UNIVERSITY GRANTS AND SALARIES OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS

HC Deb 05 April 1962 vol 657 cc719-86

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

I beg to move, That this House regrets the rejection by Her Majesty's Government of the recommendations of the University Grants Committee and their refusal to agree to an adequate increase in the salaries of university teachers, since these decisions will seriously prejudice the rapid expansion of university education which is urgently needed in the national interest. We had originally intended to debate this matter during the discussion on the Consolidation Fund (No. 2) Bill. We decided, however, on that occasion to withdraw the debate, and I do not regret that we did so. First, it enabled the House to discuss at very considerable length the problems of the nursing profession. Although, unhappily, we have not been able to move the Minister of Health from his adamant position to do anything satisfactory to improve nurses' conditions, at least I think we can claim that we have helped to expose the whole of this problem to the country.

Secondly, I think it more satisfactory that we should have a separate debate on the problem of university grants and university salaries. Thirdly, it has enabled me to receive a great many more communications from universities. I do not recollect in recent times having so many letters from so many different people and so many different institutions on a single issue as I have had in these last few days. May I say to those who were kind enough to write to me that it would be quite impossible for me in the course of a fairly short speech to cover every point which was introduced by my correspondents in their various letters.

The Motion is concerned with two issues, which are distinct but nevertheless related. The first is the fact that the Government have rejected the recommendations of the University Grants Committee. I believe this is the first time this has happened; it is virtually unprecedented. Secondly, there is the question of the salaries of university teachers. These two questions are distinct but related, because in our opinion the salaries of university teachers have a considerable bearing on the capacity of the universities to carry out the programme the Government have set before them.

Although salaries are not by any means the most important issue—that has been made clear to me by a great many correspondents—yet there is no doubt that here we have another group of employees and professional workers who are being denied what they regard as a reasonable increase in salary because of the pay pause. I can speak with some experience about university teachers, having been one myself for about eleven years. They are not, I think, normally inclined to make a fuss about their salaries and conditions. The Association of University Teachers has been severely criticised by some of them lately. As one who for a short period was a local officer of the Association, I can confirm that not a great deal of interest is normally taken by university teachers in these matters. They are naturally preoccupied, being academic people, with their studies, with their research and with their teaching. They do not much like getting involved in politics.

To understand their complaint it is necessary to go back two-and-a-half years. In November, 1959, a claim for a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. increase in salaries was put forward. It was put forward because the Association and the university teachers regarded themselves as very much out of line with the pay in the Civil Service and in the scientific Civil Service. It has always been their view that the correct comparison to make was between a university lecturer and a principal in the administrative grade of the Civil Service.

In May, 1960, some months later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced new salary scales which, though not going so far as the universities wished, nevertheless involved increases of about 12 per cent. This, however, still left a difference of £220 per annum between the maximum salary of a university lecturer and the maximum salary of a principal in the Civil Service. To give the absolute figures, it left the university lecturer on a top salary of £1,850 against the principal's salary of £2,070. Within a few weeks of this announcement, however, there was a further increase in Civil Service pay, back-dated to October, 1958, which brought the salary of the principal, the maximum salary, up to £2,325.

It was regarded by the university teachers at that time as, to say the least, dishonest on the part of the Government that they had negotiated with them all this time and yet never disclosed, what must already have been their intention, that they were increasing the salaries of principals so soon after their decision about university teachers. There was indeed a sharp reaction on the part of the universities and a new claim was submitted in October, 1960. Very shortly after that there was yet another increase in Civil Service pay, an increase of 4 per cent. which brought the maximum of the principal in the administrative grade to £2,418, leaving a gap between his pay and that of the university lecturer on the maximum level of no less than £568.

The University Grants Committee, after hearing evidence, agreed to present a further claim on behalf of the university teachers in April, 1961. I must emphasise that the delay in this matter was largely due to the moderation which was enjoined by the University Grants Committee upon the university teachers. They accepted this advice and they moderated their claim. The University Grants Committee submitted this claim—having announced that it accepted it in effect—only in July, 1961. So it was told that it had been caught by the inception of the pay pause.

Over and above this treatment, university salaries had become out of line with two other comparable occupations, occupations which, though very honourable, are not generally regarded as ranking for the same salaries as those of university lecturers. I refer to lecturers at technical colleges and those at teacher training colleges. Their salaries are settled by the Minister of Education, not by the University Grants Committee nor by the Treasury. Despite the pay pause, in the autumn of 1961, in November, those two classes of professional workers received increases of no less than 16 per cent. and 20 per cent., respectively. This, of course, put them as to salaries in a very unusually favourable position compared with university teachers.

I do not want to weary the House with a lot of comparisons, but there are some things which must be said. A lecturer at this point—and up to the recent announcement it was still the case—had a maximum salary of £1,850 and a minimum salary of £1,050. A lecturer at a technical college began at £1,600, that is to say £550 a year more than that of the university lecturer, although not going up quite so far, in this grade, to £1,800 a year, on an increment of £40 a year. A senior lecturer, who frankly is not very much above the university lecturer, had his salary going up to £2,000 a year. The salary of the teacher training college lecturer begins at £1,170 and rises to £1,650. There is no doubt that this business of the relative rates of pay of civil servants, lecturers in technical colleges and teacher training colleges on the one hand and university lecturers on the other is causing a great deal of concern to university teachers. I put it like this. In the case of technical colleges, a man of 25 with a Ph.D. can expect to earn a salary of £1,600 on a job offered to him at a technical college. On the present scales, it would take him ten years to reach this salary in university teaching. I cannot believe that that is a logical or sensible relationship.

Perhaps an even more striking example is this. There is no significant difference today in the maximum salaries between a university teacher who, in the majority of cases, is of first-class honours standard—I do not think it will be denied that on the whole the university teachers are drawn from those with the best academic qualifications—and the executive officer of the Civil Service who has qualified with the necessary passes in his G.C.E. examination.

I have nothing against the executive officers. I have known many of them and worked with them as well, but I do not think that if we wish to encourage people to go through a long period of training in the universities—and we wish to give some encouragement to those with academic qualifications—it makes much sense to keep them at the level of executive officers in the Civil Service. The consequence of this, is a feeling of great frustration amongst university teachers. I will quote a few comments from their letters.

First, from a lecturer in Birmingham to the Association: After some 20 years' experience in schools and university, I now earn £1,800 per annum. A student in this Department (Education), aged 21, will take his first post as lecturer in a technical college next September at £1,600 per annum.

Another comment is from the Director of Studies of the Tait Institute of Mathematical Physics, University of Edinburgh: A final year Ph.D. student in this Department … has recently been applying for posts in universities and technical colleges. He has now decided to accept a lectureship in… a technical college on a salary scale of £1,225–£2,025 … in ten increments. He turned down the offer of a lectureship at…university on a salary scale of £1,050–£1,850 in 13 increments.

Perhaps more impressive still is a letter from Oxford about two research workers: One has the following background: B.Sc., Imperial Coll. 1954, Ph.D., Imperial Coll. 1957, 3 years post-doctoral work at Harvard, 2 years in Oxford. The other is aged 28, like the first, and took a B.Sc. at Belfast in 1955 and a Ph.D. in 1959 and has had two years at the University of Illinois and one year in Oxford since 1959. Both men are interested in academic work but have said that they cannot afford to accept lectureships at £1,050 plus to begin with…. Instead both are going to work for Du Pont in the U.S.A. at starting salaries of 11,500 dollars, or £4,100 per annum.

Another example showing the absurdity of the present situation is from a lecturer at the London School of Economics: My particular story is that when I joined the L.S.E. five years ago as an Assistant Lecturer in economic history I left a Technical College post in London and dropped in salary a little over £300 a year—expecting of course that in time this loss would be recovered. Since then I have been promoted to Lecturer but the man who took my Technical College post has also been promoted—as no doubt I would have been had I remained there—and the consequence is that the gap between his salary and mine is now of the order of £800 a year. His salary in fact is two-thirds as large again as mine, and he is teaching the identical subject in an identical course.

That does not make sense. I cannot imagine a Treasury Minister being able to find any satisfactory explanation of such a ridiculous situation.

It is not surprising that in these circumstances university staffs are angry and aggrieved. First, they look upon this business of being caught by the pay pause as a mean and petty way of handling their problems. It is mean and petty, particularly when we take into account that it was only their own moderation that delayed this claim, and we know that the Government have increased the salaries of comparable people in the technical colleges and teacher training colleges since the pay pause. Secondly, they are concerned not only about the problem of their relationship to these other grades, but also about the whole prospect now facing the universities.

A number of questions arise out of all this, which I think the Government ought to answer. The first relates to the pay pause itself. I appreciate the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I should like to put to him and to the Chief Secretary this question. The pay pause is supposed to be over in the strict sense of the word. We are now apparently in the second period, the interim period, and I ask the Government if it is really their view that in every single case where they control salaries and rates of pay they are going rigidly to refuse any increase in pay above 3 per cent. per annum, whatever the shortage that results, however much the universities are run down, however much the hospitals are deprived of adequate staff, however much Commissions may recommend increases, as they have done very substantially in a recent report on probation officers.

Are the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary saying, "No, you can only have 3 per cent. We are not interested "—because that is what they seem to be saying—" in your particular case. We do not mind what happens. It must still be 3 per cent." If that is the case, I must ask this question: how do they justify the pay increase to lecturers in training colleges and technical colleges? These increases, I repeat, occurred not during the interim post pay pause period but in the strict phase of the pay pause. Incidentally, how do they justify the increases in Army pay which have been announced recently, and which exceed the 3 per cent.?

The second question I want to ask is this: do the Government consider the present relationship between salary scales in the colleges of advanced technology and the teacher training colleges and in the Civil Service administrative grade and those in the universities as correct? The university teachers are entitled to an answer to that. Do the Government take their stand on the ground that they wish to raise the salaries of the civil servants higher in relation to university teachers, and, equally, the salaries of the teachers in the technical colleges and teacher training colleges? If they do, then I think that at least they ought to say so; they should tell the universities where they stand on this matter. If they do not stand by these differentials which is a very important change, I ask: how can they justify continuing with it?

My next question is this. In one case the salaries were determined by the Minister of Education and in the other case by the Treasury. What co-ordination exists between these two Departments? So far as the universities are concerned, although I think that for the most part they prefer to be under the University Grants Committee, they are rather beginning to wonder whether they would not have been better off even under the present Minister of Education. This may have a rather important consequence, with wider issues, such as the whole way in which the Government handle the universities.

Do the Government realise the effects of this upon the supply of university teachers? I have quoted, I think, enough examples to show how serious they may become.

That brings me to the second issue in this debate—the grants to universities. I should like to begin with the basic question: are we as a country at the moment expanding our universities fast enough? How do we stand in relation to other countries? I think that anyone who looks at the figures and facts available today cannot do anything but conclude that by almost any standard our position is profoundly unsatisfactory. I shall quote three separate assessments of the comparable position in different countries. The first is the well-known research carried out by U.N.E.S.C.O. in 1957, where it gave the approximate number of university students per million of the population. At the top of the list is the U.S.A., as we would expect, with 16,670. Very nearly at the bottom of the list is the United Kingdom, with Ireland, Turkey and Norway below and everyone else above, with 1,815. That is to say, in proportion to the population there were nearly ten times as many university students in America as there are in Britain. I will quote a number of other examples—Australia, 6,000: Canada. 4,550; France, 3,880; Egypt, 2,810; Denmark, 2,800; and even Portugal at 2,480 is well above our level.

It may be said that these are doubtful figures. I will give some more figures. There are the figures recently published by the German Advisory Council for Higher Education. Here it is the number of university students per 10,000 of population. They seem to me to be very much in line with the U.N.E.S.C.O. figures, though they are in every case, as one would expect, a little higher, because they are more recent figures. Per 10,000 of the population France scores 43.3; Austria 39.7; Sweden 39.4; Switzerland 36.2; Belgium 35.1; Italy 33.6; Germany 32.5; Holland 31.4; Denmark 29.7; Norway 21; and Britain at the bottom of the table 19.9.

I will tell the House about another estimate which has been made privately and which we have done our best to check. It is the other way round. It is the percentage of young people going to universities. In the United States it is 1 in 4; in Canada 1 in 9; in Australia 1 in 9; in France 1 in 10; in Russia 1 in 12; in West Germany 1 in 16; and in Britain 1 in 24.

Can anybody in the face of these figures, even when allowances are made for uncertainties in the statistics, deny that this is totally unsatisfactory? Right hon. Members opposite want us to enter the Common Market. What sort of competition shall we face when we have such a very bad record in university competition compared with the other members of the Common Market?

