HC Deb 29 July 1964 vol 699 cc1593-612

12.23 a.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I desire to seek more information about Scotland's new university. This is a matter in which I have long been interested, for it is nearly 18 years to this month that I first raised the question of a new university in Scotland.

In dealing with the subject, I do not want to go back 18 years, although I might well do so. I shall start no further away than a fortnight ago tonight, because we are now into Thursday, 30th July, and it was only a fortnight ago, during questions on business, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and I asked the Leader of the House when a statement would be made about the situation of the new Scottish university.

The reply which we received on that occasion was "Not without notice." Evidently the Leader of the House was not aware, when he used those words, that notice in the form of a Question was already on the Order Paper. He was further asked whether he would make a statement next week—which is now last week—and his reply was: I will certainly discuss the matter with my right hon. Friends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 1443–45.] Most of that exchange will be found in column 1445 of HANSARD of the day to which I have referred. While the Leader of the House was talking about next week, the expected statement was made in the week in which he was speaking, for the next day, Friday, 17th July, it was given in reply to a Written Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson). The Question appeared on the Order Paper on the very day that the Leader of the House was telling us that he would discuss the matter with his colleagues. Evidently he knew nothing about what was brewing. The Secretary of State for Education and Science at least must surely have been privy to what was happening for he had to supply the answer to his hon. Friend the following day. The Question was not on the Order Paper on the Wednesday. Obviously, it appeared on Thursday in a moment of inspiration. How that inspiration is created in an hon. Member is not for me to pursue at this time.

The terms of the reply which appeared on the Friday are worth quoting. The Secretary of State for Education and Science told the House that the University Grants Committee, after visiting the proposed locations, had advised the Government that the new university should be located at Stirling, and that advice, we were told, had been accepted. In that curt and obscure manner a great moment for Scotland was hidden away in a corner of HANSARD. It was a disgrace. Here was a moment of drama; a time for the pealing of bells, for bonfires. Something wonderful had happened. A promise made 400 years ago had materialised. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite realise its significance. This was promised by James I, 400 years ago, and after waiting that time we got the promise of the new university, hidden almost on the back page of HANSARD. If ever brevity was the soul of wit, this was one of the wittiest Answers that has appeared in HANSARD for a long while.

The recommendation was made in such a way that hon. Members were substantially deprived of their right to seek further information from the Government other than through this debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is only a limited opportunity. For that reason the Government are subject to our censure. Expenditure of between £6 million and £9 million arises from this decision. A very staunch supporter of the Government, the Glasgow Herald, on 18th July, had to pass serious strictures on the Government which it supports for the way in which they had handled this important announcement. This is what it said: Although the new university deserves unqualified support, the Government and the University Grants Committee do not. The campaign for a new university was not a sporting competition in which everyone congratulates the winner and that is the end of it. It was an advocacy of Scottish social and educational interests and a major public investment. These are Government matters and call for explanation as well as the decision which has been made. Mr. Hogg and Mr. Noble should explain why they accepted the U.G.C. recommendation and what their future policy is for expansion in Scottish higher education. Even although time was very short, I personally tried to elucidate more information from the Government, and on 22nd July I received a Written Answer from the Secretary of State for Education and Science in answer to my further search. He said: The factors taken into account by the University Grants Committee in advising on the location of the new university are described in paragraphs 276–287 of the University Grants Committee's report 'University Developments 1957–62' (Cmnd. 2267."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 100.] So, to find those reasons, I turned my attention to the paragraphs referred to. Paragraphs 276, 277, 278 and 279 do not say anything about the matter, but paragraph 280 makes the simple statement that, in siting a university, or rather, in deciding to create a university and siting it, if it is to be fully effective it should be part of the community in which it lives. That is, I think, a remarkable discovery. How could anyone vision a university that functioned outside the community in which it was based? A university needs various sponsoring groups and, said the Report, it … could act as a stimulus in many ways to the life of the area in which it was established. All that, of course, is merely mundane talk which one would think is accepted without further comment. Paragraph 281 says: … it was not expected that the proportion of boys and girls who were likely to qualify to proceed to a university would increase in Scotland as rapidly as in England and Wales. As a result of these two factors, we had to recognise that some 15 additional places would be required in England and Wales for every one in Scotland. Added to this, the expansion proposals of the five existing university institutions in Scotland appeared to meet the potential demand in the later sixties … Here are the people, distinguished gentlemen all of them, academically qualified and qualified well in other ways, who are asked to decide on the question—a major question—whether Scotland should or should not have another university and where it should be sited. These paragraphs show the Committee to be against having another university in Scotland at that time. Can the right hon. Gentleman expect me to have any confidence in a view which is based on the findings of individuals who, only four years ago, regarded another university for Scotland as not an immediate necessity?

