important developments in the next few years. For instance, as was announced in the House last week, we are facing a 26 per cent. university expansion, from 84,000 students to 106,000 students in the next 10 years.

We are facing also what has been termed the two-headed monster of the trend and the bulge. When we talk about the trend we notice two tendencies, the tendency of the number of pupils staying on after 15 to increase, and the tendency of the growth of sixth forms in our grammar schools. This, of course, will make a tremendous impression on the number of potential university students. It will be noticed that the bulge has moved out of the primary schools and is now in the secondary stream. It is reckoned that over the next ten years it will amount to an increase of 15 per cent. in the number of university students.

Scientific and technological developments, not only in this country but all over the world, and the resulting need for scientists and technologists, emphasise the necessity for reviewing university awards. A reappraisal of local government finance is taking place and coincident with that should go a reappraisal of the finances of education, including university awards.

My main theme deals with the two main problems which would have to be reviewed by such a working party. The first is the value of the awards and the second is the selection of students. A third could have been the means test, but I Shall not develop that tonight. In education debates in the past, I have already expounded my very strong views about the means test. I should like to see it abolished, but that is a long-term policy and I want to deal with the two matters which can be considered at once.

It is pleasing to note that there has been a striking acceleration in the process of persuading local education authorities to adopt the major recommendations of the state scholarship assessment. For instance, in April this year my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was able to announce at Leeds that practically 100 per cent. adoption of the term and time rates had been secured. That compares very favourably with 1952. In passing, I want to commend the Minister, his Department and local education authorities for the vast progress made in that direction.

I am not here to shoot at targets but wish to approach the matter in a reasoned way in order to persuade the Minister to appoint a working party. I have no intention of singling out recalcitrant authorities, or anything like that. However, even with this general basic advance, some local education authorities are not measuring up to the job. As a practical teacher, I know that we have to look after sub-normal children, average children, good children and brilliant children. The best investment we can make is to adopt the principle that the best brains are also the care of the State. It is a jolly good insurance and part of the task of local education authorities.

When it comes to minor recommendations, allowances like the instrument allowance, vacation allowance and dependants' allowance, the story is not so good. Forty-four authorities do not pay an instrument allowance, thirty-eight do not pay a vacation allowance and forty-one do not pay a dependents' allowance. Here the picture is one of financial inequality.

The next inequality is that of the selection of students. The basis has been laid down for years and advice on the selection of students for major awards has been given by the Ministry. For instance, in 1948, at the last general review, the Working Party on University Awards recommended that the minimum standard should be that of having been accepted by a university and having reached advanced standard in two subjects in the General Certificate of Education. In 1950, it was again recommended to local education authorities, in the Memorandum of Procedure from the Ministry. In 1953, it was re-emphasised in an Agreed Note of Procedure from the Minister and, in the same year. Circular 263 issued by the Minister supported that minimum standard. In July, 1955, the Report of the Sub-Committee on University Entrants Requirements—a university report—recommended as a minimum standard two subjects at advanced level.

In spite of those standards, recommended first by the Minister and then by the universities, progress towards securing uniformity among local education authorities has been very slow. For instance, in 1956–56 three local education authorities preferred candidates who could offer three advanced subjects and two scholarship papers for the G.C.E. Ten preferred them to offer, in addition to the usual advanced subjects, one or more scholarship papers; 20 asked for three advanced level subjects, and 84 for the minimum standard of two. At the other end of the scale, there were four authorities who made awards if the student was accepted by a university. What I should like to see is uniformity of selection as between area and area.

Every three years the Ministry reviews the award of grants to university students, and the next triennial assessment is in 1958. Some of us think that the time is now opportune to look into the whole question of grants for the triennial assessment. I have no doubt that the Ministry and its officials and the local education authorities are looking at this question already, but now is the time for us to start making a thorough appreciation of the situation.

That is why I emphasise the need for a working party to advise the Minister and give him material for the steps he will have to take, so that Government plans for university expansion can be properly implemented. As a cardinal principle, we must ensure that the right people get the right aid at the right time, and that there is reasonable uniformity of opportunity as between area and area. A quick decision is needed. Now is the time to act, and a working party is the answer.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) both on raising this subject and on the very persuasive way in which he put his case. It is very important that the views he has expressed should be expressed from the benches opposite, and I value the fact that they should also come from a prominent member of the National Union of Teachers. I rise only to support what he has said—and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to do so—and to say that I also welcome the improvement which has occurred in recent years, for which credit is due to the Minister and also to the National Union of Students for their work in this field and for making the evidence available of the need for these grants.

At the same time, there are considerable anomalies in the arrangement of local education authority awards. I believe that it is impossible to devise any scheme which will do away with all the difficulties. I was very greatly encouraged by Circular 315, recently put out by the Minister, telling us of the new arrangements for post-graduate awards. It seems to me that some similar arrangement, with the emphasis on a central award-giving body, is necessary it we are really to tackle the job of providing adequate and sufficient grants in order to get the right numbers of the right people in the universities.

