SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION

HC Deb 29 July 1964 vol 699 cc1655-70

3.31 a.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Middlesbrough, West)

I am sure that Mr. Greenspan had a rotten deal of it, and it cannot be much comfort to him to think that he has been detaining the House at this hour of the morning. Nor can it be a comfort to the Minister of State for Education and Science to go on a nocturnal tour of a number of hopeful universities. In view of the rather stormy start that he had at Stirling I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he chooses to announce a university for Tees-side he can do it in a Press release, at Question Time, or in a Written Answer, or in whatever way he likes and we shall make no protest.

The Robbins Committee recommended the establishment of five things called Special Institutions for Scientific and Technical Education and Research, mercifully abbreviated to "SISTERS", as the British counterpart of great institutions like the M.I.T. and the Technical High Schools at Zurich and Delft. They were to be largely post-graduate institutions and so differing from the new technological universities developed from the colleges of advanced technology. They were to have 50 per cent. or more of students and staff in technological subjects, 25 per cent. in science and 25 per cent. in other subjects, and, therefore, they would differ, also from traditional universities. This concentration of excellence in technology, the Robbins Committee felt, was required by this country: … to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is prepared to give to technology the prominence which the economic needs of the future will surely demand. Only one of the five SISTERs was to be a new institution and it is to this that I wish to draw attention tonight.

The whole concept of SISTERs has come under heavy fire in the academic world from other institutions, perhaps a little jealous and fearful of their own position. I certainly welcome the development of the existing named institutions as SISTERs and wish them every success—the Imperial College, the Manchester College of Science and Tech- nology, Strathclyde, and an unnamed college of advanced technology.

All universities, all colleges of advanced technology, do not have the same job to do. Academic apartheid is anathema but specialisation is essential. If British students are denied access to the highest levels of research in this country they will go abroad. If we do not provide SISTERs here we shall find that we shall lose students who will seek them elsewhere. They will flock largely to the U.S., or perhaps back again to Europe as they did before the war. It is as simple as that.

The Robbins Committee warned of the inevitable academic reaction in its very balanced statement on academic freedom in paragraph 722 of its Report when it said: Public policy does not necessarily involve the development of all institutions of higher education at an equal pace. There must be selection. There must be the judicious fostering of some more than others. Our recommendation regarding the development of the Special Institutions for Scientific and Technological Education and Research is a case in point. To decide all such problems there must be a body with power both to allocate and also to deny. I hope that the Government are not now getting cold feet over this plainly anticipated difficulty foreseen by the Robbins Committee.

Since the publication of the Robbins Report the U.G.C. has found that existing universities are far more willing to expand than ever the Robbins Committee expected. The universities have accepted wholeheartedly, and rather surprisingly, the efficiency of size. Perhaps they are stimulated by the thought "no expansion, no money." Whatever the cause, the result is certainly welcome. Why, then, not concentrate on existing institutions? The equipment, staff and buildings will perhaps be used more efficiently than equipment, staff and buildings would be in an embryo institution in the earliest stages of its development. The argument runs that the time to establish the next generation of new universities to cope with the much higher numbers of students of the 1970s will be in the projected lull in the expansion of student numbers between 1968 and 1971. But even for this period, the location of these new universities must be decided in perhaps 1965 to 1966.

However, there are other considerations than this in the case of the SISTER, first of all, that of cost. Mr. K. L. Stretch, the Vice-Principal of the Birmingham College of Advanced Technology, in an interesting article in "Minerva," has estimated that the capital cost of SISTER facilities and residence for a SISTER near the centre of a large city is £6,900 per student place, as compared with £4,800 in a small town—something like 50 per cent. more in the centre of a city. In addition, the city centre provides a less efficient working environment because of time spent travelling and the greater shortage of space. Even assuming the initial cost, say, of £2 million in establishing a new institution, the total cost of development would be cheaper in a new establishment after the first thousand or so students than it will be at Imperial College, or in Manchester or Birmingham.