The Committee went on to refer to the need for the university having a friendly community; financial support from sources other than the Government; being part of a diverse civic community, and it regarded the cosmopolitan character of a university as one of its great educational and liberalising influences. The supply of lodgings and the attractiveness of the area to the academic staff were other necessities it mentioned.

I do not quarrel with those, but the Committee did not mention the greatest necessity of all—the social and economic impact made by a university on the community. This is the decisive factor and it is a matter not for a Committee of this kind, but for the Government and the Government alone.

The Written Answer I have mentioned also said: … the University Grants Committee considered that the location of the new Scottish university had to allow both for specifically Scottish needs to be met and for a suitable proportion of students to be attracted from elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 100.] That is completely feeble. Glasgow, Edinburgh, St. Andrew's and Dundee are all universities of long standing and each attracts students from elsewhere. They come to Glasgow, from south of the Border, from the North of Scotland, from the Colonies, from all over the world. That sort of recommendation can be applied to every part of Scotland seeking to have a university.

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

In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about the social aspect, he should bear in mind that in paragraph 283 of the Report the Committee specifically said: In view of the growing importance of pure and applied science, we felt that the presence of industries in an area could provide a useful association and we therefore took account of the kind of industrial development in those areas which were claimants for universities and also of the existence of research institutions or organisations. Surely that is relevant to what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Rankin

I was not trying to prolong that part too long, but I must say something about it. I was going to refer to it a little later, but the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was driving at. Perhaps I might not have been sufficiently clear. I was dealing with that part of the decision not just from the point of view of putting a university into a place where industry existed, but where the university would become a great growth point.

It is not merely a social and economic investment. A university today can be the greatest industrial investment that any Government can give to an area that is seeking to develop itself. I say that that is one of the aspects of these recommendations from the University Grants Committee which disturbed me very seriously because there is not, as I have said, one single word about the social and economic stimulus that can be provided by a new university, nor is there any reference whatsoever to the university as a point of industrial growth in itself.

The Scotsman on 18th July, goes back to that point in dealing with the decision which the Government has taken. It says this: Five universities in the central belt of Scotland is not good planning. Actually, there will be six. The Scotsman further says: This is too high a concentration for good academic planning; it is certainly inconsistent with the Government's principles on development. When we look at this decision, including the manner in which the whole business has been handled, one of its effects is to do a great disservice to the Scottish Highlands and its capital. Because now there is a feeling that as a result of the Government's treatment of this matter the Highlands are too far away for a university, and this is, in my view, a terrible disservice to do to Scotland.

If a university is too far away, situated, for example, in Inverness, what hope is there of inducing industrialists to migrate to the Highlands? So I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared this morning to do anything to right the wrong that he has done to Scotland, though not by placing the university at Stirling, for I welcome that. Now that that decision has been taken it is the duty of every good Scotsman and Scotswoman to welcome it and to do everything that he or she can to advance the university's interests and future. I am not complaining now of the placing of the university at Stirling, but of the way in which it has been done.

The Government went about the matter almost secretively and we had the spectacle involving the Leader of the House—not a Minister—a Member who speaks for both sides of the House, who should at least know what his ministerial colleagues propose to do and who, when telling the House of the business for the following week, should know all that is brewing amongst the Ministers on his own side. Or are we to conclude that the right hand of the Tory Party does not know what the left hand is doing; nor the right foot which way the left foot is moving?

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

At a quarter to one in the morning, I have no great desire to read a sermon to the Government Front Bench, but we are entitled to ask why this decision was reached in so clumsy and so gauche a manner. Was it not obvious that where-ever the choice fell, it would cause controversy and distress?

Dumfries had a claim. Ayr had a sound case in many ways, from the point of view of providing off-peak accommodation. The Falkirk promotion committee had worked extremely hard. Stirling had put forward its bid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said, there was a strong case for Inverness. Others, too, might have had a chance. Surely, the object of the Government on this occasion should have been to gain good will once the decision was reached. I can only say that the attempt to gain good will was almost non-existent.