What is the Government's plan for dealing with this? It is proposed that the numbers should be increased from 110,000 now to 150,000 in 1966–67 and to 170,000 in 1973–74. Even assuming that these targets are reached, are they high enough? In effect, especially in the early years, they are intended to keep pace with the bulge in the education system arising from the high birth rate immediately after the war. To illustrate the significance of that, I would point out that the numbers of children in the appropriate age group will rise from 575,000 now to 856,000 in 1965. This is a very large increase.

What does this mean? Assuming that we reach this target, what does it mean as a percentage of the appropriate age group going to universities? These are the figures. From 4.1 per cent. in 1961–62 there is a small rise to 4.5 per cent. in the current year. There is then next year a fall to 3.8 per cent. Then there is a slight rise in 1972–73 to 6.3 per cent. and a further decline to 5.9 per cent. in 1973–74. Therefore, in the years of the bulge there is an actual decrease in the proportion of the appropriate age group going to universities; and after twelve years all we shall have done on the Government's plan, assuming that it is fulfilled, is to struggle up to where West Germany is today.

These figures assume that there is no increase in the proportion of the school population going into sixth forms and staying on at school longer. All that the figures do is to take account of the bulge, not of any progress or advance in education. But are we not striving all the time to increase the proportion of children going on to sixth forms? Is not this the job of the Minister of Education? I pay him the compliment of saying that I believe that he wants to do this. Are not teachers all the time anxious to have larger sixth forms, or more children doing this kind of work? Are not parents? Are we not trying to improve our standards in the schools all along? Are we not trying to offer greater opportunities to more children all the time?

What happens if that is taken into account, because it is happening? I am glad that it is happening. The Crowther Report estimated that the percentage of children in sixth forms would have risen from 10 per cent. to 13 per cent. in 1966. This assumes an increase of ½ per cent. per annum. I am told by a very good source, though I have not been able to check this, that in fact the rate of increase will be a good deal greater than that.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles) indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell

I see the Minister of Education nodding. I am told that it will be as high as 1½ per cent. cumulative per year. If that is the case, according to my calculations, it will mean that by 1967, even on the Crowther figures, there will not be 150,000 children waiting and able to go to universities—that is, even assuming that the target of 150,000 is reached. There will be 185,000. If it is 1½ per cent. cumulative, the figure will be vastly greater than that.

There is no escaping the conclusion that in the years of the bulge this will mean that a minimum of one-quarter, even as high as one-half, of the children in sixth forms who wish to go to universities, who are capable of going to universities and profiting from education there, will not find places in the universities. I beg the Government to consider the social consequences of this, apart from anything else.

It cannot be denied that the target itself is inadequate. We should be aiming at about 200,000 places in universities by at least the later 1960s. Even so, we should still be a long way behind many other industrial countries.

The question now is whether the target will be reached. Nobody believes that this is possible after the rejection of the University Grants Committee's proposals. The Government will say, as indeed their Amendment implies, "We are increasing the grants by 55 per cent. over a five-year period and the number of students will increase by only 35 per cent. Surely this must be all right. There is ample money there to take account of the demand".

That argument does not stand up to examination. First, the fact is that in terms of university finance, quite apart from any increase in the number of students, quite apart from any increase in the number of staff, quite apart from any change in the salary scales, movement up the salary scales increases the total expenditure on salaries automatically by about 2½ per cent. a year. Secondly, there is certain to be a rise in the incomes of the non-academic staffs. After all, this is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is planning for. I am not saying that there will be a very great rise—perhaps 2½ per cent. a year. This is to be expected.

Thirdly, we face the prospect of many new universities. I do not regret them. It is necessary that we should have new universities, though they present some awkward problems. There is no denying that they will cost, precisely because they are new, a good deal more per student than the older universities.

Fourthly, we want the percentage of science students to increase. Is not that part of the Government's policy? It so happens that the staff-student ratio in science, as we can well understand, is substantially higher than it is in other faculties.

Yet another reason for the doubts of the universities in this matter is that the Government are putting more work on the universities and unloading it from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Agricultural Research Council, and the Medical Research Council. I suppose that is the way the Chief Secretary hopes to save money on the Estimates—saving it at the expense of the efficiency of the universities.

Perhaps the most convincing figures here are these. It is worth comparing what the universities are faced with now with what they have had in the last few years. Last year, the increase in the number of students was 4,000 and the grant increase was £4 million. In the next five years they are expected to increase the number of their students, on an average, by 8,000 a year, but the grant increase is not £8 million but £5½ million a year.

In the light of that, it is not surprising that the universities feel rather strongly on the matter, and when the Chief Secretary says in his statement that '… it is the Government's wish that the additional funds should be applied as far as possible to achieving the figure of 150,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 166.)

there is a certain amount of hoarse laughter from the universities. Indeed, their reaction has been a most extraordinarily violent one from people not accustomed to getting very excited about these matters. It is not only the universities; the British Medical Association has also issued a statement indicating its deep concern about the salaries of medical teachers.

But the most impressive statement of all out of the many that have been issued and out of the resolutions that we have seen in the newspapers has been that of no less a body than the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 27th March. This seems to me to crystalise the attitude of the leaders of the universities. What do they say? They say that they are … profoundly disturbed by the Government's announcement about the resources to be made available to universities during the coming quinquennium

They say that they feel bound to state their opinion that the target of 150,000 … could not be reached by the date specified with the limited provision which the Government proposed to make.

They go on to say: Moreover, if universities were to disregard their other obligations in an attempt to come as near as possible to this target the inevitable consequence would be a wholly unacceptable deterioration of standards, not only in staff-student ratios and research but also in academic and residential accommodation.

The Committee goes on to make three fundamental points. First, it says: From the Government's statement it emerges that no adjustment of the non-recurring grants "—

that is, the capital grants: previously announced is contemplated to compensate for the rise in costs which has occurred since they were first announced. Even if those grants were originally sufficiently large to enable the desired objective to be achieved, they cannot now cover the cost of the necessary buildings at current prices and therefore the buildings programme to increase the number of places to 150,000 cannot be completed by 1966–67.

The second point is: An aggregate increase of 3 per cent. in the bill for academic salaries is entirely unrealistic, and the increase, no matter how distributed, will not enable universities to retain and recruit the academic staff required for the proposed expansion "—

I hope that the Government will note this: nor can it be supposed that the promise of a review next year will enable lost ground to be recovered.

Do not let the Government imagine that their usual tactics of holding everything back until a General Election is imminent and then showing the green light will really satisfy the universities.

Finally, the Committee states: It is … abundantly clear that the grants for the first years of the quinquennium will scarcely cover the increasing costs of existing commitments. …

That is the statement of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Who are those people? They are not notably grasping sectional leaders. One could hardly find a body of men with a higher sense of public duty or, indeed, with a higher general level of intelligence. They are devoted to education. They are deeply concerned about the need for expanding university education. I think that nobody will deny that they are men of integrity and wisdom. They are not irresponsible, nor would they have put out a statement in those strong terms if they had not felt very passionately that they had to do it. Yet to those people the Government now say, "You need more money, for expansion. You cannot have it—but you must expand all the same."

I can only describe what the Government are doing in this matter as discreditable in substance, dishonourable in presentation, and deplorable in its consequences. It would at least have been a somewhat redeeming feature of the whole thing if the Government had come clean and said. "We cannot and we will not reach even this inadequate target"; if they had said. "Sorry, the rate of expansion must be cut. We do not attach so much importance to university expansion after all."

One thing I do ask is that at least the Government, in view of this most unusual situation that has developed between them and the universities, should now publish the recommendations and Report of the University Grants Committee so that we may know what it recommended. Again, I emphasise that the University Grants Committee, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any Treasury Minister will agree, is a highly responsible body. It has never before had its proposals rejected. It acts on behalf of the Treasury in dealing with the universities. Everything that the universities put up is first of all screened and cut down by that Committee. Are we really to suppose that it has no idea of the financial position of the country? Do we really think that it did not take that into account in presenting its estimates of what was necessary?

We had better realise the effect of all this. Either entry is to be cut back, in which case not only will there be those numbers of frustrated sixth formers which I mentioned earlier would exist even if the target were reached—and there will be a lot more as well—or there will be a general downgrading of quality, both in teachers and in teaching. There will be a further loss of staff, and a vicious circle of worse conditions making it harder to recruit adequate staffs.

Or, if it is said by the Government, as it may be, "We cannot afford so much research; they will have to do more teaching and less research," I ask is that the way to keep our people here? Is that the way to try to persuade them not to go to the United States, which is always offering them very attractive prospects and salaries? Is that really the best this country can do in 1962? Are we really in such a bad way, is our economy in such a mess, that we cannot even plan for this limited target and pay university teachers enough to keep an adequate supply of them?

Brains and skill are the nation's chief assets; we have not much else. What was it that Aneurin Bevan used to say of this country? He said that it was an island with coal underneath and fish all round and that was about all. The coal industry is getting more efficient every day, but it alone certainly cannot solve our problems. As a nation that lives by importing raw materials, manufacturing them and selling them again, it must be obvious that this is our main material, and it is simply foolish not to make the very most of it we can. All our prospects of higher productivity and higher prosperity depend on this. I should have thought that everyone was really agreed on that.

I know that the Government will plead the pay pause and speak of their economic difficulties in recent months. Let us assume that that is so. I have never denied the case for restraint in incomes—of course I have not—but I do say that people will accept a rational argument both for restraint and for economy if they believe that restraint to be fair and sensible. What they will not accept is a rigid, unimaginative attitude masquerading as strength. What they will not accept is a policy which they believe, however attractive it may appear to Treasury Ministers in the short run, is likely to be thoroughly bad for the nation in the long run. To quote the famous words, what these people will not support is "A formula for national decline."

That is what the Government offer them. I beg the Government to think again. This is not a matter for next month or for the next election. Let the Government face up to their responsibilities for the future of the nation—for nothing less than that is involved—or make way for those who will.

7.50 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: while approving the decision to authorise increases in university teaching salaries in accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper on Incomes Policy (Command No. 1626), welcomes the proposed 55 per cent. expansion in the recurrent grants from the Exchequer to the Universities, and hopes that these substantial additional funds will be applied towards the objective of increasing the number of student places from 110,000 to 150,000 by 1966. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoted figures purporting to show that other countries are giving a university education to a much higher proportion of the young men and women of what one might call the relevant age group than we are. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, it is more than thirty years since I held a teaching post in a university, but I still believe that when drawing conclusions from comparative figures one must be scrupulously careful to make sure that one is comparing like with like.

In this case, for example, one has to look at the content of the education. A good deal of work done in sixth forms in this country will be done in colleges ranking as universities in some other countries. One has to look also at the teaching methods and teaching facilities. One has to look at the proportions of students in residence and at the standards of entry. The fundamental fallacy of the comparative figures that are often quoted is that they are based on university entrants, whereas what matters to a country's future is not the number who start but the number who complete the course. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman, in his concern for the country, will not argue that it should count to a country's credit to have numbers of failed B.A.s.

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has read a book called The Universities of Europe, by Mr. Anthony Kerr. It is a very interesting and up-to-date book. On the continental universities, the writer says: They allow almost anybody one year, then weed out most of their freshmen at their first-year examinations. Of France, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, he says: A large number of possibles are weeded out by the second baccalaureat examination. This leave the probables who ought to get through; but a lot don't because they have chosen overcrowded faculties in which teaching arrangements are chaotic. This is what the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to emulate—

Mr. Gaitskell

Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I ask him two questions? Is he suggesting that the universities here do no weeding out in the course of students careers? If so, he had better inquire. Secondly, would he give what he regards as the correct figures of comparison, since he challenged the three series that I quoted and has yet produced no alternative?

Mr. Brooke

I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman and I should like to leave sufficient time for other hon. Members to speak. Of course, I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figure for which he asks. The total number of people who fall by the wayside for any cause whatever in this country is 14 per cent.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Belgium. Of Belgium, this book says: 71 per cent. fail in their first year at Louvain, 68 per cent. at Brussels. It goes on to say: The Louvain failure rate may be slightly higher because of the social standing of the university, which has, in the absence of competitive entry, two unfortunate effects:—(a) more young men, not really qualified for university work, go there simply because it's done: (b) more girls go there simply to meet them. We have a different idea here of universities.

The true comparative test is what percentage of the whole relevant age group of the population succeeds in graduating. In Britain, during recent years that has been between 3½ per cent. and 4½ per cent. In France, it has been 3⅓ per cent.; in Germany, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it has been 2½ per cent., and in Holland it has been 1½ per cent. One reason for Britain's very low rate of failure to complete the university course is the high ratio of staff to students for which we budget, and for which we intend to go on budgeting. In France, it is 1 staff to 16 students in medicine, 1 to 20 in science, and 1 to 60 in the humanities. In Britain, it is rather better than 1 to 11 overall.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those figures for the Continent include the technical universities, which correspond very largely to the engineering faculties in our own universities?

