HC Deb 21 December 1960 vol 632 cc1366-83

2.48 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I can well understand the desire of many hon. Members to take more time to debate the most important subject of the situation in the Congo, and I am only sorry that it had to be dealt with on a day like this when, instead, it should have had a great deal more time. However, as we are now running thirty-three minutes behind schedule, I will turn at once to the next subject, which is that of State scholarships.

I do so because we had an important announcement on this matter from the Minister of Education in the last debate on education on 7th November. At that time the Minister announced that the Government were proposing to make some modifications in the income scale of university awards. He announced a principle, with which we on this side of the House are in full agreement, namely, that in future any student who obtains at least two "A" level passes in the examination for the General Certificate of Education and also a place at a university will be eligible for an award.

The Minister then went on to say that as from the summer of 1962 no further awards of State scholarships would be made. The State scholarship system as we know it now would cease to be. He said no more about it. He did not argue the point, or say which of the arguments in favour of it in the Anderson Report he accepted or which ones he was doubtful about. He simply made the bald statement, and he proceeded to say that in addition to abolishing State scholarships, in future, winners of open scholarships and other university prizes are to be allowed to retain up to £100 a year. He amplified this to the extent of saying: We want something to happen as a result of that last decision. We very much hope we shall quickly see the foundation of scholarships at provincial universities. Such scholarships have hitherto been of little interest to benefactors, since the prize money would have led to a reduction in the award from the Ministry. In future, if a scholarship is founded the money will be kept by the scholar."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 680.] It seems to us that this subject is of sufficient importance to ask for a very much fuller explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary than we had from the Minister on that occasion. I am making no complaint about the Minister not having gone into the matter more fully then, because we were discussing many other matters, but this subject is of extreme interest to schools, universities and scholars themselves.

It was dealt with in some detail in the Anderson Report, which devoted the whole of Chapter 4 to the question and came to a certain conclusion. It is also touched upon in a note of reservation by Professor Brinley Thomas, who disagreed with his colleagues on this matter. The main body of opinion on the Anderson Committee came to the conclusion that the State scholarship system had outlived its usefulness, and in its report it used rather picturesque language when it said: This complex system has now become stranded, like some prehistoric creature, in a world for which its qualities are no longer fitted. Professor Brinley Thomas took up the cudgels particularly in favour of the scholars from smaller grammar schools in this country, and he also used picturesque language in his note of reservation. He said: The abolition of state scholarships will make university and college scholarships the sole peaks of prestige surrounded by a flat plain of local authority awards. We should discuss the differences of viewpoint which underly these two statements.

In order to enlighten any hon. Members who are not familiar with the very complicated system of State scholarships, I should explain that at present there are four types of State scholarship. There are the ordinary ones, the ones which are supplemental to awards made by universities and other bodies, a small number of technical State scholarships, and scholarships for mature students. I shall deal with the last type later on. The scholars with wham I am particularly concerned today are the ordinary State scholars who obtain their award as a result of their G.C.E. "A" level and "S" level examinations. At the moment the target figure for these is about 1,850 each year. As some fall by the wayside or obtain other awards which are supplemented, the number allotted is rather more than 2,000 in any one year. The method of award is that a certain num ber of scholarships is allotted by the Ministry to the nine bodies which conduct the G.C.E. examinations throughout the country, in proportion to the number of candidates in their regions who have been entered for two or more "A" level subjects.

The interesting thing to note about this is that although the precise requirements for State scholarships vary in detail between the nine examining bodies they are all governed by the Regulations laid down by the Minister, and they are all very much higher than the two "A" level passes now to be taken as the standard for local authority awards. In other words, our State scholars have had demands made upon them which have not been made in respect of local authority awards and, as we understand it, will not be made in respect of them in future. There has therefore been a recognition of extra ability and academic achievement.

It is also true that, generally speaking, the State scholars in their subsequent academic careers have done better than the holders of ordinary local authority education awards. Nevertheless, in recent years, with greater uniformity and scaling up of the ordinary local education authority awards, the State scholars have had virtually no financial advantage; it has been a matter of acknowledgement of academic achievement and excellence. As the Anderson Report, in paragraph 74, says: In short, the financial rewards attaching to state scholarships are no longer any better than those attaching to the general run of local awards and a case can no longer exist for maintaining state scholarships as a means of setting a standard of emoluments; this function has been swallowed up in the development of the awards system as a whole. Incidentally, it points out that State scholarships are not generally awarded in Scotland, and it gives that as one reason for the proposed abolition. I could suggest, in passing, that the standard of achievement in Scotland might be even higher than it is if State scholarships were awarded there.

