University Building Schemes

HC Deb 25 June 1963 vol 679 cc1106-7

5. Mr. Boyden

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of all major university building schemes which were postponed for six months or more because of the cuts in grant allocations, with an indication as to the effect the restored grants will have on the building timetable for these projects.

Mr. Barber

I cannot accept the implication that there have been any cuts in university capital allocations since all loss of value in the original 4-year building programme towards the target of 150,000 students in 1966–67 has now been made good by supplementary allocation.

Mr. Boyden

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the last report of the Association of University Teachers in which many universities are listed as having had to postpone building plans for six months, twelve months, and that sort of thing, and which gives specific details of where they have been held up? If I send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the report, will he comment on its accuracy or otherwise?

Mr. Barber

Yes, of course. As the hon. Gentleman must know, building programmes are under constant review by the universities and by the University Grants Committee, and there are inevitable changes in plans and priorities. There are many possible reasons for postponements. It is true that the main factor outside the universities' control has been the increase in building costs, but this has been met by the addition of £5 million to the £25 million programme approved for 1963. The authorised building programme has risen from £3.8 million in 1956 to £30 million this year, and next year it will be £33½ million.

Mr. Boyden

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the last report of the Principal of London University in which he says that repairs and maintenance have had to be postponed because of the lack of money, and also that some of the new university buildings have not been brought into use because of the shortage of funds?

Mr. Barber

There was, of course, some delay, but it is not true to suggest that it was very serious. All the items concerned—which were very few—have now been restored to the programme.