Mr. Brooke

The figures which I gave were for the Universities of Louvain and Brussels.

I want to come on to the question of salaries, on which the right hon. Gentleman spent much of his time. I agree that university teaching staff have been less generously treated than teachers in primary and secondary schools during the last twelve months. This came about entirely because the university staffs do not come within the purview of the Burnham Committee. No one has ever urged that they should. Indeed, there is no reason at all why the salaries of professors should be in any particular way related to the salaries in primary schools. There is a much closer relationship between the universities and colleges of advanced technology—the C.A.T.s. Hitherto, the proportion of vacant posts in the C.A.T.s has been high.

In the universities the proportion of vacant posts has been low. The 17 per cent. rise in salary in the C.A.T.s from 1st January this year should make posts as lecturers there very much more attractive, though, of course—and this applies to some of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted—the colleges of advanced technology do not offer nearly as good career prospects as universities.

The Government, in this case, had to choose either to fix a rate of salary increase that would conform with incomes policy, or alternatively to authorise higher increases in which case the Government would seem to be dishonouring their own incomes policy right from the start. The Government decided on the former course. They decided on that because the incomes policy is of overriding importance for national expansion and development; and without that the universities themselves could not develop as they should. Surely the universities have suffered as much as anyone from the erosion in the value of their income resulting from inflation in the past. The Government do not believe that recruiting or staff numbers in the universities will suffer; but, in any event, we have promised to take a fresh look at salaries next year in the light of all the circumstances then.

Of course, high academic attainment should be properly paid, but university salaries will never compete with those in industry either here or in America. Yet many people prefer university life to much greater affluence in an industrial appointment. Indeed, the more intelligent one is, the less likely one is to act like Economic Man. Most hon. Members come into this House not because they think there is money in it, but because it is the job that they think they would like to do.

Some of the comparisons suggested for fixing university salaries are quite invalid. There is no relationship between the job of a lecturer in a university and the job of a principal in the Civil Service. In any case, in recent years the recruitment to the higher ranks of the Civil Service has been feeling the competition of the attraction of a university appointment, rather than vice versa, which deals with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We certainly intend to carry out the expansion of the universities and to provide for proper staffing in quantity and quality.

In the year before the war. the overall ratio of staff to students in British universities was 1 to 11.9. Now it has improved to 1 to 10.7. As I said, it is a much better ratio than is the normal practice in universities abroad. In this field the real test whether or not salaries are at the right level must be whether that scale attracts and retains the right numbers and quality of staff.

There is nothing exactly like university work. Therefore, one cannot arrive at the right figures for salaries simply and solely by external comparisons. One of the things to be taken into account in next year's review will be whether staff numbers are rising appropriately to meet the expansion in student numbers. They have certainly done so in the last few years. University teaching staffs have, in fact, recently been increasing rather faster than student numbers. Since 1958, the number of students has gone up by 11 per cent.; the number of teaching staff by 16 per cent.

Ten years ago the number of university students in Britain was 83,000. Five years ago it was 90,000, and at that time it was expected to reach 102,000 by now. The Government, the University Grants Committee, and the Universities have bettered that figure of 102,000 by a long way. The actual figure today is not 102,000, but over 111,000. How does the right hon. Gentleman square his allegations of Government indifference to the universities with that fact?

The war ended seventeen years ago, so in the next quinquennium our first and foremost duty is to provide extra university places to match the bulge in numbers consequent on the high birth rate immediately after the end of the war. The figures that I wish to give to the House now are fundamental to an understanding of the problem which faces the country and faces us all. The number of young men and women of university entrance age in 1961 was 683,000. The bulge affects the numbers from now on, and the peak of the bulge is reached in 1966 with a figure of 916,000. Then, after 1966 and 1967 it falls away rapidly. In 1970, it is down to 722,000 against a peak of 916,000. In 1973, it is estimated that it will be 731,000. In other words, we face an increase of 35 per cent. in five years, and then a drop.

In those circumstances, what is the right course for the Government and the universities to follow? Is it to go steadily for higher standards and not worry overmuch about meeting the needs of a generation who were caught up in the bulge? Or, alternatively, is it to make a great effort to increase student places by 35 per cent. in five years, even if it means some crowding and some postponement of higher standards until the peak of the bulge has passed? The Government's hope is that the universities will go for the latter course, and that they will use their largely increased grants towards the objective of increasing student places by 35 per cent. in five years.

This is an unprecedented rate of increase. During the last five years it has been 21,000. During the next five years we are hoping for 39,000. No one from the university side has ever suggested that the universities could be expanded significantly faster than this, and that is the answer to those who think that between now and 1967 we ought to be planning to expand these places to provide for what is called the trend as well as the bulge.

If the universities can match with student places this abnormal rise of 35 per cent. over five years in the age group concerned, we shall be entitled to say that no one has had a reduced chance of getting to a university through being born in the top year of the bulge. Over and above that, one must take into account that there will be by that time at least 6,000 more places in the colleges of advanced technology than there are now, and over 20,000 more places in teacher training colleges than there are now.

The opportunities for higher education in this country today are better than they have ever been before, and the figures that I have given prove that five years hence, the most difficult time of all, when we are at the peak of the bulge, the opportunities of higher education for each young man and woman should be significantly greater than today. It will be a great British achievement, and it is from 1967 onwards that we can start again to give each young man or woman a better chance not only of higher education—we shall certainly do that—but of university education.

From that date onwards the number in each annual age group falls sharply, but we are planning for a continuing increase in university places. Under our plans now, and up to 1966–67, a steady 4.6 per cent. each year of a rapidly increasing number of people of university entry age should be able to get to a university. As the university expansion proceeds onwards to 170,000 in 1973–74, the proportion should rise to 6.4 per cent.

This is a country of very high university standards, and if we can achieve that it will be a striking tribute to the universities, to the University Grants Committee, and to the Government, for we shall have doubled our university population within twenty years.

A mistake which I have noticed in a number of letters to the Press and otherwise in the last few weeks—it may have occurred in some of the letters which the right hon. Gentleman has received—is to suppose that the Government's new announcement last month had something to do with building programmes. There is an entirely groundless allegation that the Government are asking the universities to take in more students and then making that impossible by cutting back the building grants.

I made no new announcement last month about building grants. They were announced last year when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised a programme of building starts in the next four years totalling between £100 million and £110 million. These figures, I know, are difficult for us all to grasp, but £100 million would be enough to build two new towns for 50,000 people each, with all the houses and buildings and main services. This gives an idea of the magnitude of the university building programme which my right hon. and learned Friend authorised last year.

It compares with £64 million worth of building work started in the last five years, so there is an increase of more than 50 per cent. This figure of £100 million to £110 million excludes expenditure on medical schools. It excludes the expenditure on the great Imperial College development. It excludes all the cost of the land, professional fees, equipment, and furniture for the new buildings. All that is extra. Much of this equipment is exceedingly expensive. For special needs additional grants can be authorised. Last year, for instance, right outside all other grants, a £2 million programme for the installation of computers in universities was authorised

Taking all those together, the non-recurrent grant of about £28 million in the present university year will rise to over £40 million in 1966–67. The building programme is very important indeed to expansion. I know that there is some anxiety in the universities about whether the value of this huge programme will be eroded by increases in building costs. I have informed the University Grants Committee that if further increases in building costs take place the Government will sympathetically consider increasing the building programme figures. But, of course, the main purpose of the Government's policy on the incomes side is to put a stop to the increases in costs which have hit the universities so hard in the past.

Now I come to the recurrent grant. In 1951–52—ten years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer—the recurrent grant to the universities was £17 million. In 1956–57. it was £28 million. The Government announced at that time that it would be increased in the fifth year—1961–62—to £39½ million. The universities have done much better than the target of 102,000 students by 1961–62. They have raised the number to 111,400. The recurrent grant for this academic years actually £49½ million, excluding local rates of £1½ million. For the next five years, the Government are making additional money available on a far larger scale. The £49½ million for this year is to be increased to £76½ million in 1966–67.

I noticed that The Times described this rate increase as "thoroughly disappointing". One needs to remember that the outlook and attitude of The Times vacillates. In a leading article five years ago it described the prospective rise from £28 million in 1956–57 to £39½ million in 1961–62 as "a vast increase." Therefore, £11½ million is "a vast increase", and £27 million is "thoroughly disappointing". Queer.

In the first year of the new quinquennium starting on 1st August, 1962, the increase will be from £49½ million to £56 million—£6½ million, not £5½ million, as the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently mentioned. That will be an increase of over 13 per cent., whereas the increase this year in the age group seeking entry to a university is not 13 per cent., but about 4½ per cent. Looking five years ahead, the Government's desire is that the universities should use these vastly increased resources to plan for student numbers of 150,000 by 1966–67, if possible. On the basis of 35 per cent. more students, the increase of 55 per cent. in the grant will increase the grant per student by 15 per cent., and, of course, it will be adjusted upwards for any increase in academic salaries over that period. That is always done.

It is quite true that the University Grants Committee would have liked the Government to provide a bit more, but these are massive figures on any reckoning. The Government always take the University Grants Committee's advice as to the allocation of the total Exchequer grants between different universities, but it must be for the Government, and the Government alone, in the light of all competing claims, to decide how much can be provided globally for university education.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will concede that, in the last resort, it is for the House to decide. The House is in charge of our finances. Would he tell us what the recommendations of the University Grants Committee were?

Mr. Brooke

The relationship between the University Grants Committee and successive Governments of different parties has continued over a long period, and it has always been accepted by the House that the recommendations of the University Grants Committee are not disclosed. Apart from that, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's correction.

The fact that the Government must decide what figures to recommend to Parliament is no discredit to the University Grants Committee. Indeed, the devoted work of that Committee has been absolutely essential to the relationship between the Government and the universities. It has preserved university freedom in a way which other nations envy. But, as I have said in every debate on the right management of public expenditure, to govern is to have the courage to stand up to those who argue for embarking on everything that is desirable in all directions all at once, because that way, inevitably, lies overstrain, inflation and national disaster.

Any authoritative body, expert in its own particular field, as the University Grants Committee of course is, would be likely at this time to recommend the Government to spend rather more, if possible, whether it was advising on the Navy, the Army, or the Royal Air Force, on roads, or hospitals, or scientific research, or overseas aid, or What you will. It is the Government alone who must carry the responsibility of recommending to Parliament how far one can go in each direction, so as to get our not unlimited resources used to the very best national advantage.

Total public expenditure on university education is not, of curse, confined to the recurrent grant. It includes non-recurrent grants for building and capital development, and also the awards to students from central and local funds. Five years ago, those in total added up to £50 million a year. Today, they are over £100 million, and in five years' time the figure will be about £155 million. I know of no major service growing faster than this, and these figures prove the outstandingly high priority which the Government give to university expansion.

The Government's whole desire is that the rise in the number of university places over the next five years shall match the swift rise in the university entry age group, and we are prepared for public expenditure amounting to £1,000 per student per annum to bring that about. The one question, I grant, is whether the new salary scales will attract and retain teaching staff in sufficient numbers. I think that they will, but that 3 per cent. increase in the salary bill has been fixed in accordance with national considerations which extend beyond the position of the universities alone, and that is why we intend to review the scales next year, as I have said.

Meanwhile, it is not for the Government to say just how the money which the 3 per cent. increase represents should be spread over the various grades in the universities so as to produce the best results. The University Grants Committee has just recommended, and the Government are prepared to accept its recommendation, that the increase should be concentrated on lecturers and assistant lecturers. When we receive the report of the Robbins Committee, we shall be re-examining the whole field of higher education in the light of whatever it may say—not only the universities, but technological establishments and teacher-training as well. In any event, Robbins Committee or no Robbins Committee, I am sure that it would be right to make a further review of the university financial situation in say, two years' time, in the light of how the University Grants Committee thought then that the expansion was going forward, how prices, and so forth, were moving, and how the long-term economic outlook has developed.

Meanwhile, the fact remains unchallenged and unchallengeable that the increased grants to the universities which I announced the other day are of unprecedented size, and if it were not for the national reasons of incomes policy which obliged us to authorise no more than a 3 per cent. addition to the salary bill, I believe that it would be recognised by everybody that, even at a time of stringency, the Government were prepared to treat the universities with a generosity never paralleled before in our history.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

The real question to be discussed in this debate is the attitude of the Government to the future of the universities and their relationship with the University Grants Committee. Those of us who know him understand that the Chief Secretary has an interest in the universities. Unfortunately, it is not only to this side of the House, but also to the vice-chancellors, the university teachers and, indeed, the University Grants Committee itself that he has given the impression that he neither understands the present situation of the universities nor the prospects before them. I will comment at this moment on only two matters in his speech.