I accept the statement that State scholarships are no longer needed simply to supply the basic necessities of academic life. That is no longer their function; we have caught up with that. We should now ask ourselves whether there is another function for which State scholarships should nevertheless be retained. I believe that there is; I believe that the principle of some extra incentive—provided that we have made the necessary minimum provision for everybody who is capable of qualifying at a reasonable level—has a real value. I am fortified in this opinion by the comments on the proposal to abolish State scholarships made by certain associations who also feel that some incentive is worth while. Professor Brinley Thomas made this point cogently in his note of reservation. The Headmistresses' Association has also come out strongly in favour of retaining State scholarships on this basis, and the Headmasters' Association, while not suggesting that we should continue with the same procedure, is also in favour of retaining some kind of comparable incentive to the State scholarship.

There is no doubt at all that for a boy or girl of outstanding intelligence there is a very strong case to be made for encouraging the stretching of that intelligence and the work which should go with it to the utmost. For the able boy or girl, I feel that this is a thoroughly healthy thing to do. Like anything else, of course, it is open to abuse, but, properly handled, this idea that one should have something to aim at which really stretches one's powers is worth while and should be encouraged. It is something which should lead to the general maintenance of a higher standard of academic ability in the schools and subsequently, on the foundations there built, in the universities.

If this is so, I must take issue with the contention of the Anderson Committee which, in paragraph 83 of its Report, said that it would be wrong to make from public funds additional or 'bonus' payments to a particular class of award holder … the maximum value of an award should be enough to cover a student's assessed needs but none should look to the taxpayer or ratepayer for the payment of sums above this maximum. I do not accept that as a matter of principle. It may be a matter of expediency, and one must look at the other possibilities, but as a matter of principle I contest it. If it is granted that incentives of the kind I have described would have the general effect of improving the standard of academic excellence in schools and universities, it seems to me that this is a perfectly proper field in which public money should, with discretion, be employed. Therefore, I do not accept the principle enunciated in that paragraph. It does not seem to me to be a matter of principle at all. If the incentive is a valuable one, then it is, I should have thought, necessary to support it out of public money, and the question whether it is or is not required becomes a matter of judgment and expediency in relation to any other provision which may be made in the matter.

The question whether the State scholarships should not be completely abolished but should be brought within the proposal that a certain amount of money should be kept by the scholar should be looked at in the light of the existing and potential provision. The Minister in making his statement, and the Anderson Committee itself in paragraph 87 of its Report, suggested that if one allowed the scholars concerned to keep, as they are not at present allowed to keep, emoluments from awards other than State scholarships, even though scholars might be obtaining a certain amount of maintenance from public funds, that would be such an encouragement to benefactors that provision from public funds would not be required. Not only would the existing endowments be more attractive because people would be allowed to keep a certain amount but also benefactors would be encouraged to add to the number of scholarships available.

In the hope that you might select this subject, Mr. Speaker, I took the trouble to write to the registrars of several provincial universities. I express my gratitude to them for their kindness. They were good enough to send me a great deal of information about the position at the universities other than Oxford, Cambridge and London. I did not attempt to guage the situation at those three universities because I thought that it would be too complex and in any case they are sufficiently strong magnets and they have sufficient endowments, I think, to be of less importance in this matter.

I found, as I expected, that in the provincial universities of England and Wales there is considerable disparity in the amount of endowment available. Some colleges are reasonably well endowed and they have a fairly large number of entrance scholarships, while others have very little indeed. Manchester, for instance, is fairly well endowed and even some of the relatively smaller universities, for reasons of history or local patriotism, are fairly well endowed, but, at the other end of the scale, Swansea, for instance, has only six very modest entrance awards and the University College of North Staffordshire at Keele has none at all. There is a very wide range in the existing universities and a considerable disparity between what one or another can offer to prospective students.

There is also a very considerable disparity between the number of awards at the disposal of the university and the number of State scholars who are studying there at present. In other words, there are some universities which cannot offer very much relatively in the way of entrance awards but which are extremely popular among State scholars and therefore have at present many people of academic distinction studying there. To give one example, the University of Bristol can offer 33 entrance scholarships or exhibitions, although they are relatively modest. The scholarships are £50 a year and the exhibitions only £40 a year. But it has currently 340 State scholars. Some of them may be taking more than a three-year course, but about 100 State scholars a year choose to study at Bristol. There will be no additional recognition in future unless Bristol is able to obtain a great deal of benefaction.

