HC Deb 02 July 1963 vol 680 cc341-52

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

10.0 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden (Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of Ministry of Education capital grants to residential adult colleges. To some extent I have an interest to declare, inasmuch as my wife is a governor of Hillcroft College and I am a governor of Fircroft College. As far as I know, it brings no pecuniary advantage to either of us.

While I was in charge of adult education at Durham University I made the maximum propaganda on behalf of adult colleges and sent as many students to the adult colleges as I could. I must say that I never had a failure in the sense that I never had a student from Durham go to an adult college who did not come back very much the better for it and very much inspired for the sort of work that he was to do. Indeed, in our educational organisations the residential adult colleges are the most successful institutions that one can find.

In their evidence to the Robbins Committee several of the colleges submitted the most striking evidence of their success. For example, of 180 former Ruskin students of the 1945–53 vintage, of whom well over half had left school at 14, by 1957 over one-quarter had taken honours degrees. There was only one failure, and two-thirds of that quarter obtained good honours degrees, either first or second class. One-fifth of that 180 com- pleted full-time post-college qualifications, 22 of whom became teachers, so that of 180 former Ruskin students nearly half went on to quite severe forms of higher education and nearly all passed with distinction. At Hillcroft, out of 950 post-war students, 216 have become qualified teachers and 249 have become trained social workers, and of these very few had full-time education beyond 14.

If one needs any evidence of the large untapped pool of ability, I think that it can be found in this record of post-war Ruskin and Hillcroft students, and precisely the same picture emerges at the other residential colleges. These colleges have been called the colleges of the second chance. I am not so keen on that phraseology, but, certainly, the students they take are the under-privileged educational students and they nearly all do very well.

It may be argued that with progress in education these numbers will diminish. Ruskin College, in its evidence to the Robbins Committee, said: So far from a general expansion of the educational system reducing the supply of adult students we have reason to believe the contrary is likely to be the case. I confess that as far as residential adult education is concerned I am an expansionist. In fact, I require more expansion than even the enthusiastic residential colleges themselves.

In 1961, Ruskin had 2,000 inquiries. I welcome what Ruskin College put forward to the Robbins Committee, that the existing provision might well be doubled by the expansion of the existing colleges and the founding of two new colleges, but it is about the expansion of the existing colleges that I want to speak tonight. I prefer to base it not so much on the excellent record of the colleges in producing well-qualified people, but on the general nature of the work that they do.

I now want to quote an extract from the National Institute's publication on accommodation and staffing, quoting a report from one of my very good friends, Mr. Philip Hopkins, the warden of Fir-croft College. He said: there is a danger of overlooking much of the value of the adult residential course if there should be a preoccupation with vocational aspects. We know that a substantial number of our (Fircroft) students each year will return to the work from which they came, but will return from their liberal studies enriched as individuals and citizens. The Scandinavian democracies have long realised that such subjects as politics, ethics, history, economics and literature cannot truly be appreciated by immature students, however intelligent they may be…Pro rata Scandinavia has about twice as many colleges as Britain has college places for long-term residential education after school-days. Even if we took the expansionist recommendation of Ruskin College and doubled it we should not be in any great danger of over-provision.

The current number of adult students in attendance at the colleges are quite small. Taking the Ministry grant-aided colleges, namely, Ruskin, Fircroft, Hillcroft Catholic Workers and Coleg Harlech altogether, in February, 1962, there were only 272 men and 90 women in them. There is no question that even with the proposals I hope to put to the Parliamentary Secretary tonight there is any danger of drying up this pool of ability. Lately, the residential colleges have been playing a marked part in the educational development of the emerging democracies. The pressure on places in the colleges today arises partly because they have played a truly magnificent rôle in educating adult Africans, adult Asians and others, who then have gone back to their own countries, very often to become distinguished leaders in their own communities.