To realise these lower costs, a SISTER does not need to be buried in the heart of the country. It does not need to become a Baedeker university like the last generation of new universities. It could still be, as the Robbins Committee would like it to be, within four miles or so of the centre of a major industrial area if the right site is chosen.

The second and more important reason for getting a move on with the new SISTER now is that we have to face the liabilities of our otherwise excellent academic traditions. The two most serious inadequacies in technology in Britain today are, first, that it is not pressed through to the point of profitable and worth-while application, and, secondly, that technology does not attract as many of the most able students as it does in our industrial competitor countries overseas, either in America or on the continent of Europe. British students prefer pure science and, as a second best, the more glamorous technologies.

Whatever may be the merits of the existing balance of institutions such as Imperial College, the influence of the ancient universities and colleges of advanced technology, they are still not able to overcome these faults, and some new initiative is required. It is not simply a matter of our national bread and butter. The vitality of higher education itself suffers. It was von Neumann, the great American mathematician, who pointed this out clearly in a remark that he made about mathematics, and it is equally true of the whole spectrum of science and technology.

Von Neumann said: As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source … it is beset with very great dangers. It becomes more and more pure aestheticising, more and more art for art's sake. … There is a grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganised mass of details and complexities. … At the inception the style is usually classical; when it shows signs of becoming baroque, then the danger signal is up. There is, perhaps, a touch of Baroque about Imperial College today. It is difficult to see what else could happen in South Kensington, with nothing to study but traffic jams. We can afford a high-powered school of rather abstract engineering at Imperial College provided that there are other places which are keeping in closer touch with practical problems.

In Manchester, one cannot but admire the concept of comprehensive campus development, with all sides of higher education gathered together in the heart of a great city. But other concepts are needed where the environment is not the world of education as a whole, important though this is, but is the outside world of industry and commerce and the way life is lived there.

In the British academic atmosphere, it is not surprising, though it is none the less distressing, to hear that the C.A.T.s are trying to copy the universities, that the teaching methods in the C.A.T.s are tending to become more conservative and slipping into the mould set by the university. No doubt, our Scottish friends know what they are up to, but it is ominous that the name of the Royal College of Science and Technology should have been changed to the University of Strathclyde, and that the new university which Scotland has just been given should have been put in the medieval town of Stirling.

In all these circumstances, there is an overwhelming case for making a clean break somewhere. The Robbins Report pleads for a new foundation which could experiment boldly, unfettered by existing affiliations either with universities or with further education. It is no secret that it was Sir Patrick Linstead, Rector of Imperial College, who pleaded for this on the Robbins Committee itself. The main stream of the British academic tradition will certainly continue, and I should be very disappointed if it were otherwise for it is an admirable one; but there is room—indeed, there is urgent need—for bold experiment in a new SISTER.

At this hour, I can do no more than mention some directions of useful experiment which are now being discussed in industry and outside the academic world as well as inside. The organisation of the SISTER might be not along the traditional divisions in departments but take the form of a series of projects chosen on a cost-benefit basis, each with its own programme, and a time-scale, and directed to a practical end. These projects might be used as scaffolding for teaching and, above all, in motivating the students. There could be continuous operation throughout the year, not according to the termly spasms of present university life. The majority of the staff could be on industrial terms, that is, on temporary but highly-paid appointments.

The first year of university life would be spent in sufficiently general studies to prevent students committing themselves to pure or applied sciences before gaining the experience on which to judge. The staff would be trained in teaching methods, not leaving this to haphazard development by experience. The use of teaching machines would be a matter of course. There would be higher degrees for research and development work in industry itself. The SISTER would operate as a commercial concern, undertaking sponsored research, selling the results of its research where appropriate, and interesting itself in production and marketing as well as in research and development.

All these are developments of the kind now going on round the M.I.T. today, perhaps rather overwhelmingly in the defence world but, nevertheless, transferable to the civil world of this country. There could be projects involving investigations into housing, education, health, employment, incomes, voluntary or- ganisations at home and abroad—witness the tremendous programmes in Asian and African studies now in the great American institutes—all these efforts, these projects, undertaken both for their own sake and for their educational value for the students themselves.