First of all, the crux of the university problem is in the plight of the lecturers and others on whom the Government have imposed a pay pause, or whatever it may be called. This has led to the widest and deepest dissatisfaction in the universities. Secondly, when he said that the whole thing is to be reviewed in two years, this is an example of the very attitude of mind of which the universities complain, because they want to know what the Government's long-term policy for them is. While it is bad enough with a quinquennial review policy, one cannot run a university with a biennial policy, putting up and putting down grants and pay. It is impossible.

I have a vested interest to declare, because I am Rector of the University of Edinburgh. But, even if I were not a rector, I would still regard the universities as the crown of our educational system. They are vital to this country, because first of all this country depends on the skill of its people to a greater extent than ever before and the universities have to play a leading part in training that skill, and, even more important, because the universities are the determining factor of the quality of life in this country.

Again, when the Chief Secretary speaks of the numbers going into the universities, I dissent from his view that it is only the very clever who need to go to university so that they may be turned into machines through specialist courses for doing some particular job. This has never been the attitude of the rich in this country. They have never felt it was only the clever who deserved a university education, and I could not accept that it is. Further, it has not been mentioned in this debate that one of the great opportunities which Britain has just now is to offer advanced education to the peoples of the Commonwealth and other countries in our unrivalled universities.

Lastly, if I may say a word for Scotland, for more than 200 years the genius of the Scottish people has been expressed in its Church, its law and its universities. When the Chief Secretary has the time I recommend him to read a book called The Democratic Intellect by Mr. Davey. It is a most interesting account of the relationship of universities to the community.

Against that background, what are the Government doing for the universities today? There are 110,000 university students. With the Principal of Edinburgh I shook hands with some 900 of the new intake to Edinburgh last year. And they are the lucky ones. There are hundreds and hundreds of boys and girls in this country who ought to be going to universities and who are not going there now, let alone what will happen in the next few years. These new students are full of enthusiasm and eagerness, but few of them have been very far away from home for long periods. They go to cities like Edinburgh and have to find places to live. They find insufficient library accommodation even today. They find insufficient books. And they need guidance. The Chief Secretary mentioned that the failure rate in the universities is around 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. That is true. The tragic thing is that 15 per cent. of those now entering the university will not complete their course, and the reason why they will not complete their courses is not because many of them are not up to university standard, but because half of them do not know what a university is about. They do not know what to read. They do not get sufficient guidance.

I think that Edinburgh does a remarkable and wonderful job considering the expansion which it has already gone through. Now the Government come forward and say, "We expect the universities to take in another 40,000"—and of that 10,000 are to go to the Scottish universities alone—" in five years, and after that a further 20,000".

I was brought up in St. Andrews. When I was a boy it was true of St. Andrews, as Mr. Belloc wrote of Oxford: that the professors were great figures that Sailed in amply billowing gown Enormous through the sacred town. They were ranked well above earls or knights or other aristocrats, and only just below reigning golf champions. They had prestige; they ruled the university. But it was a small university.

Now the professors are taken up with every form of administration. The universities have expanded, and the expansion has laid ever-greater weight on the lecturers and the non-professorial staff. These are the very people in the universities who feel most aggrieved. If I may again recommend still further reading to the Chief Secretary, let him acquaint himself again with "Lucky Jim" and its account of the feelings of university staffs. I would just quote this from a university professor: I am one professor with 20 non-professors under me on the permanent staff, not to mention 30 or so other research fellows, students, etc., 40 technicians, librarians, secretaries, etc. This is unbearable for me and my staff. One thing we have got to do, if we are to expand the universities, is to follow what happens in America and create multiple-senior posts, but it is going to cost money. Then the Chief Secretary spoke of the ratio of the students to the college staff. Figures of these are extremely misleading. I think he is right in saying that over-all it is about one to eleven or so. But who does it include?—the medical staff, in the infirmary, for instance? My information is, bearing in mind that the university covers every range of subjects from Sanskrit to dermatology, the ratio of students to senior staff is no better than it is in grammar schools, and probably much worse than it is in the public schools. This is the situation we have to face if we are going to expand the universities.

Mr. Brooke

In the medical schools, the ratio of staff to students is one to 7.4.

Mr. Grimond

But who does it include? Who are the medical personnel? Does it include them. I wonder?

We have all received, of course, the official protests of the various societies. But what concerns me is the number of individual protests one gets. I will just quote one or two It is difficult to convey adequately the sense of despondency and frustration which hangs over this university. As has been said, it is not that all the people who are complaining are aggrieved simply because their salaries are too low. They are aggrieved by the whole attitude of the Government. They are aggrieved at the lack of facilities with which they have to do their work. They are aggrieved at the Government's decision to curtail university development by refusing the necessary finance in a way which our universities have not before experienced.

If I heard him aright, the Chief Secretary said that, in spite of this, there would be no difficulty in getting or retaining university staff. I have not one correspondent who has not emphasised the point that it is now extremely difficult to hold staff let alone get more. I quote again: What is quite clear, however, is the almost certain effect of this derisory increase in academic salaries. Unless something is done quickly to make them more attractive, it will be very difficult even to retain the existing staff and the recruitment of extra properly qualified staff to cope with the proposed expansion of student numbers will be impossible. I have another letter from a professor who points out that he is losing one of his staff who was earning £800 a year as an assistant lecturer who is going to a college of advanced technology at £1,600. Comparisons with technical colleges and the Civil Service are perfectly valid and, from the academic point of view, the position is quite indefensible. I would really ask the Chief Secretary to listen to this from a professor in a modern British university. This is what he is compelled to do: I have had to adopt all kinds of subterfuges here to provide research facilities such as providing simple statistical equipment and running a seminar programme for graduates and under-graduates with outside speakers who need expenses paid, providing even a small amount of research assistance so that some of the routine work can be reduced. I have done this, in collaboration with others, by doing the odd bit of consultancy work and writing the odd article and having the proceeds paid over the Department instead of to me. That is what has to be done in a university in Britain today. Professors have to scrounge for money to make it possible to carry on. No wonder there are difficulties in getting staff. It is not only America but Commonwealth countries who snap up our best people even before they have taken degrees, and they will take more as the years go by. The Government hope that they will get this increase in quantity, with no reduction in quality—a hope which is shared by no one in the university world. If the Government base their hopes for an increase on quantity alone, they must recognise that the quality, which is already strained in the universities, will fall.

The Chief Secretary says, "But look at the vast increase: 55 per cent." That may be so. but I urge hon. Members to look at the figure more carefully. In recent years the University of Edinburgh has had increases totalling about £100,000 per year, but only £30,000 of this has proved to be available for new academic developments, because the rest has been absorbed in rising prices and costs. The figure given by the Government does not mean that we shall get an increase of 12 per cent. rising to 50 or 55 per cent. We shall, in fact, get an increase of 7 to 8 per cent. for the first year, 4 to 5 per cent. thereafter, rising to a total of 30 per cent. The whole point is that this is not sufficient to take in the number of new students for whom it is necessary to cater.

In addition, there is a grave need to look at the system of degrees. I realise that the Government will say that they are awaiting the Robbins Committee. But there is already an obvious demand for most of the courses to be 4-year courses and for an intermediate degree to be taken by students before they go on for specialist degrees. All this will cost money. The Government may have some economies in mind, and I realise that some people have suggested that the universities should cut down on research. If that were done the universities would be finally killed, because research and teaching go together and, as the Guardian wrote today, if one wants them to encourage interest and curiosity in the minds of students one must allow the senior staff some time off in which to do research work. Others have suggested the use of buildings on a sort of shift system. That might prove, though I am not sure, a temporary expedient, but as a long-term proposal it just will not do.

I urge the Government not to be under any misapprehension about the feeling on this. It is not some wicked plot conjured up by those villainous people, the "faceless Liberals" or a Poujadist dream. It represents widespread disatisfaction and protest against the lack of a policy. It is not a protest against a policy of restraint over salaries. It is a protest against the lack of policy over profits, salaries and wages. It is a protest against the pay pause and its unfairness. It is a protest against the treatment of the universities compared with the technical colleges the Civil Service and other bodies stronger than the university teachers.

We detected in the Chief Secretary's speech an undertone showing that the Government are only too ready to take advantage of the dedication and goodwill or people such as teachers, nurses, and so on as an excuse for putting off their reasonable rewards. It is a protest against the present priorities and against the apparent view that the facilities offered in universities not only to the senior staff but to the students are adequate.

At the root, there is a protest too against the whole form of society which offers enormous rewards to speculation and gambling but which penalises those who have learned their businesses and professions and have gone into dedicated work such as teaching.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. R. P. Hornby (Tonbridge)

There are, I think, four main points to be dealt with apart from the wider matters raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The first is numbers, the second standards, the third concerns money—which affects both—and the fourth is the relationship between the universities, the Government and the House of Commons. I shall say a few words about each of those four.

First, numbers. There is a very widely held view that a massive increase in the university population is vital to our future, both to the quality of our living and to the day-to-day business of earning our living. It is less widely recognised how great the present expansion is. I shall not go over the figures again in detail, but they show that it is very big: 89,000 five years ago; 111,000 now; 150,000 planned for five years' hence; and 170,000 planned for five years beyond that.

I make one point about numbers. I believe that the 150,000 represents, probably, the absolute maximum—I believe that the universities would take this view—that we are likely to be able to attain by 1966, assuming financial resources can be provided. I believe that 170,000 in 1970 will be possible, although, in my view, we should be aiming higher than that. I do not think that it will be possible, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to think in terms of anything like 200,000 by the late 1960s. I do not believe that the universities themselves would for one moment accept such a figure, although, as I say, I do accept figures of that order for 1970 or 1972 or round about that time.

We should add in our figures the number of those going into other forms of higher education, notably teacher training colleges, where the number of places is being doubled, and the colleges of advanced technology, where an extra 6,000 or so are being provided in this quinquennium.

Now, standards. Obviously, these are linked with the problem of numbers. Is 150,000 by 1966 too fast or too slow? The tenor of the debate has been to say, "Too slow". The evidence, so far as we can gather it from the University Grants Committee—this is a difficulty to which I shall refer later—seems to be that, if anything, it is too fast. In an article in The Times of 3rd April an attempt was made to piece together the evidence leading up to the present situation. Five years ago, according to that article, the U.G.C. said that 124,000 places would be needed by the mid-1960s and 135,000 by 1970.

This figure was subsequently revised in 1960, according to the article, to 170,000 or 175,000 by the early 1970s, but with no suggestion that the figure for the mid-1960s could, so far as I can interpret the article, be anything remotely above the sort of figure we have in mind in this debate.

It seems to me that 150,000 for the mid-1960s, if standards are to be preserved, represents about the maximum in the first five years, financial resources permitting. I am glad that standards and not only numbers are emphasised again and again, not least in the letter which I and, I expect, other hon. Members received today from the Association of University Teachers, which says: We urge the universities of this country not to accept more students than they consider can be properly taught within the limitations of finance and staff which have been or may be announced. We must link the two together.

In considering standards and numbers and the timing of the operation, I draw attention to what Crowther said in another context. Crowther, looking at his problem, wanted to see a larger number and a raising of the school-leaving age. Because he wanted that, he did not say, "Let us do everything now", but he said, "We think that the best date for making the big move ahead in time is 1968". In other words, he looked five years ahead, although he wanted it now. His view was that we must choose the best moment for making the change.

If we look at the criticism that we are not providing places at the universities for a greater proportion of the school leavers, the same problem arises. We want a greater proportion of the number of school-leavers to go to universities. The question is: when can this be done? Can we increase the proportion and also cope with the population bulge between now and 1966? It is from that problem that emerge the static figures concerning proportions of the population going to universities quoted by the Leader of the Opposition and admitted from this side of the House, namely, 4.5 per cent. now, the same percentage up to 1966, but a jump to 6.5 or thereabouts on the 1970 figures: figures which I should like to see increased. We must relate the two problems.

Thirdly, I turn to the question of money—money as affecting salaries and money as affecting grants. First, on salaries. While admitting straight away that the 3 per cent. award is a very severe one, I remain an unrepentant defender of the pay pause. I can think of no other group of people which stands to gain more by the success of such a policy than university teachers. The Leader of the Liberal Party described the pay pause as an expedient. It is precisely because up to now there has been no attempt to create a pause in which to get massive national support from different bodies of opinion—employers, unions, the Government and others—around which could be evolved an incomes policy that university salaries have sagged and lagged behind those paid in many other types of employment. The same goes for nurses and for people in many other categories.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the same does not apply to the salaries of technical college teachers?