What are the prospects of extra money being available to the universities to offer some incentive awards to people who would now be State scholars? Again I contacted the registrars. I was able to obtain only their personal opinion, but I found very few who were in the least optimistic that the suggestion of the Minister would be fulfilled. They pointed out that there are at the moment very large building appeals for new universities as well as for existing universities. They also pointed out that the industrialists who finance a certain number of scholarships will certainly not alter the basis of these scholarships as long as a parental means test remains.

The object of many industrial scholarships is to provide the wherewithal for parents who get nothing from public funds and who are not likely to get anything while the parental means test remains, even in a modified form. It is also true to say that, on the whole, the industrial benefactors favour science rather than arts students and men rather than women. Therefore, if we are to rely on future benefactions we must recognise that there will be these discrepancies which I have mentioned. Some areas will be more favoured than others and it is likely that they will be weighted in favour of science and men students.

In addition, if State scholarships are abolished and incentives are increased in the universities which are well endowed, students will be attracted from the colleges which are less well endowed to those which are better endowed even more than they are at present. There is, of course, the flow towards Oxford and Cambridge, but it will be the business of the headmaster or headmistress to advise boys and girls to look round to see which "Redbrick" colleges have good endowments and to suggest that their students should try there rather than at other places.

There will be this shopping around, not merely for entrance, but also for awards. Once a person is allowed to keep up to £100 per annum of an award, it becomes something which is well worth trying for and there will be extra strain on pupils in the schools, not merely to try to secure entrance, but to try to get awards in places where the largest awards are available. Many of us believe that that can be a thoroughly unhealthy proceeding, especially for pupils from smaller schools which have not as good lines of communication to the universities and colleges as the large endowed schools and grammar schools, which are accustomed to sending each year large numbers of students to the universities.

It seems to me, therefore, that the premise on which both the Minister and the Anderson Committee are working is at least questionable that there will be, in anything like the near future, certainly not by 1962, a considerable increase in the number of benefactions. At present, they are very unevenly spread, both in incidence and in amount, and it seems quite unreasonable that at the same time as allowing up to £100 a year to be kept out of existing awards, the Minister should abolish altogether the State scholarships.

My proposal to the Minister is that the matter should be reconsidered and that a number of State scholarships should still be available for children from all over the country, although they would be of particular value to those from the small grammar schools. At the same time as the ceiling is being raised on what may be kept from other awards, the State scholars should be allowed to have over and above their maintenance, which will be available to anybody else, a sum, I suggest, of about £50. A ceiling of £100 would be too high. What is wanted is a rather small sum, just a matter of recognition, for which I should say that £50 all round would be adequate, with the proviso, which already exists, of the once-for-all maximum of £100 permitted as a prize for somebody of outstanding merit and not as a regular maintenance award. This would be a much healthier approach to the whole question of State scholarships and would avoid the difficulties which I have mentioned.

I want briefly to refer to the mature students and students who might wish to take their first degrees, not in a British university, but in a Commonwealth university. Mature students are referred to several times in the Report of the Anderson Committee, which states in particular the view that no special provision need be made for them because we are confident that the special classes of student"— the Committee was referring to mature and technical students— … should have no difficulty in securing ordinary awards, and that it is unnecessary to retain limited competitive schemes for them. I cannot believe that the members of the Anderson Committee had any real knowledge of adult education and of the way in which the mature student scholarships are awarded. I have discussed this in detail with those, for example, at Coleg Harlech and at Ruskin, who have great experience in the matter. These students ought not to be expected to take two or more A-level subjects in G.C.E. examinations. That is a foolish way of tackling the problem. The present method of essay and interview is far more suitable and I hope very much that the Ministry is proposing to deal with these people on these lines.

The students who might wish to study at Commonwealth universities are a new problem. The Anderson Committee discussed it at some length. It laid no difficulty in the way, but, equally, it made no positive proposal about how they should be dealt with. I am sure that this matter cannot be left to local education authorities. Until we know exactly what proposals the Minister has for dealing with university awards in general in relation to the education authorities, one cannot comment beyond saying that I hope very much that the Ministry has ideas in view which would make it possible in exceptional cases for people who might wish to take their first degrees in Commonwealth universities to be enabled to do so. I shall be glad to have an assurance from the Minister on these two relatively small but important points. On the main question, I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider his proposal at the same time to abolish the State scholarships and to allow much Increased monetary incentives to the holders of other awards.