When the decision was reached, should it not have been announced, first of all, to the House of Commons, with some opportunity, not necessarily a very long one, for those of us who had questions to put them? After that—I say this because it should have some bearing on the future—would it not have been sensible for the Minister of State for Education and Science, or the Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State, accompanied by the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and accompanied, I would say, in this case, by Sir John Wolfenden, Professor Briggs and Dame Lucy Sutherland and Mr. Ian Stewart to hold a Press conference, where the arguments—and there are strong arguments—for Stirling, although I am unrepentantly in favour of East Stirlingshire, could have been aired?

Would not this have been the way in which to create some sort of good will? Had this been done, I do not think that remarks about "gangs of poachers" and other remarks which have done great harm would ever have appeared in the Scottish Press. I regret that this attitude should have been contrived, but it has been contrived. It is a certain thoughtlessness on the part of the Scottish Office which has brought this about.

I do not wish to carp at great length but I have had a courteous letter from the noble Lady, in which she states: In the letter you passed to me on 23rd July, you asked for the date on which it was finally agreed that Stirling should be the site of the new university, and you put the specific question: was it before or after 2nd July? The answer is that although, as Sir Edward Boyle told you in answer to your Question on 25th June, the U.G.C.'s recommendations had then been received—in fact, they had only just arrived—ministerial consideration of them could not be completed until shortly before the announcement of the Government's decision was made in answer to Commander Donaldson's Question on 17th July. I gather that you think that some information should have been given to the House in the debate on 2nd July. Certainly I do. That would have been an excellent opportunity for an airing to be given. If a decision had not to be reached elsewhere in the Government machine why could not the opportunity have been given to the elected representatives of the people? Could we have a longer answer about the decision-making in this whole business, and could we know why the opportunity was not taken during the debate on 2nd July to air the subject? I do not think that the noble Lady's answer is anything like adequate. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the delay between 25th June and 17th July?

My second point concerns the whole question of the terms of reference of the University Grants Committee. The Committee has said that local interests will play a part, and has given many promotion committees to understand that the raising of money and the promise of money will be very good reason for the siting of a university in a particular area. Whether, in fact, this was sensible and right in the first place is open to doubt. Perhaps it is not the way in which a university should be chosen.

Perhaps such a purely ephemeral matter as the enthusiasm of a local committee and its efficiency in raising money is not the way in which to take an eternal decision which is to last, we hope, for many hundreds of years, but I think that the Minister should now say very plainly that the fact that a number of people have gone to great trouble to raise or promise millions of pounds—£1 million plus, in one case—counts as little. In fairness to those on promotion committees this should be made plain from now on. Let us get away from the idea that the raising of money in itself constitutes a reason for putting a university at point A rather than at point B.

Thirdly, could we ask, as I did at Question Time, about the whole Robbins recommendation that universities and teacher training colleges should grow up side by side? I would not like to see a delay in the teacher training college which is going to Falkirk at the present time, but if we accept the Robbins argument on this, is there not very good reason, while it is still in the infant stage, to reconsider the siting of the teacher training college and taking it to Stirling? This will not be popular with my Falkirk friends, but, at the same time, I think that there is a very considerable argument, particularly when teacher training colleges are to be able to award degrees, for putting them in juxtaposition to universities. Perhaps the Minister will let us know precisely what sort of university this should be, if he could take just a little time to expand on the kind of university he envisages.

I would here put in one small but important point, that one of the reasons why I was on the East Stirling promotion committee was that I thought that it would be an opportunity to extend the very much needed school of microbiology which has been started in a big way in Grangemouth through the action of B.P. in taking its Lavera experiments to Grangemouth and the whole experimentation in converting straight-chain hydrocarbons into proteins. I do not ask for an answer on this tonight, but later, perhaps, an answer could be given on the place of microbiology in the university at Stirling.

Alternatively, is it really sensible to discuss the academic disciplines of a new Scottish university when it is not yet decided where the Heriot Watt College is to be located? This is germane to the whole problem. I think that perhaps there is a strong argument now for bringing Heriot Watt College to Falkirk. I hope that this decision, whatever it is, will not be influenced by any ill-temper any of us may feel at present, in summer 1964. Let us try to put away certain ill-temper which has dogged this whole problem, and decide, on rational grounds, where the Heriot Watt College is to go, as soon as possible.