Mr. Hornby

In addition to trying to get a policy adopted which can totally change the position of public employees and people doing jobs which cannot be measured by productivity, we must consider immediate recruitment problems. The simple fact is that the immediate teacher recruitment problems in schools and in the technical colleges during the period of the pay pause were of a different order from the recruitment problems in the universities.

I do not say that, if only 3 per cent. could ever be allowed for university teachers, that situation would necessarily continue, and a serious recruitment problem could not arise. I have never regarded the pay pause by itself as a permanent solution. I have regarded it as a jumping-off ground from which a sane incomes policy could be evolved. It is in that sense that I hope hon. Members on both sides and those in the universities will view it.

I should like to make a point which has been made before, namely, that it is not salaries about which the universities are mainly concerned. Their main concern is the grants, and I should like to say a word or two on those. Our problem is that we do not know what took place between the University Grants Committee and the Treasury. We do not know what the Committee asked for and we do not know what the gap is. We do know, however, that the university world, or a very large proportion of it, seems to be seriously concerned about this matter, and that in itself should concern us.

It is true that the University Grants Committee has dissented from the Treasury award, I think for the first time; that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors is on record as being extremely perturbed about it, and that individual members of university staffs have gone into print and written to Members of Parliament about it. Valuing, as we do, the place of university education in our society, this matter should concern us seriously. We know some of the problems which concern the universities and that they are carrying forward into the next quinquennium various liabilities which have not yet been discharged and which, they suggest, have not been sufficiently allowed for.

We know that they feel that equipment in many cases is being run down and research work is being held up. I could quote many other examples. These are perturbing things. I heard with interest what the Chief Secretary said about his willingness to look again in two years' time at some of these problems. I hope it represents his view to say that these points need serious reinvestigation in relation to grants, and that this re-examination should be made as early as possible.

This brings me to the question of the relationship between Government and universities. This controversy arises because the confidential arrangements between the University Grants Committee and the Treasury have broken down, on the face of it: or. at least, have not resulted in agreement. This poses serious problems which should be looked at and which will, presumably, come to the surface when the Robbins Committee reports.

The universities, vital to us, are in financial terms 75 per cent. dependent upon Government grant. This is a very big figure indeed. When problems arise, the House is asked for its opinion and is asked to vote the money concerned. Do we do it totally on a blank cheque arrangement when there is a dispute in being, or should we know more about what we are being asked to sign? In the future relationship between the House, the Government and universities, as the proportion of Government money grows and the sheer quantity of it grows, while wanting, as we do, to find proper machinery to preserve the fullest possible academic freedom, it will be necessary to know more about the arrangements and the facts and figures than we know at present.

We simply do not know, on the present issue, whether the Treasury is questioning the accountancy of the University Grants Committee, or taking a different view of the priorities for universities in Government expenditure. I do not think that the people at the Treasury are the right people to handle this problem. The time has come when someone else, be it the Minister for Science or the Minister of Education, has to take upon himself the job of being the political spokesman for this vital area of public expenditure and make his case as the spokesman for that area of education and of the national life to the Treasury which would then have the problem of examining the priorities between that Department and other Departments.

I ask the House, in concerning itself and showing its proper anxiety on this subject, to remember that we are in the middle of a period of very rapid expansion and that the forward movement in the percentages of population going to the universities will come in the 1966–70 period rather than in the 1961–66 period. But everything that can be done in the matter of grants so that the universities can plan sufficiently ahead should be done as soon as possible.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) that the Treasury should not have charge or this problem. Unless something is done, and quickly, about the strangulating effect which the Treasury has had over the whole field of our economic policy, and not only university policy, over the past years, our educational effort will decline further and further.

A complete lack of imagination and of drawing any kind of priorities has characterised the Chief Secretary's speech. I am sure that hon. Members who have had many letters from university teachers will agree that had those teachers been present they would have been gravely disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's speech. While he was speaking I wondered how many further resignations from the university service will be caused directly by his speech. Many university teachers are pondering whether in the face of smug complacency and obstinate ignorance which the Chief Secretary displayed it is worth their while to make, as they do in many cases, financial sacrifices in respect of themselves and their families to do something which they believe to be profoundly worth while.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, this is more than an argument about a percentage in salary increase. It is an argument which goes to the root of the future of university education. Besides salaries, there is the disappointment about the size of the recurrent grants for the next quinquennial period, and there are also the inadequate capital grants for building. I suggest that of these the first, the question of the salaries, is by far the most important. One can, if necessary, improvise a little with building, and, although one does not like this to be done, even with equipment, unless one can retain a teaching staff of requisite quality in the universities the whole character of our education will change.

While I do not wish to take up much of the all-too-little time available for this debate, I must make a point about the nonsense of the pay pause and the 3 per cent. This seems to have become the new doctrinal totem pole around which the Conservative Party prances in a tribal dance. Surely this issue, if no other, illustrates that it is quite impossible to have an overall 3 per cent. application unless before one operates the percentage increase principle one has already got the relationship of one job to another right. If injustices exist and one persists in making a uniform increase, one merely perpetuates and increases those injustices.

Everyone talks about an incomes policy. But what are the Government doing about incomes other than salaries and wages? There is no corresponding attempt to restrict the growth of incomes outside the large but by no means tremendous range of direct Government employment, and even within the Government service itself exceptions have been made between the technical colleges and the universities.

I would not for a moment suggest that the Scientific Civil Service or the technical college staffs are overpaid, but if the outcome of this decision is merely to man up the colleges of technology at the expense of the universities, I do not think we shall have done a very clever thing for our education policy.

Last week, as the Chief Secretary may have noticed, a vast number of new posts in colleges of technology were advertised. One college advertised 26 new posts. At the same time, a number of university posts were re-advertised. For a large number of years Sheffield University has not been able to get its mathematics and physics departments up to full establishment. A lecturer in civil engineering left to take up a post in a college of advanced technology with an increase of £800 in salary.

This discrepancy is not confined to the natural and applied sciences and to engineering. A brilliant young economist at Sheffield is contemplating applying for a comparable job at a technical college, the advertisement for which says that an academic degree is desirable but not essential. The salary at the technical college would be £1,855. His present salary is £1,150.

A lecturer at Sheffield, who has spent twelve years at the university and now earns £1,200 a year, recently had letters from former students with second class degrees and with no university teaching experience. Each had a job at £1,500 a year—£300 more than he is getting—and they asked him to help them by supervising their work for the M.A. thesis. It is impossible, in such circumstances, to expect our universities to retain the number and quality of their present staffs. Equally, under the prevailing financial conditions, it is extremely unlikely that the amount of research which is a necessary ingredient of any university will be maintained.

I do not want to traverse university education as a whole, tempting as that may be, as many points have been made already. Professor Balchin, in The Times on the 3rd April, and the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, have stated the main points fairly and clearly. I understand that the recurrent grant, which has only been notified to the universities this week, means that Sheffield University will only be able to carry out next year 13 per cent. of the development it had planned, and to increase the number of students by only 30 per cent. of what it had hoped to do.

It seems clear, as the university authorities understand it, that instead of having 3,507 students next year the number will have to be cut down to 3,400. In 1966–67, they expect, under the financial provisions which will apparently be available, to be 500 down on what they expected and hoped to provide for. This raises the essential point as to whether or not, with the existing financial provisions, the universities will be able to hit their target of 150,000 students.

At Sheffield, there are special problems. The number of students has been increased to four times the 1939 figure, and there are also difficult problems in building, including costs. But all those I have spoken to stress that they make no complaint about the University Grants Committee, and are not suggesting that Sheffield is not having a fair deal. They expect that their experiences are being shared by other universities throughout the country.

The Government may say, "You can just provide teaching facilities". But that is not a university education. If this attitude of the Government means, as I think it must mean, the cutting back of the amount the universities expected and hoped to get through the recurrent grant and for building work, they will have to postpone work on amenity buildings, halls of residence and similar works. That will be extremely detrimental to university education.

In a recent controversy in Sheffield about the amount of petting, if any, which went on in the students' union, one student, a little lightheartedly, said that, if students did not sit two to a chair, not more than 10 per cent. of them could get in a building, and that if things went on as he foresaw the students would be sitting four to a chair before long.

The crucial issue is whether the universities are to be allowed to continue to provide education of the quality we want and, through their research, to make their contribution to the future, not only of education, but of the whole country. The Government should reflect that it is future university students who must be the technical college teachers and scientific civil servants and who will provide research in industry. If we cut down the standard and facilities of present university staffs this may have a cumulative effect in future.

We have not had from the Chief Secretary answers to the questions which the universities want answered. I hope that he will give them, and give them very quickly. First, is this an attempt to cut down and degrade the status of the university teacher as a profession? Secondly, are the Government concerned about the future expansion and prospects of the country or do they put the simple political issue of the pay pause before the future of university education?

9.1.p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has come in for some hard knocks during the course of this short debate. I came here in the frame of mind of delivering a rather hard knock myself. My knock, such as it is, will be much muted and very softened. The person responsible for that has been none other than my right hon. Friend himself.

I shall tell my right hon. Friend and the House why that is. It seemed to me that one of the most disturbing features of this whole question of university grants was the non-recurrent grants. This resulted in the vice-chancellors pointing out, in their comment on the Government statement, that From the Government's statement it emerges that no adjustment of the non-recurrent grants … is contemplated to compensate for the rise in costs which has occurred since they were first announced. That seemed to go to the nub of the problem, because decisions about capital investments in the universities have to be made now in a matter of months if we are to accommodate the increased numbers of people we expect to go to university. Here were the vice-chancellors saying, "We cannot see how we can put up the buildings to house the students nor provide them with the laboratories and other technical facilities needed because the grants will be insufficient."

I know how difficult this problem has been, because since the announcement of the scale of the level of non-recurrent grants in 1961, in a matter of months building costs have increased by 12½ per cent. I have with me figures which show that all that the universities had to cover those inflated costs was 5 per cent. My right hon. Friend told us that should building costs be inflated it would be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insulate the universities from the eroding effects of the inflation in the building industry. That is what I understood him to say. I hope that he is nodding agreement. At least, he has not got up to correct the impression that I have formed. I therefore assume that it is a correct impression.

I can think of no more hopeful thing that he could have told us this evening. This will make a tremendous difference to the universities when they look ahead to the building which they know is necessary to house and provide suitable facilities for the increased numbers they expect to go to university.

That is one feature. The correspondence I had dealt with this particular aspect which I considered to be the nub of the problem. I had many other letters which dealt with the salaries question. Looking at it as objectively as I could, it seemed that a number of people in our universities have had a raw deal on the question of salaries. There seems to be a pre-pay pause content in their claims. For various reasons this has not been fully honoured. There is the 3 per cent. increase, but, there again, I detect a sign of hope that the question will be reviewed next year. [An HON. MEMBER: "In two years' time."] No, the question will be reviewed next year. Many hon. Members on this side of the House will look to the Treasury Bench to honour this handsomely, because there is no question in our minds that there is a very serious situation over recruitment to the teaching profession in the universities.

One other point which still leaves me in not a dissatisfied frame of mind, but one far from satisfied, is the question of recurrent grants. These do not seem to me to be very high. The question invariably asked when we want more money spent on a particular project is that of priority. I would have thought that as a matter of priority the question of expenditure on our universities must be No. 1.

The Leader of the Opposition quite clearly pointed out to the House that it is brains and skill on which we depend in this country. I cannot for the life of me see, even with the increased expenditure that the Government have announced recently, that they have come to grips with this problem and acknowledged what I think ought to be acknowledged, that this transcends all other demands place on the Treasury.

This leads me to my concern with the level of recurrent grants which have been awarded to the university. It seems to me that the present quinquennial grant starts from too low and too unrealistic a figure. Since the last quinquennial grant, in 1957, there has been a significant rise in unavoidable costs for which no provision has been made whatever. I am thinking of wages and salaries—they have gone up; National Insurance charges have gone up, pensions have gone up; taxes have gone up; books and periodicals and the binding of books—all these charges which come out of recurrent expenses have gone up, and, indeed, also the maintenance of buildings.

In addition, the universities are in the process of facing an increase of salaries for non-medical practitioners which could add nearly £750,000 to the universities' wage bill, and this follows an increase, incidentally, of an award to medical technicians. The University of London alone, in my constituency, has had to pay out £150,000. It seems to me that none of this has been taken into account.