Once an institution in this country started operating on such lively lines as these, it would attract students to technology who would otherwise never come to this subject at all. It would attract staff who would never have thought of teaching. It would also stimulate technological education elsewhere in more traditional institutions.

The real worry today is whether the University Grants Committee is properly equipped to consider such an institution in its totality. Out of 17 members of the U.G.C., only two are engineers, and these are both very distinguished professors. The technology sub-committee of the U.G.C. is very distinguished, but it is presided over by the chairman of the U.G.C. who is himself an arts man. Furthermore, the technology sub-committee has met only once a year for the past six years. Its workings are even more Olympian than those of the Royal Society itself. In the circumstances the Government are clearly bound to give some guidance as to the wider public interest in the development of higher technological education.

I know that every town clerk from Inverness to Falmouth is expecting and wanting a university today, but for the new SISTER in particular, the location is important, if not crucial. It should not be put down in an industrial or scientific vacuum. It should be recognised that it will stimulate further industrial and economic growth. It should go where this growth is desired.

For the SISTERs, London, Manchester and Strathclyde is a good start. Birmingham, or at least the Midlands, is an inevitable fourth, with the development of some existing institution. The South-West and South Wales have four universities and two C.A.T.s, while in the North-East we have two universities and no C.A.T. We look forward to the development of three major colleges of technology, Rutherford, Sunderland, and Constantine, but they are not SISTERs.

We wish Scotland well with its new university and with the movement and expansion of the Heriot Watt College, but we cannot help noticing that the Scots get one university institution for every 800,000 people, while the North-East gets one for 1,700,000 people—twice the number of people per university institution that there is in Scotland.

Yet in the North-East we have both modern and traditional industry and there is an urgent need for more. The case for putting the new SISTER in the North-East on general and regional grounds; seems strong. Within the North-East on Tees-side we are in the largest concentration of population in the country without any form of university institution, yet we are so highly developed that we have £600 million invested in the greatest concentration of modern capital intensive industry in the country, and this industry is growing at a rate of more than £50 million a year, considerably greater than the total university expansion programme in the country.

In the first quarter of this year, 25 per cent. of the new construction orders for industry were for the North-East, and the greater part of this from Tees-side, yet, paradoxically, we are short of jobs because our industry is so highly automated. As for our contribution to the national economy, from Tees-side alone we export more than the whole of the aircraft industry, and yet we get no help at all from the Government in research.

If anybody should think that, while we are hard working and worthy people, we are a lumpey lot, unsuitable for housing a new university, I would be glad to arrange for him to be dazzled by science and research in a dozen Tees-side works and laboratories. If anyone thinks that the North-east is ugly, he should come and see the clear skies, the heather, and the dales full of bluebells and daffodils, with not a soul nor a chimney in sight. The view is no different from what it was before the Roman occupation of Britain.

In short, on Tees-side we can offer as good an environment as any for a university. We can offer a unique environment for the new SISTER which, in the interests of education and research, in the interests of the national and the local economy and in equity to the people of the North-East as a whole, I hope that the Government will not be long in taking up.

I ask the Minister tonight three specific questions. First, what is the attitude of the Government to the Robbins proposal for the new SISTER? The Government have made no statement about this and I am sure that many people in the university world would be interested to hear. Secondly, how strongly do the Government favour the location of new universities, and particularly the new SISTER, in industrial areas needing further expansion and renewal? Thirdly, specifically in relation to our interests in the North-East, will the Minister indicate to the University Grants Committee that he looks forward to receiving an early and a positive reply to the representations it has received on the establishment of the new SISTER?

Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)

I have a suspicion that when the hon. Member refers to Tees-side he is suggesting my constituency as one of the sites for the new SISTER, which I would welcome. When he talks about clear skies over Tees-side, I should point out that his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) has just been discussing air pollution over Stockton. I am sure that the pleasant picture that the hon. Member has been painting must refer more to my constituency on Tees-side than to his own.