I do not think that it behoves a politician to carp too much, but I have one serious "grouse". When the U.G.C. delegation came to East Stirlingshire it came without my personal friend, Dr. Vick. Perhaps one should not criticise one's friends on the Floor of the House of Commons, but I think it a pity that to East Stirlingshire there did not come the technological member of the delegation. Having visited Ayr and Dumfries, he decided that he had business at Wind-scale. If exceedingly busy men are put on these delegations, they take on a duty which they must honour. Falkirk people are "sore" that the man who, potentially, was their representative found other business to do on that particular day.

My next question assumes particular importance now that the site is to be Stirling rather than Ayr, with its visitors' accommodation, or Falkirk, with its greater catchment area. It is the question of residence. In Ayr, they had the same possibilities of using off-peak periods for university residence in the same way as Brighton has done. In Inverness, I gather, there was a great deal of accommodation, but even including Bridge of Allan, this was not so from the Stirling site. The question arises: what is the attitude of the Government to be towards grants for residence? Here we are faced with an awkward situation whereby the Universities of York and Lancaster have not any grant for residence while one university, the University of Kent has such a grant. My hon. Friends from Tees-side, the hon. Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. Rodgers) and Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), in their efforts to get a university—which I support—will be interested in what is to happen if they are successful. Is Stirling to be entitled to grants for residence or not? If it is not, why should the University of Canterbury get such a grant which is not to be awarded to Stirling?

I ask the Government to give a decision as soon as possible on the Heriot Watt College location to prevent any ill-feeling which exists at present from getting rather out of hand.

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Middlesbrough, West)

Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is an unfortunate precedent for future possible cases and that it would be desirable when the University Grants Committee sends recommendations to the Government for a major question of university development that these proposals should be published and debated in this House before the Government have to make up their mind whether or not to accept the recommendations?

Mr. Dalyell

I think it extremely unfortunate that decisions of this importance, lasting for such a long time, should be given us from on high without being aired by the representatives of the people.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I do not think we can entirely congratulate the Government on the way in which they have handled this matter. I think that they have underestimated the importance that Scottish people place upon education and the pride they take in our universities, their age and all that lies behind them.

To the Department this may be a matter of just another university, but to Scotland it is something which is epoch-making. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on giving us, by his initiative, this first opportunity of discussing this question which, as he rightly said, some of us have been concerned about for a very long time. I regret that many people who should have known better attempted to damp our enthusiasm and suggested that we had little need for another university. Attention was drawn to this, not necessarily in Scotland, by the U.G.C. in a development report when its visiting committee found that some universities were out of touch, particularly with future needs in university development and expansion.

The Government have been out of touch with Scotland. There has been one Question after another arising from the natural local patriotism and enthusiasm of Scottish hon. Members in their desire to have the proud honour of locating the new university in their constituency. I remember the Leader of the House saying that a statement would be made in the House; within the week, he said. From a sitting position, and quite out of order, I asked "Where?" and with a gesticulation which could not possibly be reported in HANSARD, the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the statement would be made here, in the House.

Making a statement, or promising to make one, in the House does not mean that a reply to a Written Question is the same as making a statement. When I think of the parade of Ministers who have made statements in recent weeks, some important and some relatively unimportant, I cannot help recalling that this for Scotland was something of real, national importance.

If the statement had been made we could have got the views of the representatives of the various Scottish areas and any wrangles which came from disappointment could have been cleared away within half an hour. Instead, the Government, in their blindness—I will not say slickness—have brought wrangle into an event which should have been one of celebration. I hope that one of the things we can do tonight is end the wrangle.

While all the questioning about the university has been going on, I have taken great care not to say where I wanted it established. I heard my hon. Friends preaching the claims of East Stirlingshire. I read with interest in the Glasgow Herald that that paper thought Inverness was the ideal spot. The Scotsman also went for Inverness. I remember some friends telling me that the only place it could be was Dumfries. Since I live and was born in Ayr, I thought that it was better to say nothing.