3.15 p.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

I have pressed for a number of years that there should be a minimum academic standard which, if the sixth former succeeded in achieving it, would gain him as of right a university grant, and, indeed, a place at a university. Therefore, I want first to congratulate the Minister on accepting the Anderson Committee's Report as far as that goes and in recommending to local authorities that two subjects at advanced level plus acceptance by a university should qualify for university grant.

Having said that, and not having time to argue the case for what I have just said, I believe in the reward of extra merit. Like most Socialists, I am not an egalitarian. Our criticism of society is not the difference between the rewards it gives to citizens but the unjust nature of the distribution of rewards.

During most of my teaching life the State scholarship we are discussing now has been a mark of distinction and I should be sorry to see it go. In later years the small prize it carried escaped the means test—a means test which I would still urge the Minister to abolish.

Here I would interpose that the National Union of Students, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, is unanimous in recommending to the Minister that he should still have second thoughts and abolish his objection to the recommendation of the Anderson Committee that the means test should go. An undergraduate is an adult and he has a right to be treated as an adult, and he is earning his living while at the university, and that means test militates against the independence of these young men—and women.

It is true that the number of State scholarships has increased from the handful it was in the days of the first Labour Government, who set them up, to several thousand now, thanks largely to a big expansion under the late Ellen Wilkinson and the late George Tomlinson, but though the number of State scholarships has increased the standard is still very high. It is also true that the modern system of financing university grants levels out any financial advantages which a State scholar used to have, but all State scholarships are awarded on the scholarship papers taken in G.C.E. and they indicate that at any rate at the moment of award—I am not sure that future developments are all truly predictable, especially among several thousand—the best academic brains in our grammar schools win in an all-nation competition.

It is an honour to win such an award. A school is proud to record it triumphs in this field, and it means something to the universities looking for keen intellects among candidates seeking admission, and a sixth former who wins a State scholarship has a better chance of securing a place at the university of his or her choice than one who does not. Moreover, the continued award of these 2,000 or 3,000 State scholarships can relieve the universities of some of the burden placed upon them and local authority interviewing committees of selecting the intake into the universities. If we can relieve the universities of the burden of sorting the wheat from the chaff, those who have not reached the high academic standard of the State scholarships, we can do them a service.

I am still troubled about social selection which still goes on in the universities. A recent report from the universities called "Application for Admission to the Universities" contains some valuable tables. One shows that of the intake to the universities in 1955, 74 per cent. came from the professional, managerial and clerical classes, 21.7 per cent. from skilled manual workers, 3.4 per cent. from semi-skilled manual workers, and 0.9 per cent. from the children of manual workers. I have said before that unless one believes in the transmission of acquired characteristics there must be born into the humblest families in this country as into the noblest lads and lassies of ability. There are still barriers all along the line. Universities are not yet what I believe they will some day become, a social cross-section of this British community of ours. Similarly, the figures for Oxford and Cambridge show that only 34 per cent. of the Cambridge undergraduates come from the State schools where there are 6½ million children, whereas 59.8 per cent. come from the private schools where there are only 250,000 of our children. For Oxford the figures are 40.5 per cent. from the State schools against 44.4 per cent. from the private schools.

There are still closed scholarships in private schools which at some time should be merged into the national pattern of national scholarships. The State scholarships, at any rate, have the advantage that they are open to all on exactly the same basis, and as State grammar schools rapidly approach parity with the best public schools—and they have already surpassed the worst—the children have a nearer and nearer equal chance of what I regard as a high honour and distinction.

As this year ends the Minister is coping with grim problems of providing enough teachers for the next critical two years. I can understand sometimes the feeling that his Department must have after this terrific achievement of fifteen years of school building, of expanding the size of the teaching profession and the extension of training provisions. At present the Department must be exasperated at the demand made again and again for more. But 1961 will be a crisis year in a number of ways which I cannot mention at the moment. There will be a crisis in the supply of teachers and a crisis caused by the simple fact that, despite our expansion of the training colleges, we are faced in 1961 with a larger intake to the universities than we can possibly cope with.