Dr. Bray

I am grateful to the hon. Member. The troubles about atmospheric pollution are limited to the area to the west and to the immediate south of Stockton. In Nunthorpe, which is in the hon. Member's constituency and where I lived for a number of years, we are quite untroubled by the smell. A little further over towards Guisborough would be one of the possible sites talked about for this new institution. It is entirely outside the atmosphere of industry and no industrial development is either visible or smellable.

3.52 a.m.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle)

I reply for the second time tonight, on this occasion to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). I know the North-East fairly well. To be fair, some of the most attractive countryside I know there is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) who is silent on this subject although he will be taking part in the debate on the next one.

In answering the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, I should begin by reminding the House of what was said in the White Paper last autumn by the Government, when announcing their views on the Robbins Report. They said: The Government strongly endorse the Report's emphasis on the building up of technological Universities and the development of management studies. They are asking the University Grants Committee for an early report on the further development of Imperial College, London, the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow, and the Manchester College of Science and Technology, on the lines proposed in the Report; and also on the proposal for a completely new technological University. The present situation is that the Government have now received and are considering the advice both of the University Grants Committee and also of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, whose views they decided to invite. No decision has yet been taken on the recommendations that, first, a college of advanced technology should be developed into a special institution, and, secondly, that an entirely new foundation should be established. These are decisions which must be taken in the light of the advice that the Government are receiving from those two bodies and also in the context of the university expansion programme as a whole for the next 10 years.

I would, however, tell the House that it is not customary to publish the advice that the Government receive from the University Grants Committee, but with regard to the advice that the Government have received from the A.C.S.P. my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to say in this debate that it is his intention that that advice should be published within a month or two from now, and there will, I think, be a convenient occasion for this advice being published. But the hon. Member will realise that because these matters have only recently been received by the Government, because they are still being considered and must, I think, be considered in the context of the university expansion programme as a whole, I cannot go further in answering his specific questions this evening.

I think, though, that there is one point that I ought to make clear, and that is that there is no question of the Government in any way going back on the rest of what they said in the White Paper last autumn. That is to say, we stand entirely by what we said on that occasion. With permission, I will quote just one more paragraph from the White Paper: This immediate operation will be the first step in formulating a 10-year programme for the 390,000 full-time higher education places in Universities, Technical Colleges and Training Colleges by 1973–4, which is recommended in the Report. Of this total 218,000 will be in institutions of University status. I quote that figure on purpose because I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise one very real difficulty which perhaps was not quite sufficiently realised by everyone last autumn—namely, that the Robbins recommendations envisaged 197,000 full-time students in institutions of university status by 1967–68, which left a narrow gap to be filled in institutions of university status within six years. But let me make it plain that the Government will firmly plan on the basis that Lord Robbins put in his Report; that is to say, of 218,000 students in institutions of university status by 1973–74 and a total 10-year programme for 390,000 full-time higher education places. In fact, in one respect—I wanted to tell the House this tonight—I am sure we shall do better than Robbins, and, indeed, should expect to do so.

I feel that the Robbins figure of 45,000 full-time advanced students in technical colleges other than C.A.T.s will certainly be an under-estimate of what we shall achieve, not just by deliberate planning but simply because of the demand for full-time advanced courses in these institutions. So there is no question at all of the Government not providing the resources for the 1967–68 expansion figure or going back on the figures for which they are planning in 1973–74. But I think that the decision on SISTERs, which the hon. Member has specifically raised, must be taken in the context of the decision about university expansion as a whole over the next 10 years.

Dr. Bray

Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are qualitative considerations about the SISTERs which are not covered merely by the total number of university places, and that to say that the total number of university places might be met by expansion of existing institutions without the creation of any new institutions might be to remove a vital element from the scheme of development of higher education as put forward by the Robbins Committee, and that if the Government are considering omitting this type of development, he is seriously prejudicing the development of higher education in technology and surely interfering with a part of the national life which is not touched at all by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy or the University Grants Committee? This should, therefore, be preceded by much wider consultations with industry before any decision is made.

Sir E. Boyle

In view of the fairly wide-ranging speech that the hon. Member made—it was a very attractive speech—I was proposing to say something about technology in general. I accept the point that there are what he called qualitative considerations to be taken into account. I was merely making the point that the decision reached on SISTERs must be reached in the context of the Government's plans, in the light of the Robbins recommendations, for university expansion as a whole. One cannot surely take a decision on SISTERs separately from a decision on the rest of university education.