I had a sneaking hope that the Government would put greater weight on one of the conditions which the U.G.C. said it had taken into account; the power or stimulus which a university could be to an area. I hoped that it could be Dumfries or Inverness and that the Government had realised how important it was to develop in Scotland an intellectual growth point in certain areas.

The restraint which I exercised in not suggesting an area was partly due to the fact that one of the first things which determines the siting of a university must be the nature of the university to be established. This may be where people have been misled because one of the points emphasised in the considerations was pure science, the availability of research organisations and so on, which considerations appeared to limit the choice of areas.

If the Government, having received the advice of the University Grants Committee, and having accepted it, had made a declaration to the House, answered questions, and given us the answers that have been sought tonight, I think that all this business would now have been over, but we have to bear in mind all the various considerations that have been laid down. One hon. Gentleman spoke of the question of industry, and I do not think he was satisfied about the competition between Falkirk and Stirling, but if he had gone on reading that paragraph he would have noted that even there the University Grants Committee was not entirely satisfied, because it gave the evidence of the Federation of British Industries that it was not desirable at all—and this point was later made by Robbins—to have universities within the built-up areas, and that there was more scope outside.

The decision has been made, and it may well be a good decision. It certainly takes us very nearly to the boundary between the Highlands and the Lowlands. The university will be going to a town that fulfills some of the considerations, in that it is a very pleasant environment that will certainly not deter the academic staff which would be attracted, according to the U.G.C., to an area of considerable charm and beauty.

It is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) that he actually purchased this site from the county council very many years ago—so the question of speculation does not come into this matter; Scottish foresight has seen to that. I believe that the property is now in the possession of the Scottish Department. It is undoubtedly one of the loveliest sites in Scotland.

There is no doubt that it is an area that is absolutely steeped in history, and it is well watched over by the "Guardian of Scotland"—William Wallace. It is interesting to note that the English beat Wallace at Falkirk, but that Wallace beat the English at Stirling, so perhaps this is why Stirling had a certain measure of historic claim. However, we should now put our wrangles behind us. The decision has been made, so let us make the best of it. And let us hope that all the enthusiasm that went into the claims for the various sites will now help to make Stirling a worthy addition to our older universities.

1.7 a.m.

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

Wallace may have beaten the English at Stirling, but the Anglo-Norman baronage, represented by David I and Alexander I, in the Border country, succeeded in bringing union at the last, and I will try to make a speech of unity tonight. If my calculations are right, we have spent 7 hours 10 minutes on the first four subjects, and if we are to have a sitting tomorrow we have 14 hours 10 minutes for the remaining 13, so I will be relatively brief. It may be that the exploits of Simpson, Dexter and Barrington have made us more conscious of time than we would otherwise have been—

Mr. Ross

Who are they?

Sir E. Boyle

An Australian and two Englishmen.

Mr. Ross

Do they play for Rangers?

Sir E. Boyle

I should like, first, to deal with the announcement of the decision, and then say a word or two about the topic of location, and answer some —I shall not have time to answer all—of the questions put by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

On the actual announcement of the decision, what happened was that the University Grants Committee sent its advice to the Department of Education on 23rd June, and on 25th June, I told the hon. Gentleman in a Parliamentary Answer that it had been received. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that my Answer was dated 25th June. In the debate on 2nd July—which was, I think, a Thursday—my noble Friend said that the announcement would be made the next week, or, at the very latest, the week after.

It had originally been intended to answer the Question on 16th July, but, at the last moment—and this is why the Answer was not given sooner—some difficulties arose over the formalities and timing of the transfer of Airthrey Castle to the U.C.G. It was for that reason only that the Parliamentary Question had to be postponed. As soon as the matter had been cleared up, a decision was announced by Parliamentary Answer on Friday, 17th July.

This is the first time that I can recall hon. Members complaining in debate because an announcement has been made in Parliament through a Written Answer which was accompanied by a quite substantial draft Press release giving considerable further information. While I fully recognise the importance of this decision to Scotland it would not have been practicable, on this occasion, to suggest that Parliament should debate these matters in between the advice of the U.G.C. being received and an announcement made by the Government. This is clearly a matter on which the Government, having received the advice of the U.G.C. must take a decision.