The increase which has been announced looks good on paper, but in point of fact what will happen is that the universities, instead of being able to say, "This is extra. We can go forward and it will help us to expand" will find that the extra money has to be used to meet outstanding bills from the previous quinquennial. In other words, the universities, like many people in our society, are living on an overdraft, and an overdraft which is far too heavy for them to deal with.

It is that which leaves me with this feeling of discontent that the Government, in their ordering of priorities, have not seized the occasion in the way that I had hoped they would. I am glad, however, that they have at last agreed to insulate the universities from the erosion of inflation with regard to building. I was also glad to hear my right hon. Friend point out that the percentage of graduates in this country compares very favourably with that of some countries of comparable economic wealth. The figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition were not comparable or relevant figures in this respect.

We can only hope that the Government will show a greater measure of urgency about this problem when they come, in a couple of years or so, to examine the recurring expenses of the universities and that they will look upon what seems to be the very reasonable demands of the universities in a more charitable light. After all, the complaints that we have had have not been from unreasonable men. I have constantly been struck, in all the correspondence and verbal exchanges I have had with people from universities, by their moderate attitude. It is that which has made me come to the House with a somewhat heavy heart this evening.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

I have considerable sympathy with the content and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). He has echoed the complaints of vice-chancellors that the financing for the coming quinquennium does not take account of the rise in costs which occurred in the last quinquennium, or the rise in costs which will occur, presumably, in the next quinquennium. This is a fair criticism which the Government should meet. The hon. Gentleman attached too much importance to the review next year. The attitude of the university teachers on that point is sound. They say that the Government's policy will discourage recruiting and that it cannot be corrected by the review next year.

Those hon. Members, chiefly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury himself, who tended to minimise the difficulty of maintaining full teaching staffs in the universities were wrong. It is now some years since universities have been able to fill all their establishment posts in many departments, particularly maths and physics. Some universities have had vacancies for anything up to six years. There are considerable staffing difficulties. The present announcement of the Chief Secretary will increase these difficulties. Next year there will be a difficult situation which it will not be possible to cover by a review.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) raised a number of points in his very interesting speech. I want to touch on one or two of the points he raised. I intend also to touch on various points raised by other hon. Members, but I must sit down at twenty-minutes past nine. My prepared speech has gone by the board, as so often happens. However, the hon. Member for Tonbridge raised two or three crucial points. He said that 200,000 is not a possibility by 1966, desirable though it may be. That is no doubt true enough. It is essential to realise that the essence of the problem of numbers was known many years ago. It was known soon after the war. It was certainly known in the early 1950s. One of the charges which must be levelled most strongly against the Government is that every decision they have taken has been too late. Had they been deciding some years ago on the expansion of the universities on the proper scale, 200,000 would not have been at all out of the question by 1966, but I grant that it is now.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge also talked about the general administration of universities. On the whole, I do not agree with him. I am not sure that he put forward a point of view which he wanted to be accepted as his definite and final opinion. He rather suggested that there is a big question mark about the position of the University Grants Committee and how the universities should be administered in future.

Generally speaking, the University Grants Committee system is an admirable system. Somebody said recently that, from the point of view of the universities, it is "control by people we like." It might have been added, "It is control by people whom we understand and who understand us." It is good control, provided that it can match up to the major policy questions. In the present situation, I do not think that the U.G.C. is strong enough.

I shall not try to go into details, but the number of members, the single or full-time member, the representation of women, and the representation of Scotland—about which I have heard complaints from Scottish university teachers—are all matters which could, with the increase in the number of universities, be improved.

We need a stronger body, but I am not sure that we need the kind of Ministerial control suggested by the hon. Member. We want a body that is strong enough to carry out a major policy programme, yet, if it is at all possible, we want to keep the good features of the present system.

The Chief Secretary dealt rather light-heartedly with some of the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend—at least, I thought that he was being light-hearted; there may be other phrases for it. When my right hon. Friend used those figures, he did so with a caution. He said that they had to be taken with all the necessary modifications; he was clearing away the obstacles beforehand.

One set of figures referred to the number of university students per 10,000 of population in a number of European countries. The figure for this country was 19.9, and at the top of the table was France with 43.3. That table did not include the United States. From a letter by Mr. John Eaton, in The Times—which, perhaps, the Chief Secretary saw—it would seem that the United States figure on the same basis would have been 165. We can make all the modifications and qualifications we like, but the fact remains that we do not show up well.

We can take the Chief Secretary's own test, the product of the universities. It is only a few years ago that in this House we were throwing backwards and forwards the numbers of technologists—university-graduate-level applied scientists—produced by us, Russia, Germany, the United States, and so on. I am sure that the House will remember the striking disparity in the proportion of our production of applied scientists and that of the United States. With all the modifications and qualifications, it is quite clear that this country is not doing everything it should be doing in university education.

On the question of staff-student ratio I feel myself on somewhat uncertain ground. I thought, from memory of the last statement of the U.G.C., that our staff-student ratio was about 1 to 8, but the Chief Secretary said that it was 1 to 11. I must be mistaken, so perhaps I may either have a reply this evening or the Chief Secretary may write to let me know what I have forgotten. I may have mistaken the figures in the U.G.C. Report, but I do not think so.

That apart, the Chief Secretary differentiated according to faculties when he talked of staff-student figures in universities in various countries. He did so only in relation to medicine in the case of this country, but it is high time we had some figures of this sort. The other day I was given, as probably a number of other hon. Members have been given, an illustration, and it was one out of many. It was that of a chemistry department in a big university in which the staff-student ratio was 1 to 30. That is a department in which there is a considerable amount of "lab" work, and one in which one would therefore expect a pretty favourable staff-student ratio.

I think that it will be found that there are difficulties in the staff-student ratio in a number of these major departments—major in the sense of the intellectual importance of their work and in the sense of the importance of their work to the nation—and a certain amount of ease in a number of comparatively minor departments—minor by the same standards. In the Scottish universities, for instance, it would not be difficult to pick out a number of departments of very much less national importance than chemistry, mathematics and physics departments, and point to a staff ratio that is very much better than the national average. It would not be difficult then to go to some of these major departments and point out a ratio which is very unfavourable. I wish that the Chief Secretary would in the future give to the House some information of this sort and let us know, not only the broad overall figures of university staff-student ratios, but something about the ratios in individual departments of study.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) wishes to rise to speak at twenty minutes past nine and therefore I must bring my remarks to an end. It seems to me that the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, is one which I and I believe the House as a whole would come near to echoing. We are not satisfied with the Government's position in this matter.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), who has spoken with his usual moderation, for allowing me time to wind up the debate for the Opposition. It seems not surprising that the Treasury Luddites have found themselves in isolation. When we began this debate we noticed the Minister of Education who, unless appearances are deceptive, seemed to show an increasing distaste for what the Chief Secretary was saying. Finally, he made it clear that he could not stomach it, left us and did not return. I am not surprised.

All that the Chief Secretary has had by way of solace has been a couple of speeches from his back benches, which in continental assemblies would be explanations of votes. I can understand the difficulty of each of the hon. Members in casting their votes, as no doubt they will do.

We should not regard this debate in isolation. This is a further step in a lessening of the priority which is being afforded to education. First, we had the replacement of the percentage grants by the block grants. Next, consider a few of the things which have happened during the past few months. We had an easy simple economy at the expense of modernising the older schools. We had the row with the teachers. We had the failure of the Department to match its five-year programme of school building. Now we have this row with the universities. This shows an increasing unwillingness to face the priority which education today demands. That is really the importance of this debate.

I am in this difficulty, that I doubt whether I have ever spoken in a debate reinforced with a larger pile of correspondence complaining of the action of the Government, but I call in aid something that was said a long time ago—long before the present dispute arose. Sir Douglas Logan, the Principal of London University, said some time ago: There has been no dearth of ministerial pronouncements about the importance of expanding the facilities for higher education, but when the crucial point is reached of providing the universities with the necessary finance there is an unfortunate difference between what is said and what is done. How right he was. This is really the issue. If we are talking about the importance of education, we have to be prepared to afford it the priority which the Minister of Education knows has to be afforded.

It is for this reason that I shall not waste any time on the speech of the Chief Secretary. An eminent don has given me a warning. He mentioned the right hon. Gentleman and one or two of his right hon. Friends, and said: "After listening to such right hon. Gentlemen I have come to the conclusion that the Tories have taken refuge in stupidity." He advised me that this was a very clever tactic and that I should not reply to them on their own terms. I do not intend to do this. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he was talking a lot of nonsense. He made a very partial quotation or two from a book and then left the subject the moment he was challenged. This is not dealing seriously with higher education.

I am glad that the Minister of Education has returned to the Chamber, because he knows the importance of these issues. At the moment, we are concerned, above all, with two major Reports—the Crowther Report, which we have had, and the Robbins Report, which we are awaiting.

The trouble about the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken—and this is partly Treasury action—is that we are facing a position where we cannot get the Crowther Report implemented, though everyone in education knows that its implementation is a matter of urgent necessity. Its implementation has been prejudiced. We have had the Report for a couple of years.

Looking to the future, the Government's present action is prejudicing the Robbins Committee Report. We all know what the Robbins Committee will recommend. The Minister of Education knows well enough. Day by day we pay attention to the evidence being given to the Robbins Committee, and that is why it was so pathetic when the Chief Secretary produced one or two quotations out of context. We know that the Robbins Committee will say that we are appallingly behind other countries in our provision for university education.

I stress university education, because, whether this is intentional or not—and I give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, because I do not believe that it was intentional but was an accident; I do not think that he ever looked at it—what has happened now is that the Government have discriminated against the universities. This can be the only effect of the salary awards which have been made.

I have no quarrel with the award to the training colleges. I have no quarrel with the award to the technical colleges. But if they get increases of 20 per cent. and 16 per cent., and the universities get only 3 per cent., this is discrimination against universities. This is why I think that the Minister of Education should have intervened in the debate. I can only assume that he has not done so because he does not see eye to eye with the Treasury.

This is one of the things on which the Robbins Committee is to advise us. Without waiting for its Report, knowing full well that it would say that there was a serious deficiency in the provision of university education in this country, we have seen this discrimination against the staffs of the universities.

If we look at the present position—and this is why I intervened when the Chief Secretary was speaking—I think that the right hon. Gentleman was less than fair to the universities. We are facing a dispute between the Treasury and the universities. The vice-chancellors have said that the building programme will not support 150,000 students at the universities in 1966–67. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes this, he must produce the evidence on which he does so. But this is a matter on which we can come to a very firm conclusion because we know what happened over the previous quinquennium.

We know that the rate of increase is less than it was over the previous five years. We know, too, that the vice-chancellors say that it is impossible to reach this target as far as the recurrent grants are concerned. This is the revealing thing. They say that even if we endeavoured to reach it—which we cannot do—there would be a deplorable lowering of standards. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will deal with this point.

We are concerned about the expansion of university education. If there is this dispute between the Treasury and the University Grants Committee, we had better be advised which body can properly advise us. What we are facing here is the position that, on the best advice available to us, we cannot reach the Government's target for the expansion of the universities.

This is vitally important at this point of time, because the birthrate declined until 1942, and this is the watershed. All that we have been doing so far is to maintain what was reasonable against the birthrate in 1942. This is the year in which it is just affecting the universities, and what we are concerned about is what steps we are taking to deal with an entirely new situation. The bulge which the right hon. Gentleman has seen through the primary schools and the secondary schools is now coming to the universities. We have had no anticipatory steps taken at all, and we are told, on the last occasion on which this problem can be tackled, that the Government are not facing it.

If this problem were no worse than this, it would be grave enough, but it is far worse. I am glad that the Minister of Education is now here. He has been stoking up the interest of pupils in the secondary schools to stay on into the sixth forms—a very proper thing to do in the national interest—but at this very moment, when we are getting a response to this appeal for children of quite outstanding ability voluntarily to stay on in sixth forms, the Treasury puts on the lid.

This is a very dangerous and explosive situation. We shall have the position very shortly in which there will be at least four applicants for every university place, and, patently, the Treasury is not doing its utmost to meet it. This will be a tragic waste of ability, and a tragic rebuff to all those in secondary education who have tried hardest to expand the sixth forms.

When we think of the young people whom we encouraged to look forward to further education into the universities, we find that the crucial question here is one of staff—getting the lecturers and university staff. We really have not faced the problem at all. If we do no better than accept this shortfall target of the Treasury, we shall need an extra 8,000 at the universities. What greater discouragement could we have had than what has been done by the Treasury? How are we to get the staff? It is no good saying, "Here are some very high-minded people going into the universities, regardless of the salaries which are afforded." This is more than a question of salaries. It is a question of the scope of activity which they are to be afforded within the universities.