The Parliamentary Secretary, coping as he is with all his problems, will have the full backing of everyone on this side of the House in 1961 if he tackles them with energy. I ask him to leave this question of the university State scholarships just where it is. Let us say to the sixth formers in 1961, "Go all out by all means for the minimum qualification of two subjects at "A" level which with university selection will guarantee you a university grant, but do not be content with the minimum". I ask the hon. Gentleman to say to all sixth formers, "Aim high and see whether you can bring to yourself and your school the glory of winning one of these scholarships". I ask him to consider seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said.

3.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson)

Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for bringing forward this subject on our last day of term. It is a subject which well deserves the airing that her introductory remarks have enabled us to give it. I hope that the House in considering the matter, and bearing in mind the observations of the hon. Member for Itchen, will be willing to look at the whole of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee together, and particularly at those which my right hon. Friend has informed the House the Government are prepared to accept and put into operation as soon as can be conveniently arranged.

We cannot look at the proposals relating to the four different kinds of State scholarships in isolation from some of the other recommendations. First, we must be clear that my right hon. Friend's acceptance, so far, embraces a recommendation that a student who gets a minimum of two "A" level subjects in the G.C.E. examination and is accepted by a university for a place there will qualify for an award. This is the underlying condition upon which we must rely in our consideration of all the other matters to which reference has been made in the debate.

A new situation will arise for the universities and the students as a result of that recommendation. It means that everyone who gets those qualifications—two "A" levels and acceptance by a university for a place—will qualify for an award based on the scale which is to be announced very shortly and which we are at present discussing with the local education authorities, and whose outline my right hon. Friend announced to the House a few days ago.

Once that situation comes into operation—in 1961, we hope—it will be unnecessary for there to be a separate system of awards to ameliorate financial hardship. The system of State scholarships inaugurated some years ago and developed in recent years to provide the means by which a student could take up a place that he had otherwise won, no longer applies. Under the new system a student will not be in the position of having to seek from outside the local education authority by some different means the financial support to enable him to undertake his course at the university; so that the financial basis of the State scholarship system is removed.

I come now to the point to which the hon. Lady referred and which was added to by the hon. Gentleman, that there is a prestige significance attaching to the winning of a State scholarship. Under the old system State scholarships were awarded to students who did well in the G.C.E. "A" level examination. I put it briefly: they were those who passed at the top of the various lists relating to each of the examining boards for the G.C.E. "A" level examination. They were assumed to be, and in most cases were, able to take honours degree courses at the university of their choice or at the university which had finally accepted them. But they were by no means the only honours students in the universities. They were surrounded by a very large army of similar students in the universities in addition to their colleagues who, like themselves, had State scholarships. So the distinction that they had was more in name than in anything else. Their distinction as honours scholars was very widely shared indeed, and the flat plain which Professor Brinley Thomas talks about is not really quite so monotonous as he would have us believe, and his picturesque description of the situation is a little less accurate than it might have been had he chosen his words more carefully.

Mrs. White

Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the qualifications for State scholarships are considerably higher than the qualifications for local authority awards now envisaged?

Mr. Thompson

The hon. Lady continually relates her criticism of our proposals to the system which applied before the other recommendations of the Anderson Committee were accepted, and I hope to show that this is so. What I am now saying is that the State scholarship holders were not by any means an exclusive body of honours students in our universities and that the plain was, as I have said, not as flat as Professor Brinley Thomas described it.

What is happening now is that all students with the two "A" levels and a place at a university will qualify for and will automatically receive a local authority award. Leading to that situation, they will find themselves in competition with all the other students who would have places in universities. But the House knows full well that the number of places in our universities, although it will grow increasingly rapidly, is still very far from sufficient to meet the demand. There is no need, therefore, for this additional incentive to spur students on in their sixth form to give of their best. Two "A" levels will, in fact, become increasingly the minimum which is long left behind, and better than two "A" levels, and probably a good deal better, will be very much needed by any student who hopes to be accepted by a university. The incentive to do well will in short be provided by the competition in the race itself. I have no doubt that it will be sufficient of a spur to make sure that those who have these ambitions will, in the course of their sixth form careers, be compelled to stretch themselves to the limits of their capability.

Dr. King

Surely the argument the hon. Gentleman has put up so far applies to every prize in the world? It applies to open scholarships. If a boy wins an open scholarship to Jesus College, Oxford, the boy who did not get it but who just failed to get it is just inferior to him in ability. The argument so far is an argument for abolishing all distinction.