I am quite prepared to say this to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I have talked this over with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I am prepared to accept in retrospect that it might have been a good idea on the Friday to have called a Press conference to discuss the matter rather than make an answer by Written Answer and have a Press release. If the House feels that we have erred in that respect, I can only apologise. Yesterday, it fell to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make an announcement on a different subject, and it also fell to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade to make an announcement on a related subject and we had on that occasion a joint Press conference. I can only say that we felt that this matter had been hanging on long enough and it was important to get the announcement out, but if, in retrospect, hon. Members feel that we should have held a Press conference on the subject, in view of its importance to Scotland, I can only express the sincere apologies of my noble Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend, my right hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Rankin

Apologies are not of consequence at the moment. I am not despising the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made them. They are very acceptable but, nevertheless, may I ask whether he is telling the House that it it right that the Leader of the House should make a statement from the Dispatch Box that he will consult his right hon. Friends about a statement for the following week, when he must have known that there was a Question on the Order Paper to be answered on the Friday?

Sir E. Boyle

I do not want to spend too long on aspects of the relationship of the Leader of the House to this matter. It was not absolutely certain on that day whether the timing of the transfer would be cleared up so that it would be possible to give an answer the next day. After all, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House was concerned with business and was answering questions about business rather than with announcements that might be made during the course of the following week. I think, therefore, that the hon. Member was over-stressing the part of the Leader of the House in all this.

I realise the great importance of this matter to Scotland. I am sorry that the announcement was delayed. If the House feels in retrospect that this matter was of such consequence to Scotland that we ought to have held a Press conference on it, I am, as I say, most ready to apologise on behalf of my Ministerial colleagues and myself and the Government.

Mr. Ross

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his second thoughts. We do not have the feeling in retrospect about this. We had it straight away and we still have it, but we are grateful that the Government appreciate that the matter could have been dealt with in a better way. Failing an Oral Answer in the House, it might have been better, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, to have followed the Written Answer with a Press conference.

Sir E. Boyle

I have explained how events happened and that I am quite conscious that decisions had to be taken about the handling of this announcement and perhaps they could have been taken differently. I hope, therefore, that we can now finish with that part of my speech.

With regard to the actual location, on which I should like to say a few words, seven locations were keen to have the new Scottish University—Ayr, Cumbernauld, Dumfries, Falkirk, Inverness, Perth and Stirling. The University Grants Committee had to weigh many factors carefully, and its New University Sub-Committee visited all these seven locations. There are a large number of matters that the University Grants Commttee has to take into account when advising the Government, and they are summarised in paragraphs 276 to 287 of the Report quoted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).

I will not read them all out now, because the hour is late and it would be unnecessary to do so, but the U.G.C. has to consider factors such as whether the proposed location, site and sponsorship are such as to give confidence that the creation and growth of an academic institution of university standard placed there would proceed smoothly and effectively; whether staff of quality and energy would be attracted in sufficient numbers; whether there are sufficient numbers of students' lodgings to supplement university residential accommodation; whether adequate financial and other support is likely to be available; and whether the locality offers associated industrial research activities.

In answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, when one looks at paragraph 283 there is no doubt about the importance of the presence of industries in an area, though it is quite true that the Federation of British Industries felt that the actual location of a university in a very large industrial centre might have disadvantages. But there is a difference between location in the middle of an industrial centre and the presence of industries which can provide possibilities for research in the fields of pure and applied science.

There is a further matter which the University Grants Committee will have borne in mind and that is the point made by the Robbins Committee that all future new universities should be concentrated on great centres of population or in their vicinity. Those words are in the Report. It is a fact that about 90 per cent. of the population of Scotland lies in the broad industrial belt between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. Dalyell

The question which has to be put is: what possible confidence does the University Grants Committee derive from the Stirling promoters who have not raised a penny to further their claim? It is a real point. Cannot the Minister say from now on that the raising of finance is of no consequence? Then, I think, many people would be much happier.

Sir E. Boyle

I would not say that it is of no consequence. It is a factor which should certainly be considered. But the whole difficulty in this sort of case must be that there are a number of factors which have to be taken into account. At any rate, while it would not be right for me to quote the details of the U.G.C. advice to the Government, none the less it is fairly clear that there was a strong feeling—this was certainly so on the Government's part—that, bearing in mind the Robbins recommendation, the greatest weight should be given to the three central locations of Cumbernauld, Falkirk and Stirling.