One remarkable thing—and I know that there is an explanation for this—is that if one looks at the Estimates in their new form, in which they are more intelligible than they were, one finds that the estimate for the universities, together with research, is £13¼ million less than it was for the previous year. I know that there are explanations, such as that the universities' figures were previously for fourteen months, and that the Atomic Energy Authority is making a profit on the sale of materials and electricity, but this is not the picture of Britain as we want it. We cannot afford to say that we are making fortuitous economies at the expense of the universities and research. This is the field in which we ought to be straining every nerve to see that we are using all the resources we can to persuade people to come into fundamental research and doing all we can to expand the universities to the utmost

I have had a whole series of letters, such as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called in aid. showing that the position is quite fantastic. I have had letters from professors who have said that they have had a short list, and that, from that short list they had taken the least able, because three or four people went off to the C.A.T.s, the training colleges or other employment, because there was a differential of £500, £600. £700 or £800.

But, as I say, it is not only a question of salary differential, which we cannot ignore. It is also a question whether we are to get research facilities. It is the explanation of why 75 physicists as we know, have gone to the United States. At least half of those, we have been told, would have held a chair in this country if they had stayed in this country. It is no good saying it is a question merely of going to the United States because salary prospects there are greater. They have gone to the United States not only because of salary differentials, but because they have there a better opportunity to carry out research, and this is much more important, I believe, even than the rebuff which has been given to the university staffs over salary claims.

This is really, it seems to me, the major question which is affecting Britain at present. The Chief Secretary produced his figures and then rapidly retired. Let me just give him a couple of figures. A child in the United States has three times the opportunity of going to university that a child in this country has of going into the sixth form. Is this a comparison which we can afford much longer? The position in this country is that we have the lowest proportion of our population going to the universities of any highly developed country in the world. Does the Chief Secretary deny that? If he does let him fight it out with the Minister of Education. That is his statement, which he made not very long ago.

I called in aid the Minister of Education. As he said, we are largely losing the battle for exports because we did not invest sufficiently in education in the 1930s. That is the view of the Government Front Bench. If this is the position we cannot afford to say that we cannot deal adequately with the universities. We have simply got to, in the national interest. It seems to me that this is one of the overriding national priorities. I know that the Minister of Education—he is very good in this field—likes to try to make education an all-party matter. He simply cannot do it. This is becoming every day a more and more explosive question which will be before long, if the Government go on like this, one of the major issues dividing the House.

We demand, in the national interest, that we ought, deliberately and patently, say that we are putting a premium on skill and intelligence. That is, after all, our major resource. We are fortunate in the skill and intelligence of our people, and this is the resource we must use if we are to remain a great people. As the years go by, it will become too late. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government set themselves a far too modest and inadequate a target. It will be an absolute national catastrophe if we fall short even of that

9.38 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey) began by saying that he did not propose to comment on the speech of the Chief Secretary, which. I thought, was prudent of him, but he then went on to say that the debate this evening was characteristic of the whole policy of the Government in their neglect of education. Well, I have not heard that particular speech made for two and a half years. I used to hear it quite often some years ago. It is. of course, absolute nonsense.

If one looks at the whole period since 1951 in money terms—I speak from memory, but I am pretty sure I am right—the amount spent by the central Government and local authorities on education has gone up from £380 million to very nearly £1,000 million, and the proportion of the national income devoted to education has gone up from 3 per cent. to 4½ per cent. at a time—and this is important—when other forms of economic activity just as essential to the nation's life have also increased their share of the national income.

No one doubts at all the very great importance of the subject we are discussing. As the House knows, I spent nearly three years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I know very well just how much this question of the supply of university places means to everyone concerned—the schools, the parents and the universities. All hon. Members realise that the steady improvement in educational standards since the passing of the 1944 Act has brought about a corresponding rise in the number of those who could benefit from full-time higher education. Nor can there be any doubt that adequate and increasing provision for higher education is one of the marks of a forward looking and progressive community.

I want tonight to consider the Government's provision for university expansion under a number of heads, and I will start with the subject that has been dealt with prominently, the number of university places. Here it is surely important to bear in mind both the immediate problem which faces us during the next five years and the longer-term future. The immediate problem arises because there will be 35 per cent. more people of university entry age in 1966–67 than at present. That is why the Government hope that the universities will provide as far as possible for an increase in student places of 35 per cent. in the next five years.

In my view, this represents the fastest practicable rate of university expansion, and no one conversant with our universities has ever suggested that they could be expanded at a faster rate. Before the Government's recent statement no target as high as 150,000 places by 1966–67 had ever been set. If the universities can match with student places this rise of 35 per cent. over five years, then we shall be entitled to say, as my right hon. Friend said today, that no one has had a reduced chance of getting to a university through being born in the top year of the bulge. That would be an achievement of which the nation could feel rightly proud.

One point seems to have been missed by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. It is, after all, not only student places in the universities that will rise during this period. By 1966–67 there will be at least 15,000 places in our Colleges of Advanced Technology, compared with 9,000 now. Do not let us under-rate the importance of these colleges. They are a fine tribute to the work and imagination of successive Ministers of Education, and it is worth remembering that a good deal of the work being done in them is at least of pass degree standard in the universities.

Well over 30,000 students are today doing full-time courses in regional technical colleges, and their numbers will steadily increase in the 'sixties. We are also in the middle of a very rapid increase in the output of the teacher training colleges. The present total of students in these colleges is 36,000, and this total will rise to 48,000 by 1966.

It is important to remember, when considering the present situation of higher education in Britain, that there are today as many students pursuing courses above A level outside the universities—both full-time and sandwich courses—as there are inside them. I maintain, therefore, that there is nothing whatever to be ashamed of in the provision we are making for full-time higher education during the coming five years. But I want to look beyond that. The targets already announced by the Government contemplate from 1967 onwards that each 18-year-old will have a substantially better chance of getting to a university than is the case at present. From 1967 onwards the number of 18-year-olds falls sharply for a number of years, but we are planning [...] a continued increase of university places after that date. The Government's plans mean that up to 1966–67 a steady 4.6 per cent. of a rapidly increasing age group should be able to go to university, but the Government's plans mean also that by 1970 this proportion will rise to a little over 6 per cent. and by 1973–74, the year by which the expansion will have reached about 170,000. the proportion will be 6.4 per cent.

These figures mean that we shall have approximately doubled our university strength within a period of twenty years. I repeat that I believe that the Government's proposals for the immediate five years ahead and their plans for the longer-term future can command the confidence of the House.

I turn now to grants and university finance. My right hon. Friend dealt fully with this subject in his speech this afternoon, and I shall only repeat what seem to me to be the crucial figures. In the first place, the total of non-recurrent grants which are running at £28 million in the current university year will rise to over £40 million in 1966–67. I must say that it seemed to me that The Times in its recent article on the subject overlooked this aspect completely. In 1956–57, capital expenditure was £9 million. This year, it is over 200 per cent. up, at £28 million, and by 1966–67 it will exceed £40 million.

Of course, the Government realise the anxiety felt by the universities regarding increases in building costs. This point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) in a speech which to my right hon. Friend and myself seemed entirely within the conventions of a speech made on these occasions on the Government side of the House. My right hon. Friend, as he told the House, has already informed the University Grants Committee that, in the event of further increases in building costs, the Government will sympathetically consider an increase in the programmed figures, I could not accept for a moment that the universities are not being treated generously from the point of view of their share of the total capital investment programme. It is worth remembering also that the Government have made a special effort to let the universities know where they stand well in advance so that they can get ahead in good time with the planning of their programmes.

With regard to university finance generally, it seems to me that there are certain figures which more than any others are relevant when one is trying to form a judgment on the Government's proposals. At the end of the last quinquennium, that is to say, the year 1956–57, the recurrent grant paid each year by the Government to the universities worked out at an average of £313 per student. Today, that figure has already risen to £444 per student, and by the last year of the present quinquennium it will be £510 per student. This means that the Government are planning for an increase in recurrent grants per student of £66 or 15 per cent. during the next five years. Of course, this figure is certainly an under-estimate because it makes no allowance for additional items like salary increases including the salary increase of 3 per cent. just announced which will require further earmarked grants.

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South and some of the Government's critics outside have made the mistake of supposing that the cost of salary increases has to be met out of the ordinary recurrent grant. This is not so. During the present quinquennium so far, earmarked grants for salaries have been made on two occasions, and in the present year the cost of these grants alone is £8¾ million. The 3 per cent. salary increase will require another earmarked grant.

Mr. Gaitskell

Ought we not to keep clear the distinction between a change or increase in salary scales and the increase in salaries as people move up the scales? What the universities are pointing out is that normal increases as people move up the scales involve them in any case in a very considerable automatic increase in expenditure.

Sir E. Boyle

I appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I am not, I think, making an unfair point in return when I say that some people at least have made the mistake to which I have referred.

Furthermore, in addition to the cost of financing non-recurrent and recurrent grants to universities—this, too, has been forgotten in the debate—the Exchequer contributes the major part of the cost of awards to students. The rise in the total cost to public funds of these awards is estimated at about £10 million over five years—from £25 million in 1961–62 to about £35 million in 1966–67.

The Anderson Report is no longer news in the public Press, but do not let us forget that the Government's new arrangements following the publication of that Report will enable a greater number of students to obtain awards and will reduce very significantly the contribution made from parental income. If one takes the sum, first, of nonrecurrent grants, secondly, of recurrent grants and, thirdly, of student awards, the present programme for university development implies a cost to public funds rising from £104 million this year, when there is a student population of 111,400, to about £158 million in 1966–67 with an estimated student population of about 150,000.

With due respect to all the Government's critics, wherever they may be, I do not agree that we can be accused of neglecting university education at a time when we are planning for a total level of expenditure on the universities which will mean for the first time an annual level of expenditure of over £1,000 per student per year. Six years ago this figure was only £550 per student per year. That is my answer to all those critics of the Government, including, perhaps, some of those who are interrupting now, who have not had the opportunity or, maybe, the inclination to study all the facts fully.

I should like to say a few words on staff. I know that the limitation of 3 per cent. on the increase in salaries is hard, but I do not believe that it could have made sense for the Government, only a few days after they issued the White Paper on incomes policy, to announce salary increases far above the 2 to 2½ per cent. mentioned in the White Paper. The Government would have been accused, and rightly accused, of dishonouring their own policy.

As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, the real test of any university salary scale must be whether it attracts and retains the right numbers of staff. There is nothing else like university work. Therefore, one cannot arrive at the right figures for salaries simply by means of external comparisons. I do not believe that it is a valuable relationship to compare the job of lecturer with that of a principal in the Civil Service. Recruitment to the higher ranks of the Civil Service has been feeling the competition from the universities much more than the universities have been feeling competition from the Civil Service.

One of the things which has to be taken into account in next year's review, as my right hon. Friend made plain, is whether staff numbers are rising to meet the expansion in the student numbers, as they certainly have done in recent years. There is no need for the House to be too pessimistic on this point.

Mr. Mulley

I hope that the Government will not only consider the numbers of university teachers, but will also pay some attention to the quality. Can he explain how he will keep university teachers if they can go to technical colleges and earn salaries of £800, £900, or £1,000 a year, doing exactly the same job as they are doing in the universities?

Sir E. Boyle

My right hon. Friend this afternoon made clear, first, the genuine difficulty there was with staff in technical colleges, and, secondly, he drew attention to the importance of quality.

With regard to the comparisons which are often made between this country and other countries, I only wish to remind the House of what has already been said in the debate. This is a fact that we cannot get away from. In Britain, rather more than 3.5 per cent. of the university age groups succeed in graduating compared with 3.3 per cent. in France, 2.6 per cent. in Germany, and 1.7 per cent. in Holland.

There is nothing to be ashamed of here. It is a complete fallacy to draw sweeping deductions simply from the figures of university entrants irrespective of the number of people who complete their courses. One must consider the content of university education as well. A good deal of the work done in sixth forms in this country would be done in the first year of a university course in a number of other countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby), in his very interesting speech, raised the whole question of our system in dealing with university matters and the question of whether the present methods of financing university education fit the change in public attitudes and the enormously increased level of expenditure.

Of course, the present system by which public funds are provided for the universities to cover three-quarters of their expenditure, and to do it without risk of interference by the Government or by Parliament with the academic freedom of the universities, has been highly commended, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) very correctly said, particularly by people concerned with these problems in other countries. But it is thoroughly natural, in view of the changes that have taken place, that people should be thinking about the system itself. This is one of the reasons why the Robbins Committee was appointed, to consider this, among all the other problems of higher education. But I would like to add one point in particular about the present relationship between the universities and the Treasury.

