§ 32. Mr. Peter Emeryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review at the beginning of 1963 the quinquennial grant made to universities.
§ Mr. BrookeAcademic salaries are to be reviewed in 1963, and if any improvements are then made, they will be reflected in appropriate increases in the recurrent grants.
The Government have also undertaken to review in about two years' time that part of the recurrent grants which relates to university expenditure otherwise than on academic salaries. This review will take account of how the expansion programme is proceeding, of inescapable changes in prices and other costs, and of developments in the long-term economic outlook as it then appears. The Government are anxious that developments necessary for providing a 35 per cent. increase in student numbers over the next five years shall not be held back through fear on the part of the universities that erosion may undermine the real value of the recurrent grants in the later years of the quinquennium.
§ Mr. EmeryDoes my right hon. Friend realise that his reply is only partially satisfactory, that since his speech in the last debate certain universities have announced their inability to increase their number of students in the next academic year, or indeed to continue properly with their present expansion plans, and that it would be considered barbarically reactionary if the economic situation next year improves not to reconsider the quinquennial grant next year?
§ Mr. BrookeIn fact the quinquennial grant for the next academic year will be 14 per cent. higher than the grant for the present year, so I do not see why it should cause difficulties. I have noted what has been said by many people on behalf of the universities. I hope that the last sentence of my reply will still some of their apprehensions.
§ Mr. MitchisonWill the right hon. Gentleman help us to form an opinion on this matter by laying a White Paper showing item by item what the University Grants Committee asked for and what it got?
§ Mr. BrookeNo. The hon. and learned Member is well aware that the practice of Governments has been not to disclose the confidential advice of the U.G.C.
§ Mr. MitchisonHas it not been the practice of all previous Governments to give the University Grants Committee what it asked for?
§ Mr. BrookeNo, Sir. It has never been understood that whatever the University Grants Committee asked for should be made available automatically by the Government.
§ Mr. GaitskellWas not the Government concerned to ask the University Grants Committee to say how much would be involved by a certain expansion in the number of university students? Was not this answer of the Committee, showing what was necessary to achieve the Government's target, rejected by the Government?
§ Mr. BrookeThe Government must preserve the right to determine the total amount of money made available to the universities. The Government are making available grants rising by 55 per cent. in order to cover a 35 per cent,. increase in students.
§ Mr. RidsdaleIs my right hon. Friend aware how pleased we are in Essex with the money the Government have given towards universities?
§ Mr. BrookeI am very glad to have one friend.
§ Mr. EmeryDoes my right hon. Friend realise how responsible teaching staffs have been in that most of the pressure they are putting on is not for an increase in their own salary but to ensure that there are the capital sums to deal with the expansion of the universities and to deal with the necessary increase in places for students?
§ Mr. BrookeI appreciate that, because I think the attitude on the question of academic salaries has been a stern one, but this Question deals with recurrent grants, not capital grants.