I would remind the House of one important consideration here, which is that these three places lie more or less equidistant from each other. They are 10 to 12 miles apart, all of them on the northern fringe of the industrial belt. I would say that they all offer more or less the same advantages in relation to a potential catchment area for students and, indeed, general accessibility. There is a fact about Stirling that one ought to remember, that although it is the most remote of the three, none the less it has a population of about 2¾ million people within a 30-mile radius.

I do not know, and it would not be right for me to try to interpret to the House in detail, what were the points in the mind of the University Grants Committee, but I have no doubt that it considered, in deciding among these three locations, important factors such as the attractiveness of the Stirling location to staff. I am sure that it considered the availability of lodgings, and on this point I can only say that, from what I have gathered, there seem to be lodgings in reasonable numbers, particularly in the direction of Bridge of Allan. Finally, but by no means least important, I am sure that it considered the fact that the Airthrey Castle site was in itself a very good, suitable and attractive site.

The University Grants Committee made its recommendation to the Government after having done a very full and considered survey of all the sites available. I do not think that it would have been possible or justified for the Government to have rejected its advice, granted the care which the Committee had given to its consideration.

Mr. Rankin

No one quarrels with the factors which are outlined in the paragraphs to which I referred, but will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, nowadays, apart from attractiveness to staff, availability of lodgings and all the rest, the great fundamental factor is that a new university in any area is an industrial development or investment on its own? Is not that nowadays the most important factor of all?

Sir E. Boyle

With respect, by his question the hon. Gentleman takes us into rather deeper waters than I want to embark on. The extent to which universities are academic institutions and the extent to which they are bound up with technology is a big question. I do not think that one can, as it were, identify a university with economic development to quite the extent indicated by the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked what the future of residence would be at the university. I cannot give him a forecast or promise tonight, but I can reply in this way. With reference to Canterbury, the case he cited from England, one has to remember in this connection the very special circumstances of what one might call the Robbins crash expansion between now and 1967–68. The University Grants Committee has had the very difficult job of marrying academic buildings with the possibility of residence in a number of areas so as to do the operation as smoothly as possible. That is the reason why there could not be, as it were, fair shares among all the newer universities. But, taking the whole period between now and 1967, in fact, the largest proportion of extra residence—and it will be very considerable—will be not at the new universities, but at what one might call the older civic universities in England and Wales. I say frankly that they were very much in need of it. To take Birmingham, which is particularly well known to me, the proportion of residence there, until very recently, was only about 12½ per cent., and there was a very strong case for bringing up the proportion of residence and not relying on too high a percentage of home-based students. The question of residence will be most carefully watched.

I do not mean to score any backhanded point in this, but, if hon. Members were to see the full schedule of what is planned for between now and 1968—in the nature of things, we cannot go into it now—they would feel, I think, that the Government have been, perhaps, rather more forthcoming about residence than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested in his speech at the very start of this Session.

Mr. Ross

That is a silly point.

Sir E. Boyle

I just make the point because the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue and recognised that there was a difficulty about residence, and I consider that the Government have not been unreasonable in the provision that they have made for a number of universities.

In answer to the question about what sort of universities we should have, I can tell the House that, in our agreeing that Stirling would be the site of the new university, there is no desire on the part of the Government, as it were, to promote a new race of universities which would be remote from the industrial world. On the contrary, as I mentioned just now, the three possible places in the centre of Scotland, Cumbernauld, Falkirk, and Stirling, are all on the northern fringe of the industrial belt, and one cannot regard Stirling as a remote location. Indeed, it is my belief that even if this university had been located at Falkirk we would still have had a considerable number of university staff living in Stirling, and I am sure that it will be possible to have a university of real value to Scottish trade and industry which can be built up successfully in this area.

Having given that explanation to the House, I hope that hon. Members will feel that the best thing that we can do is to hope for the greatest success for this university in the future.

Mr. Ross

Perhaps I might put this to the Minister before he sits down. He has been charmingly contrite and persuasive. Will he be generous and answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) about the Highland area? The right hon. Gentleman's Ministry has to make a decision about Dounreay. There is only one site for the fast breeder reactor.

Sir E. Boyle

I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind, but I think that tonight, with so many other subjects before us, we had better stick to higher education and not venture into the bounds of higher science.

Mr. Dalyell

Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Even at 3.30 a.m., which it is not, there must be some finality about the act of sitting down.