We have heard a lot of talk about the need for more technologists and technicians. I believe that this is too big a job to leave to the very varied interests and resources of local authorities, and I therefore add my word to that of the hon. Member in asking the Minister if he will set up a working part or committee to examine the possibilities of some central award-giving body. As the hon. Member says, the review of awards is shortly to take place, and it seems to me that that might be one of the terms of reference given to a body charged with making recommendations.

I therefore ask the Minister, if he cannot give us an answer tonight, to assure us that he is at least sympathetic to this idea. It is not a new one; I have expressed it several times in this House because I have tried to take an interest in the subject over the years. It has been the policy of the National Union of Students for many years that the matter should be dealt with by some central body rather than be left to the mercies of individual local education authorities. Some of these have been very generous, but others, I am afraid, have not kept to the same standard.

10.50 p.m.

Lord Balniel (Hertford)

I do not wish to detain the House for very long because I and other hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister's reply, in particular to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) that a working party should be set up to look into this question of university awards. All I wish to do is to add a very brief support to the suggestion that a working party should be established.

I realise very well that, in fact, a working party will be set up next summer to go into the question of the triennial review, and I very much hope that that working party will be able to emulate the recommendations which were put forward by its predecessors and which enabled considerable reductions to be made in allowances and parental contributions and for an increase to be made in the scale of grants.

As I see it, the point of university awards is to enable any person who is worthy of a university education to take a university course irrespective of his financial background and to be able to carry through that course without suffering hardship. That is not happening at the moment. As any hon. Member with a constituency correspondence knows, a considerable number of persons who are perfectly capable of taking a university course are not able to do so through lack of means.

The universities are becoming increasingly concerned at the growing number of students who, if they were able to go to university, would probably attain a second-class honours, but who are not able to do so through lack of means. I fear that we are returning to a position which was criticised in the following words by a Working Party on University Awards as long ago as 1948. It said: The arrangement for determining the value of individual awards sometimes demands sacrifices from parents in certain income groups which may be more than they should be called on to bear. I very much hope that this working party will be able to increase the allowances and decrease the parental contributions. But the points which my hon. Friend was making will not be covered by that working party. Its terms of reference are much too limited. My hon. Friend has already referred to some of the difficulties which are being experienced in the running of university awards. He has referred to the inequalities between the various local authorities, and they are very real indeed.

I know that the exhortations of my right hon. Friend have induced most local authorities to exercise their powers and to give grants. None the less, the fact remains that there are eight local education authorities which refuse to make any grants at all. I agree that that number represents a mere handful out of the total of 146 authorities in the country. Nevertheless, if one is a student or a parent living in one of those eight areas the hardship is very real indeed, and it is depriving people who might otherwise be able to go to university of the chance of receiving a university education.

Local authorities vary in generosity. The chances of receiving a grant if one lives in certain counties, for instance in the West Riding, are very much less than if one lives in Lancashire or another county of comparable wealth. They also vary in their methods. Some local authorities will not give a grant if one is already at a university. Others will give a grant only if one has passed successfully the first-year examination. As my hon. Friend pointed out, they also vary very considerably in the demands they make for academic excellence. Some demand two passes in the advanced G.C.E. Others demand three passes.

It would be regrettable if the power of giving these grants were taken out of the hands of the local education authorities. Some of them have advanced at a far greater pace than others and many of them really do not know what is expected of them. Many which are in fact parsimonious imagine that they are acting in a very generous manner. I suggest that a working party to look into the question would be able to advocate a standard which would be of the very greatest help to local education authorities.

10.55 p.m.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has raised what I consider to be an important subject. I am glad that he has done so, because it is about two years since this subject was ventilated even as fully as is possible in a limited debate of this nature.

I think it would be as well to be clear on the statutory position to begin with. Those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate probably realise that my right hon. Friend's power is derived from Section 100 of the Education Act, 1944. This requires him to make regulations providing for the payment of sums which will enable pupils … to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them. … I quote that because my hon. Friend referred to the possible abolition of the means test. That would not be possible without amending legislation, but I hope to say something further about that later on. Section 81 of the same Act empowers the Minister to make regulations which grant similar powers to local education authorities, with similar limitations.

As I think all hon. Members have pointed out, there has been considerable progress in this sphere since the Education Act was put on the Statute Book. In 1955, no fewer than 15,900 students—I think these are new figures—holding either Ministry or local authority awards went to the universities for the first time. This compares with a total entry to the English and Welsh universities of rather more than 18,000 United Kingdom based students. A quick calculation will tell hon. Members that in 1955 well over 80 per cent. of people entering universities were receiving grants from statutory sources.

The figure of 15,900 is made up of 3,400 State scholars and 12,500 local authority award holders. The number of awards given by local education authorities has been rising steadily in recent years and has more than kept pace with the increased intake into the universities. In 1955, the L.E.A. awards totalled 12,500; in 1951, they totalled 10,000. That is an increase of 25 per cent. in four years. This is a considerable increase.