The hon. Member said a good deal about technology. Despite the late hour, this is a subject of such importance that I should like to respond to his invitation to add a few words about it myself since, as it is not a subject of high party politics, we do not, perhaps, discuss it as much as we might.

On the face of it, the figures today for qualified scientists and technologists are encouraging. The 1956 target was to double the output of qualified scientists and technologists by the later 1960s. We had 10,000 in 1956 and it looks as though the estimated output this year will be 19,500.

The universities and the technical colleges, including the C.A.T.s, are each producing about one half this total. Taken overall, the technologists will account for rather more than half the 1964 figure. At the same time, it would be wrong to be too encouraged by this figure because the A.C.S.P., in its 1963 Report, has spoken with concern about what it calls the increasing tendency for students to pursue pure science in preference to technology and the fact that the academic level of pure science entrants to university is higher than that of technology. Whatever the total output, we cannot be complacent while this trend continues.

We have to remember what the Report says, namely, that technology offers prospects as exciting and challenging as pure science. I hope that it will be generally agreed that my right hon. and learned Friend, during the years he was Minister for Science and now as Secretary of State for the whole Department, has stressed very strongly the importance of technology to the whole of our national life and, indeed, its significance for the education system.

I would mention that my right hon. and learned Friend has asked me in particular to interest myself in and to concern myself with technology as a dimension of the whole of our education in having two parts to the Department. He has always been keen that this should not be thought of as a horizontal division and that the Richmond Terrace unit should concern itself with technology throughout our education system and, therefore, also with applied science and what can be done to encourage the teaching of applied science in schools to abler pupils.

I mention in particular the part the C.A.T.s and what one might call the three institutions named by the Robbins Committee are now contributing towards technology. The number in C.A.T.s has gone up very considerably. Whereas, three years ago, there were 9,000 full time and sandwich students in C.A.T.s, now there are nearly 12,000. It has been the work of the C.A.T.s as pace makers among technical colleges which has led to the steady increase in the Dip. Tech. awards.

It is a fact that, in the last year of the last Parliament—1959–60—there were 129 such awards; in the current academic year, 1963–64, the figure has risen to 1,073. The attainment of the C.A.T.s to university status will mean, of course, that many students who previously would have taken Dip.Tech. awards, will be reading for internal degrees. We are, however, very keen that the separate excellencies of the Dip.Tech. should not be lost sight of when the C.A.T.s reach university status.

I accept entirely what the hon. Member said about the importance of seeing that within the University Grants Committee higher technical education is properly represented. Apart from what I am sure will be the great contribution of the one or two very distinguished members with a special interest in this work, it is certainly the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend that within the whole of the Richmond Terrace unit and within the administrative structure of the U.G.C. there should be a realisation and concern of the importance of technology in higher education. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter which is very much in our minds.

I accept what he said about the danger of too many people concentrating on pure mathematics in a spirit perhaps of aestheticism or perhaps even philosophising. I think that it was Bertrand Russell who said that pure mathematics was a subject in which we did not know what we were talking about; nor did we care whether what we said was true. It is the purest of all pure subjects. Consequently, higher technological education and technical education at all levels—about which the House is shortly to consider another subject—are of crucial importance to the nation's future and crucially important if we mean to make the sort of progress in education which is assumed by the Robbins Report.

I should like briefly to refer to the special institutions named by the Robbins Committee. I am not sure that it is always realised just how great has been the increase in the resources which these institutions now command. For example, between 1953 and 1968, Imperial College will have done capital work to the value of £18,500,000 and its numbers will have increased from 1,700 to 3,700. Between 1955 and 1967, Manchester College of Science and Technology will have had a capital outlay of rather more than £6,500,000 and its numbers will have gone up from 800 to 2,700, while Strathclyde College—or, if the hon. Gentleman prefers the old name, Glasgow Royal College of Science and Technology—over the same 12 years will have had a capital outlay of £4¼ million while the increase in numbers will have been from 1,300 to 3,300.