The Ministry contribution is far less than it should be. It provides less than a 40 per cent. grant towards the running costs, and to date it has made no capital contributions. I am pleased to see that at least the attitude of the Minister is correct. It gives us encouragement that we may get a favourable response. The Minister went to Ruskin College on 26th February—the first time a Minister had ever been to Ruskin College, I heard the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, taking part in the opening of the new Fircroft College. I remarked to myself on that occasion that his words were good, but that I hoped that his actions would be better. Tonight, there is an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that his actions will be much better even than the words he uttered at Fircroft on that occasion.

All the residential colleges are hoping for substantial grants for 1964–65. They were disappointed with the capital grants for 1963–64. I hope that they will be very much better than the 50 per cent, which is the rumoured grant at the moment. There is no reason why Ministry grants should not be in the region of 75 per cent.

Very briefly, I want to sketch what the requirements are. The Parliamentary Secretary will have had more detailed statements, but the position, roughly, at the moment is as follows: Ruskin wishes to increase its number of students from a nominal figure of 120—in fact it has 127—to 160, and it wants to reconstruct its existing buildings so that its libraries, common rooms and dining rooms will be much more satisfactory for the contributions which it wants to make. For this it wants the sum of £175,000. I want to quote what Mr. Hughes, the Principal of Ruskin College, said in a pamphlet which he has published on the question. He said: If Ministry grant is forthcoming, it should not be many years before we no longer have to make apologies to our distinguished visitors from overseas, explaining that in Britain adult education is the Cinderella of the system, and that education has for many years ranked low in Government priorities. We might even be able to offer them modest hospitality. At Hillcroft the intention is to expand from 50 to 75 students, and about £40,000 is required for an adequate library, extra study bedrooms and extra teaching space. Fircroft, rather reluctantly, think they can expand and would be willing to expand from 38, the current number, to 50 students. They would require about £30,000 for a main block, new lecture and tutorial rooms and an extension to the kitchen. The Catholic Workers College wishes to secure a central site in Oxford and to expand from 35 to 60 students. I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) to put the case for Coleg Harlech.

Finally, I wish to put these points to the Parliamentary Secretary, hoping that we may have a satisfactory answer. I am sure that he will accept on behalf of the Minister, the principle of capital grants to these colleges. I should like him to indicate the percentage grant it is proposed to be made. I hope very much that the minimum will be 75 per cent. I hope that he will declare that there is to be a policy of expansion of all the existing colleges in 1964–65, and I hope that he will consider seriously raising the amount of the current grant over the 35 per cent. to 38 per cent. that it is now, because, if capital extensions take place, if the buildings are extended, there will be extra requirements from the colleges in the way of current expenditure. The hon. Gentleman may well consider putting that up to about 75 per cent. as well.

Finally, would the hon. Gentleman consider as a long-term project—though not so very far oft—the question of founding new colleges? I accept the argument advanced by the existing colleges that it would be a sound policy to expand them first before embarking on the provision of new colleges. But I hope that we may have an assurance that the future is much brighter for the residential adult colleges and that, associated with these requests for money, there will be a campaign from the Ministry of Education to recruit extra numbers of students and give full support to the colleges, so that at last we may need no longer say that they are the Cinderella of the education system and that we are approaching a little nearer to the idea of Scandinavia of adult education in residence being a basic part of our educational provision.

10.13 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I wish we had longer to discuss this matter, because I know that a number of my hon. Friends would like to speak, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), who was himself a student of Coleg Harlech, the Welsh residential college for adult education. I too, of course, have a strong personal interest in this college. My father founded it many years ago and I am proud to be one of its vice-presidents.

I believe that money spent on education could not be better spent than on adult education. We speak sometimes of selection in education. But these students largely select themselves, in the sense that it is they, as individuals and persons, who, having left the ordinary stream of education in order to earn a living, feel the need to take up education again, sometimes under conditions of very considerable personal difficulty and hardship. The evidence already adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who gave a most admirable survey in the short time at his disposal, shows that the value of this adult education in terms of those who become teachers, social workers and so on, is very considerable. I think there is no doubt whatever that one has a really excellent return for the money and effort put into this.