Tonight, hon. Members have been rather more concerned with local education authority awards than with State awards. The hon. Member for Burton dealt separately with selection and with the granting of the awards. I propose to follow him, starting with the grants and the awards themselves. He referred to Circular 285, issued about 18 months ago, wherein my right hon. Friend expressed his view that it is most desirable that all students attending a particular university should, so far as possible, receive grants at the same rates and on the same basis of assessment. My hon. Friend referred to my speech at Leeds, when I said that only a small number of authorities had not come into line. I am very pleased tonight to go much further than that and to say, and I think it is the first time it has been announced, that every local authority has now come into line as far as awards and the basis of assessment is concerned. It is a very great improvement on the position four or five years ago.

I realise that my hon. Friend also referred to things like vacation allowances, instrument allowances and other allowances, such as those for dependants, but in the same Circular my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was leaving as much as possible to the discretion of local authorities in these matters in the belief that they are better able to judge the needs of the students. The question of uniformity in these matters has never been pressed to the same extent as it has been for rates of grant and methods of assessment. But even here there has been a considerable advance towards uniformity.

My information regarding vacation allowances is slightly different to my hon. Friend's information. He said that there were 38 authorities who do not pay them; my information is that there are only 25 who do not pay in full, but who make some contribution. The same applies to allowances for instruments and dependants. As far as vacation allowances are concerned, 96 out of 146 also adopt my right hon. Friend's practice of paying a vacation grant at a higher rate where the university certifies that it is needed. And so, although my right hon. Friend did not press for uniformity in respect of these minor allowances, there have been considerable advances.

I should like here to say one word about a new development, to which the hon. Member for the Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) referred, and that is the new arrangements for post-graduate awards which have been recently announced. Briefly, this means that all students who want to do research or advanced courses in science and technology can apply for post-graduate awards to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, whilst those who want to do similar courses in arts can apply to the Ministry. The important thing is that this means for the most part that local education authorities will in fuure be relieved of this task. These new arrangements will ensure that people fitted for this high-grade work will be carefully selected on a national basis for awards, and there will be additional awards for science and technology to meet the expanding needs of universities.

It is the Ministry's intention to assess students who want these awards on their own means and not on those of their parents. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research already apply that principle.

Mr. Mulley

I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that important decision and ask if he could, when he comes to decide the amount, take note of the excellent review produced by the National Union of Students on the conditions of such post-graduate students.

Mr. Vosper

I am aware of that, but I cannot announce the amount tonight because this matter is still under consideration, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciative remarks about the decision.

I should like to say a word about selection, which is possibly a more difficult problem. My right hon. Friend's policy is expressed in Circular 263 and is based on an agreement between local authority associations and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The general basis for this agreement was that while university and college authorities are solely responsible for admissions, local education authorities are solely responsible for making their awards. It was agreed that the minimum standard to be applied in selecting a candidate for award should be passes in advanced level in two subjects in the G.C.E., with satisfactory evidence of general education. That is now accepted as the minimum standard for consideration by every local education authority in the country. I emphasise "consideration" because that is all that Circular 263 required—that every local education authority should consider candidates with two G.C.E. passes at the advanced level; in recent weeks we have achieved complete uniformity on that.

I appreciate that probably my hon. Friend had in mind that some local authorities give a different interpretation of "consideration", but if he has evidence of any local authority which is not applying the terms of the Circular, I hope he will give me details. Of course, however much uniformity is achieved, I do not think we can expect every area in the country to produce the same percentage of university students, because the level of ability and intelligence must vary, but I accept that if this power is to be left with local authorities there may be variations of this nature, and it is the policy of my right hon. Friend, with some success, to keep these variations to a minimum. The fact that now there has been complete acceptance of Circular 263 is evidence of an advance in that direction. But I feel that while it may be possible to select a limited number of state scholars on a national basis, it will not be possible to select all those who are to enter the university.

I do not believe that a central authority can claim to know whether a young man who is clearly not of the highest ability, as a State scholar is, has other equally important qualities which make him a suitable person to go to a University. I think we should ponder long and well before we take this power out of the hands of the local authorities. But my right hon. Friend is anxious to press even further for uniformity and will investigate any case of unfair discrimination or restriction which is brought to his notice.

My hon. Friend referred to the expansion of the universities. It is true that we expect a very considerable expansion in the universities, and my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems which are arising and is in close touch with all the other bodies concerned in this matter. He is now in the process of thinking out the likely effect of these developments on awards policy. The system of awards has increasingly adapted itself to the needs of the post-war expansion of the universities and I see no reason why it should fail to meet the anticipated expansion in the next ten years. I accept that our policy must be to ensure that young people wishing for and capable of receiving university education should not be deprived of it.

I have noted with particular interest the suggestion about a working party and I accept that the time is coming when, because of the triennial review, because of the expansion of the universities and because it is seven years since the last working party reported, the problem ought to be reviewed. But I should not like tonight to commit myself to saying that the working party is the best solution; my right hon. Friend will give the matter careful consideration.

I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park and my hon. Friend in the praise they have given to the National Union of Students, who have responded very reasonably over the last two or three years to our awards policy and who are co-operating very favourably with the Ministry. It is not possible to agree to everything for which they ask; if we did, their Grants Section would go out of existence. I have personal experience of their co-operation and I thank them, as I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.