I first came to the Treasury seven years ago and, as the House knows, I have always kept in close touch with educational matters of all kinds. There are many arguments that can be made for or against the present system, but from my own experience I can say to the House with confidence that it could not reasonably be argued that universities at any time suffered financially from the fact that their grants came from the Treasury and were settled by a Treasury Minister instead of being within the responsibility of another Minister. I am certain that that is true.

I know that many people are concerned about the prospects for research during the coming years. Let me assure the House that the Government are just as concerned with the improvement of research work and with our constantly pushing back the frontiers of knowledge as are the universities themselves. It is quite true that, because of the very large increase in the student population, the teaching functions of the universities may well have to be uppermost during the years immediately ahead, but I believe that the proposed level of grant is such as to enable a high level of research and original work to be carried on as well.

I should like to remind the House again that we must view this question of university expansion against the background of the national pattern of further education which is both changing and expanding all the time. Until quite recently the universities had almost a monopoly of education in Britain, and the curriculum of our independent schools and the grammar schools has always been geared to the requirements of university entry. But today, with the introduction of colleges of advanced technology and the higher entrance standards to our teacher-training colleges, all that is past. Whereas, immediately after the war, full-time higher education was almost entirely confined to the 16 universities which existed at that time, by 1970 there may well be 100 institutions in Great Britain substantially engaged in providing full-time higher education.

I do not believe that there is any reason to be ashamed of our national achievements in this field. The grants announced are part of a prospect which is indeed an encouraging one for this country. I confidently invite the House to reject the Motion and to support the Amendment which was so ably moved by my right hon. Friend.

Question put. That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 237.

Division No. 156.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Pargiter, G. A.
Albu, Austen	Hannan, William	Parker, John
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Harper, Joseph	Parkin, B. T.
Baird, John	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Paton, John
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Hayman, F. H.	Pavitt, Laurence
Beaney, Alan	Healey, Denis	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Benson, Sir George	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Peart, Frederick
Blackburn, F.	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Pentland, Norman
Blyton, William	Holman, Percy	Popplewell, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Holt, Arthur	Probert, Arthur
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)	Houghton, Douglas	Proctor, W. T.
Bowles, Frank	Hoy, James H.	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Boyden, James	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Randall, Harry
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Hunter, A. E.	Rankin, John
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Redhead, E. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Reid, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Janner, Sir Barnett	Reynolds, G. W.
Callaghan, James	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Rhodes, H.
Chapman, Donald	Jeger, George	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cliffe, Michael	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Robinson, Kennet (St. Pancras, N.)
Cronin, John	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Crosland, Anthony	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Ross, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kelley, Richard	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Darling, George	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	King, Dr. Horace	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lawson, George	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Ledger, Ron	Small, William
Deer, George	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Dempsey, James	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Sorensen, R. W.
Diamond, John	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dodds, Norman	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Steele, Thomas
Driberg, Tom	Loughlin, Charles	Stonehouse, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stress, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	MacColl, James	Swain, Thomas
Edelman, Maurice	Mclnnes, James	Swingler, Stephen
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Evans, Albert	McLeavy, Frank	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Fernyhough, E.	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fletcher, Eric	Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Timmons, John
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Tomney, Frank
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)	Mallalleu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Wade, Donald
Forman, J. C.	Manuel, Archie	Wainwright, Edwin
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Marsh, Richard	Warbey, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Milne, Edward	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mitchison, G. R.	Whitlock, William
Gourlay, Harry	Monslow, Walter	Wilkins, W. A.
Greenwood, Anthony	Moody, A. S.	Willey, Frederick
Grey, Charles	Moyle, Arthur	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mulley, Frederick	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Oliver, G. H.	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Oram, A. E.	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gunter, Ray	Oswald, Thomas	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Owen, Will
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)	Paget, R. T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. [...]
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Black, Sir Cyril	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Aitken, W. T.	Bourne-Arton, A.	Cary, Sir Robert
Allan, Robert (Paddington S.)	Box, Donald	Channon, H. P. G.
Allason, James	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Chichester-Clark, R.
Arbuthnot, John	Boyle, Sir Edward	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Braine, Bernard	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Atkins, Humphrey	Brewis, John	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Barber, Anthony	Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Collard, Richard
Barter, John	Brooman-White, R.	Cooper, A. E.
Batsford, Brian	Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Cordle, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Corfield, F. V.
Bell, Ronald	Bryan, Paul	Costain, A. P.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Buck, Antony	Coulson, Michael
Berkeley, Humphry	Bullard, Denys	Craddock, Sir Beresford
Biffen, John	Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Critchley, Julian
Biggs-Davison, John	Burden, F. A.	Cunningham, Knox
Bingham, R. M.	Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Curran, Charles
Bishop, F. P.	Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Dalkeith, Earl of
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rees, Hugh
de Ferranti, Basil	Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Renton, David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Drayson, G. B.	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Ridsdale, Julian
du Cann, Edward	Kerkshaw, Anthony	Rippon, Geoffrey
Duncan, Sir James	Kimball, Marcus	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David	Kirk, Peter	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Eden, John	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carahalton)	Leather, E. H. C.	Russell, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	St. Clair, M.
Errington, Sir Eric	Lindsay, Sir Martin	Scott-Hopkins, James
Fisher, Nigel	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Sharples, Richard
Fletcher-Coolie, Charles	Litchfield, Capt. John	Shaw, M.
Foster, John	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Shepherd, William
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Gammans, Lady	Longbottom, Charles	Smith, Dudley (Br'tf'd & Chiswick)
Gardner, Edward	Loveys, Walter H.	Smithers, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Gilmour, Sir John	McAdden, Stephen	Speir, Rupert
Glover, Sir Douglas	McLaren, Martin	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Stevens, Geoffrey
Goodhart, Philip	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Goodhew, Victor	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Stodart, J. A.
Gower, Raymond	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Studholme, Sir Henry
Green, Alan	Maddan, Martin	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Gresham Cooke, R.	Maginnis, John E.	Tapsell, Peter
Gurden, Harold	Maitland, Sir John	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Marshall, Douglas	Teeling, Sir William
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Marten, Neil	Temple, John M.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Mills, Stratton	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hay, John	Miscampbell, N.	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Montgomery, Fergus	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Hendry, Forbes	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Turner, Colin
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Nabarro, Gerald	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Neave, Airey	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hilt, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Noble, Michael	Vane, W. M. F.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Hocking, Philip N.	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Holland, Philip	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Walder, David
Hollingworth, John	Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)	Walker, Peter
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Wall, Patrick
Hopkins, Alan	Peel, John	Ward, Dame Irene
Hornby, R. P.	Percival, Ian	wells, John (Maidstone)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Hughes-Young, Michael	Pilkington, Sir Richard	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hubert, Sir Norman	Pitt, Miss Edith	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hurd, Sir Anthony	Pott, Percivall	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hutchison, ichael Clark	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Wise, A. R.
Iremonger, T. L.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Woodnutt, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho	Woollam, John
Jackson, John	Pym, Francis	Worsley, Marcus
James, David	Ramsden, James
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, Peter	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.

Question put. That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 161.

Division No. 157.]	AYES	[10.10 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Bingham, R. M.	Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Aitken, W. T.	Bishop, F. P.	Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Black, Sir Cyril	Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Allason, James	Bourne-Arton, A.	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Arbuthnot, John	Box, Donald	Cary, Sir Robert
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Channon, H. P. G.
Atkins, Humphrey	Boyle, Sir Edward	Chichester-Clark, R.
Barber, Anthony	Braine, Bernard	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Barter, John	Brewis, John	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Batsford, Brian	Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Brooman-White, R.	Collard, Richard
Bell, Ronald	Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Cooper, A. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Cordle, John
Berkeley, Humphry	Bryan, Paul	Corfield, F. V.
Biffen, John	Buck, Antony	Costain, A. P.
Biggs-Davison, John	Bullard, Denys	Coulson, Michael
Craddock, Sir Beresford	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Critchley, Julian	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Rees, Hugh
Cunningham, Knox	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rees-Davis, W. R.
Curran, Charles	Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Renton, David
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Ridsdale, Julian
de Ferranti, Basil	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Rippon, Geoffrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kershaw, Anthony	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.	Kimball, Marcus	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Drayson, C. B.	Kirk, Peter	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
du Cann, Edward	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Russell, Ronald
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David	Leather, E. H. C.	Scott-Hopkins, James
Eden, John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Sharles, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Lindsay, Sir Martin	Shaw, M.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Shepherd, William
Errington, Sir Eric	Litchfield, Capt. John	Skeet, T. H. H.
Finlay, Graeme	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (SufnC'dfield)	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Fisher, Nigel	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Smithers, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Longbottom, Charles	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Foster, John	Loveys, Walter H.	Speir, Rupert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Gammans, Lady	McAdden, Stephen	Stevens, Geoffrey
Gardner, Edward	McLaren, Martin	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Stodart, J. A.
Gilmour, Sir John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Glover, Sir Douglas	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Studholme, Sir Henry
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Goodhart, Philip	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Tapsell, Peter
Goodhew, Victor	Maddan, Martin	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gower, Raymond	Maitland, Sir John	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Temple, John M.
Green, Alan	Marshall, Douglas	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Gresham Cooke, R.	Marten, Neil	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Gurden, Harold	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Mills, Stratton	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Miscampbell, N.	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Montgomery, Fergus	Turner, Colin
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hay, John	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Nabarro, Gerald	Vane, W. M. F.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.	Neave, Alrey	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Hiley, Joseph	Noble, Michael	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Walder, David
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Osborne, John (Hallam)	Walker, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Wall, Patrick
Hocking, Philip N.	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)	Ward, Dame Irene
Holland, Philip	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hollingworth, John
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John	Peel, John	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Hopkins, Alan	Percival, Ian	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hornby, R. P.	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hornshy-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Pilkington, Sir Richard	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hughes-Young, Michael	Pitt, Miss Edith	Wise, A. R.
Hulbert, Sir Norman	Pott, Percivall	Woodnutt, Mark
Hurd, Sir Anthony	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Woollam, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Worsley, Marcus
Iremonger, T. L.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Pym, Francis	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jackson, John	Ramsden, James	Mr. Whitelaw and
James, David	Rawlinson, Peter	Mr. Michael Hamilton.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Albu, Austen	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Forman, J. C.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Cronin, John	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Baird, John	Crosland, Anthony	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Darling, George	Galpern, Sir Myer
Beaney, Alan	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Greenwood, Anthony
Benson, Sir George	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Grey, Charles
Blackburn, F.	Deer, George	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Blyton, William	Dempsey, James	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Diamond, John	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Loics. S. W.)	Dodds, Norman	Gunter, Ray
Bowles, Frank	Driberg, Tom	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Boyden, James	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Edelman, Maurice	Hannan, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Harper, Joseph
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Evans, Albert	Hart, Mrs. Judith
Callaghan, James	Fernyhough, E.	Hayman F. H.
Chapman, Donald	Fletcher, Eric	Healey, Denis
Cliffe, Michael	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Herbison, Miss Margaret

Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Ross, William
Holman, Percy	Manuel, Archie	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Holt, Arthur	Marsh, Richard	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Houghton, Douglas	Milne, Edward	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Hoy, James H.	Mitchison, G. R.	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Monslow, Walter	Small, William
Hunter, A. E.	Moody, A. S.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Moyle, Arthur	Sorensen, R. W.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Mulley, Frederick	Soekice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Oliver, G. H.	Steele, Thomas
Janner, Sir Barnett	Oram, A. E.	Stonehouse, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Oswald, Thomas	Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Jeger, George	Owen, Will	Swain, Thomas
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Paget, R. T.	Swingler, Stephen
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Pargiter, G. A.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Parker, John	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Parkin, B. T.	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Pavitt, Laurence	Timmons, John
Kelley, Richard	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Tomney, Frank
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Peart, Frederick	Wade, Donald
King, Dr. Horace	Pentland, Norman	Wainwright, Edwin
Lawson, George	Probert, Arthur	Warbey, William
Ledger, Ron	Proctor, W. T.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Whitlock, William
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Randall, Harry	Wilkins, W. A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Rankin, John	Willey, Frederick
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Redhead, E. C.	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Loughlln, Charles	Reid, William	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Reynolds, G. W.	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
MacColl, James	Rhodes, H.	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mclnnes, James	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Robertson, John (Paisley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Mr. Ifor Davies and
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)	Mr. McCann

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, while approving the decision to authorise increases in university teaching salaries in accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper on Incomes Policy (Command No. 1626). welcomes the proposed 55 per cent. expansion in the current grants from the Exchequer to the Universities, and hopes that these substantial additional funds will be applied towards the objective of increasing the number of student places from 110,000 to 150,000 by 1966.