Mr. Thompson

I will deal with the effect of the new situation upon the competition for the open and closed scholarships in all the universities. I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman, in reply to his specific interjection, that there will always be both successes and failures, and all kinds of degrees of success, but that is a facet of life which neither he, nor I, nor any machinery that we can devise will alter. We might as well learn to live with it.

I have said that the incentive to get a place in a university in an increasingly competitive field will itself provide the spur for the students to give of their best in their sixth form days. I hope that will be so. We are, of course, aware of the fact that this intense competition for places in the universities will have imposed some strains on the courses which students will follow in their sixth form careers. The curriculum of the sixth form is already heavily overloaded, and all who consider this matter are concerned that we should do what we can to lighten this pressure.

I think the House should know that we are now ready to have discussions with the responsible authorities of the universities and the colleges to see how far the new arrangements can help to ameliorate the bad results of these pressures. The Secondary School Examination Council has already put up some proposals on which we are seeking opinions before we make recommendations.

It seemed to me that the hon. Lady confused her thinking about how the new system would deal with this question of the prizes that can be won by those who do exceptionally well or who are exceptionally bright. Indeed, she went so far as to say that she would quote some universities which had exceptionally few prizes but nevertheless had many State scholars. That seemed to me to cut right across her earlier argument that one needed some special incentive. She quoted the State scholarship as attracting students to any given university, when in fact it works the opposite way in some cases. Indeed, that is evidence of the complicated nature of the whole system of university admissions. It is true that Oxford and Cambridge, for example, have a larger proportion of prizes to offer to would-be entrants and therefore it is not unnatural to find that the competition for places in Oxford and Cambridge is so keen that they have the pick of the cream of the students from all over the country.

Mrs. White

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the future arrangements when holders of open awards will be allowed to keep up to £100 of those awards, the position will be very different? The universities which at present have State scholars but no endowments are fearful of that situation. They say that at the moment it does not make much difference, because holders of open awards do not keep the emoluments thereof, but if in future they are allowed to, as these universities have no counterbalancing awards to offer, students will be attracted to places where open awards are available.

Mr. Thompson

I am about to deal with the situation resulting from the offering of this higher proportion of prizes, exhibitions, and awards in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.

Mrs. White

I was not thinking of Oxford and Cambridge, which have hitherto had their own private means test.

Mr. Thompson

They still have, as far as I know, and I see no reason why they should not. That is a matter for them.

The position after acceptance of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend will be that the colleges and universities will be able to offer prizes and allow those prizes to be retained by the winners. This will mean that there will be competition for those prizes. But the competition for those prizes will be nothing new. Indeed, that is the very competition about which a good many critics have already complained.

The fact is that whether there are extra prizes or not, whether the student can retain them or not, will not alter the attraction of Oxford and Cambridge colleges for the best students in the country. We have to take account of the fact that Oxford and Cambridge have over 500 years of history, 500 years or more of fame, and students will be attracted to seek for themselves the benefits of this. But we believe that as a result of the student being allowed to retain up to £100 of the prize that he wins in each of the years he is in college, other benefactors will be encouraged to offer prizes at more of the civic universities in different parts of the country. I certainly hope that that will be so.

The hon. Lady referred to two other points to which I feel I should reply. The House should know why my right hon. Friend made his announcement in the form that he did about the State scholarships, leaving out any special reference to technical State scholarships and mature State scholarships. We propose that the technical State scholarships should go, since there is a recognised avenue along which applicants for those scholarships can proceed from their technical college, or whatever it may be, to the university that they want to join. But we propose that mature State scholarships shall be retained mainly in their present form. The present system of a paper and an interview is to be kept and the familiar processes already known to those who are interested, will continue to be followed.

There are still discussions to undertake in some of these matters before the system is finalised, but that is broadly the basis on which we hope the system will work in future.

The hon. Lady referred to the Commonwealth scholarships and to the suggestion that British students should study in Commonwealth universities. Here again, this is largely a matter for the local authorities which will be responsible for administering these awards, and we propose to bring this matter forward in discussion with them, since we entirely concur with her view that there are real advantages to be gained by British students following courses at colleges in other parts of the Commonwealth. I hope that we shall be able to announce a successful outcome to those discussions before long.

I am aware that the cover that I have been able to give to the wide subject which the hon. Lady introduced has been inadequate, and I apologise for that fact. She knows that the House is at present under some pressure for time, and I have no wish to spoil the opportunities for the airing of other subjects which remain to be discussed. I hope that if there is any part of the ground which she regards as important and which I have not covered, she will let me know, and I shall do my best to give her further information.