I wish to say a word about Coleg Harlech. We are asking to be allowed to extend from our present number, of between 95 and 100, to a minimum of 120. Owing to a misunderstanding with the Ministry a couple of years ago, it was apparently thought that we should have only 70 students. In fact, we have been having more for the last two years and we hope very much that the number we have actually been able to absorb will be taken as a sort of base line, and our extension calculated from that.

Primarily, we are concerned with people who come for the full academic session. That is the main job of the college, but we also think there is a place for short-course students, which has always been in the tradition of Coleg Harlech in the old days this used to be for unemployed people. Now, fortunately, that is not the main purpose. We have short courses of a week or two weeks for full-time students at technical colleges who have benefited inestimably by being able to come for a short time into a different atmosphere and to join with other students in discussions and lectures on liberal subjects which have been immensely appreciated by the technical colleges and for the stimulus given to the full time students at Coleg Harlech.

We have had a number of inquiries from other colleges whether this might be extended, but, owing to lack of accommodation, we have been quite unable to do anything of the kind. We have also played a very full part in accepting students from the Commonwealth and other overseas students. The head of the Coal Board in Nigeria, for example, is a Coleg Harlech student. I could give a whole list of others from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean who have benefited enormously by the kind of atmosphere they find at Coleg Harlech.

I had a letter from the warden in May saying that he had already more than 500 inquiries and more than 200 firm applications for our 95 places for next year. It was quite heart-breaking to have to turn down a number and to know that from now on all he could do was to say,"You must hope to apply in 1964–65. We have no room for you for the next session."

I could give much more evidence, but I have hope that we shall have a full reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. I warmly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. That this need is urgent is definite. No money could be better spent than on it.

10.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway)

There could be no one better fitted than the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) to initiate this short debate on adult education because he has formidable knowledge of it and first-hand experience of the work, the problems and achievements of the adult education colleges. He and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) have spoken in glowing, but I think, not in exaggerated terms of the achievements of these colleges. I know particularly of the contribution that they make to the developing countries in the way both hon. Members have described.

I think the House will not expect me tonight to be in a position to announce my right hon. Friend's decision on the expansion and modernisation projects which the long-term residential colleges have submitted to his Department, because this decision is bound up with the Government's review of public investment as a whole and is not yet completed. It may be of help if I describe briefly the stage reached in this matter and refer to some of the considerations which my right hon. Friend must have in mind. In 1961 the National Institute was asked by the Ministry to investigate the accommodation and staffing problems of adult education. It has so far received £2,500 towards the cost of this inquiry. A further grant has been offered for the financial year 1963–64.

The Institute presented its report to my right hon. Friend last October and published it in the January number of its journal Adult Education. This report deals in part with the residential adult education colleges and recommends that the Ministry of Education should examine the proposals made by the colleges with a view to making capital grants as provided in the Further Education (Grant) Regulations. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland rightly said, we make recurrent grants and have done so for some years, but capital grants have not been made. In March we sent letters to all five colleges reminding them that like other establishments of further education receiving direct grants from the Ministry they needed places in building programmes for grant-aided projects costing over £20,000. We added that by reason of the more pressing claims of schools, technical colleges and teacher training colleges the Minister had been unable for the financial year 1963–64 to find places in any educational building programme for the projects proposed by the colleges or to provide grants towards the capital cost of these projects. The Government's plans for capital investment in 1964–65 and subsequent years were under review and we would give the colleges information about the results of this review when we could usefully do so. We suggested then that in the meantime they should, in consultation with us, finalise their proposals for these projects so that undue delay could be avoided, if and when the programme cover and grant aid became available.