On an earlier occasion, I said that I fully agreed that as colleges of science and technology reached university status it was very important that they should not lose their own excellencies and that they should not become Baedeker institutions. Personally, I think that this need not happen, and, certainly, all our influence in the Department will be against its happening.

Finally, I should like to say something about technical education and higher technological education in the North-East. I will mention, in particular, the two universities of Durham and Newcastle and then the three technical colleges which make such a major contribution. Between 1955 and 1966, Durham will have had a capital allocation totalling about £5¾ million, of which a little less than £1 million will be for applied science. There is evidence of growing interest in applied science as the university becomes separated from Newcastle and of course Dr. Christopherson, Warden of Durham Colleges and the future Vice-Chancellor of the University, is himself an engineer.

Between 1955 and 1966, Newcastle University will have received capital allocations of £9 million, of which £3,700,000 will be for engineering and applied science, and a considerable extra sum for pure science. It is only fair to say that this university has always been very strong in science and technology and this tendency will be reinforced by the present trend of capital investment.

Quite apart from the Robbins expansion, from the extra money from Robbins over the next two or three years, Newcastle will expand fast on the applied science side. In addition to that, there are the three major technical colleges. We cannot now debate over again the whole story of higher technical education in the North-East, on which I think the hon. Member will agree I have received my fair share of deputations and explained the situation often enough.

But I would like to pay tribute to the notable part that Sunderland, Rutherford and the Constantine College, at Middlesbrough, all play in providing higher technical education in the North-East. I do not think that it is perhaps always realised that Constantine, as well as Rutherford and Sunderland, makes a real contribution to university work. I regret that in answering a Question the other week I did not bring this out as I intended. But let me make it quite plain tonight that Constantine, along with Sunderland and Rutherford, plays a full part in higher technical education.

I regret that I cannot say more to the hon. Gentleman tonight on the particular matter he has asked me about, but I hope that I have said enough to show that the Government are deeply concerned about the progress of technology, and that in the North-East, as well as other areas, considerable sums of money are being spent and considerable interest shown.

Dr. Bray

I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will be very discouraging to people on Tees-side and to people in industry generally, who are very unhappy about the progress of education and research in higher technology. Will he give an assurance that if he has decided not to establish a new SISTER, as appears to be the case, he will, before making any announcement, consult industrial organisations such as the Federation of British Industries, and not merely accept the advice of the University Grants Committee and the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, who, frankly, represent rather a narrow range of national interests. Will the right hon. Gentleman give that undertaking.

Further, in view of the imminence of the election, does he not feel that any announcement might perhaps be deferred until after the election?

Sir E. Boyle

The hon. Gentleman's intervention comes very near to the category of "when did you stop beating your wife?" If I were to go into detail on every aspect it would look as though the Government have made up their mind. But when I said that this was under consideration, I meant it. This is not a decision which, I think, the Government can responsibly take in a hurry. The Government have to take advice from the two bodies I have mentioned, but both the degree and the timing of any announcement is a very important matter.

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that I had not intended to be depressing tonight. I hope that I had said enough to show the very great importance which the Government do attach to progress in higher technology.

I think that I ought to mention what I called the narrow gap between 1968 and 1974. This is relevant, and I want to say furthermore that the decisions about SISTERs had to be taken in connection with the decisions about universities as a whole. Both the Government's decision itself and the timing of any announcement will be very carefully considered indeed.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the past month the Prime Minister has been interesting himself in the proposals for higher technological education in the North-East, having regard to the fact that it is considered essential for our development on the North-East Coast? Presumably my right hon. Friend is aware that the Prime Minister is to answer a Question from me today on the subject. I am not suggesting that there will be a final answer today, but he knows of the views put forward by various bodies interested in technological education in the North-East. The Prime Minister has been seeking to do some co-ordination so that progress may be made towards an announcement as to what the future will be.

Sir E. Boyle

May I let my hon. Friend into a secret? I have glanced at the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may be giving to her later today, but perhaps I had better not anticipate it.