We have now completed our preliminary discussions in four out of the five grant-aided residential adult education colleges. The exception is the Catholic Workers' College. It is anxious, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to move from Boar's Hill to the centre of Oxford, but it has not yet found a suitable site, and so it has not so far proposed a building project. The plans for the remainder of the colleges are designed to increase student accommodation, provide some additional staff accommodation, and improve certain communal facilities. The roughly estimated costs of the initial proposals are these: Ruskin, £165,000; Fircroft, £25,000; Hillcroft, £33,000; and Coleg Harlech, £122,000, so that these four projects would add up to £345,000.

As regards the rate of any grant that might be possible, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have in mind 50 per cent. of the gross cost. This is the normal rate applicable to teacher training colleges provided by voluntary bodies. A rate of 75 per cent. of the gross capital cost is operating at present in respect of those voluntary colleges which have been asked to expand their provision as a matter of urgency, but we do not think that a rate of 75 per cent. could be justified for the long-term residential adult colleges, and we have made this clear to those colleges in the course of our discussions.

As my right hon. Friend has previously made clear, he cannot decide whether or not any of these projects are to be included next year until the Government's review of the load on the building industry for 1964–65 is completed. In the meantime, I would wish to advance a number of considerations that have to be taken into account. In the first place, the contribution which these colleges are making to adult education in England and Wales is certainly not in dispute. Although they are small and are providing courses for fewer than 400 students altogether, their reputation is extremely high and they are providing facilities which are nowhere else available for individuals who, for one reason or another, have missed a university education but who are capable of profiting from courses of one or two years' regular and intensive study.

There is certainly a case, too, for enlarging the facilities in at least some of these colleges. Ruskin has had to turn away certain suitable applicants because of lack of room. Coleg Harlech could take more students if it had better facilities. Too many students at Fircroft are in rooms shared by three or more. Some of the staff accommodation at Hillcroft is—we recognise this—unsuitable. These deficiencies are recognised by the Ministry, but action must be considered in terms of existing priorities. Our highest priorities at present must be for places in teacher training colleges, technical colleges and schools. There are a number of projects in these categories which my right hon. Friend is keen to include in the 1964–65 programme.

As the House knows, some local education authorities in the past few months have been able to submit new evidence to us to demonstrate the likelihood of severe overcrowding in certain instances unless an addition is made to the 1964–65 programme as provisionally announced by my right hon. Friend earlier in the year. The demand for an extension in the technical college world is considerable and I need not again emphasise the importance which my right hon. Friend attaches at the moment to a rapid expansion of teacher training colleges. In fact, the pressure on our capital investment resources is considerable, and that pressure is not confined to education. The claims for roads and houses in any general review such as that which is in train have to be set against the growing educational investment need.

Mrs. White

We are very much concerned with teacher training. May I suggest to the hon. Member that someone who goes into teacher training from an adult college is more likely to stay in teaching than is someone who goes direct from school? He is, therefore, a better investment.

Mr. Chataway

I see the point, but the hon. Lady would not argue from the supply position that a place provided at an adult education college is as good an investment as a place provided at a teacher training college. I should therefore make it plain that for any additional capital which may become available to us in 1964–65 there will be a number of very strong claimants.

There is another and none-too-optimistic factor to which I ought to refer. Residential accommodation is always expensive, and these proposals for adult education colleges are no exception. The colleges are unlikely, even after the expansion which they wish to undertake, to be able to accommodate more than some 450 students altogether, and the total effect of all four projects, costing nearly £350,000, would be to add only some 50 students to their roll. In relation to some other work this must therefore seem an expensive set of projects.

I do not wish to suggest that a decision has already been taken not to include these projects in 1964–65, because that is not the position, but I am anxious to make it clear that there are a number of very strong claims for any additional sums for that year. I fully appreciate the point, however, that if the colleges have to find half the capital cost they will need as early notice as possible of the inclusion of their projects in a building programme, otherwise they cannot effectively appeal for the balance of the funds which they will need to find. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend will come to his decision at the earliest possible date and that that decision will be taken in the light of this debate and with a very full appreciation of the achievements and the potential of the resident adult education colleges.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-minutes past Ten o'clock