HC Deb 26 October 1965 vol 718 cc120-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. George Rogers.]

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

This is a constituency case at bottom, which explains why I am making my speech from below the Gangway instead of at the Dispatch Box. It is a constituency case with a happy ending of which the Minister's office was good enough and courteous enough to inform me within the last 24 hours. I hope that he will not think it discourteous of me if I say that the happy ending is not, so far as I know, any credit to the Government, since the happy ending is due entirely to the generosity of a private foundation. I could have wished that instead of that particular happy ending the Government had seen fit to correct the anomaly of which I complain.

It raises a question of some general importance upon a matter of considerable public interest. The House as a whole has always recognised the importance of business management studies in the present economic and educational situation. If I may speak for a moment as the vice-president of a technical college which has pioneered studies of this kind, I should also say that there is no field in which the provision of an adequate teaching staff is more urgent or more important than in these studies.

Towards the end of April this year I was approached by a Mr. Heptonstall, a constituent of mine, who was at that time a student at Cranfield Aeronautical College, a post-graduate college of some distinction. He had been selected for a M.B.A. course in business management studies at Harvard University. The House will be aware—the whole world is aware—that the Harvard Business School is an institution of worldwide reputation. It has pioneered the whole process of business management studies, and its method of instruction is one which has commanded interest in this field all over the world. Although, of course, I do not wish to depreciate in any way the amount of work which is going on in this country in business management studies, I think there is no institution in the world to which we should send potential teachers of business management in preference to the Harvard Business School.

It was in the question of teaching business management studies that Mr. Heptonstall was interested, and he was selected as a suitable student for the course at this school. He applied to the D.S.I.R., as it then was, for an overseas research studentship to enable him to pursue those studies. I should have thought he was a very suitable candidate for such a studentship. He was not only recommended by Cranfield College of which he was a memtber, but he had considerable business experience in addition. To his disappointment he was turned down. He was turned down on the basis that his first degree subject was inappropriate. This was most remarkable, since his first degree subject was economics. I should have thought that economics was a basically sound first degree subject for a student of business management who, in addition, had industrial experience.

He was later informed, when he found this matter sufficiently surprising to make further inquiries, that what had swung the balance against him was that he took politics as well as economics in his first degree subject. The argument presented by the D.S.I.R. was that economics was arts and not science and that this disqualified him from studying business management at Harvard under its aegis. I frankly describe this from any rational point of view as wholly nonsensical. I am sure that I would command the assent of the House in saying that it was precisely to prevent nonsenses of this kind that the Department of Education and Science was formed under the last Government and continued under the present Government. It is a wholly artificial distinction upon which the right to a studentship in business management studies ought not to rest for a moment provided that the content of the course which formed the first degree of the applicant was suitable for the kind of course for which he is applying for an overseas studentship.

That was at the end of April. I received no reply from the Secretary of State to my letter at the end of April on this subject apart from the kind of courteous holding reply which the office sends when it cannot make up its mind within a reasonable time. I did not receive a conclusive reply until 15th June. That I will quote to the House, because I do not wish to do the Secretary of State an injustice. This is what the Secretary of State said: As you know, the Science Research Council … —which of course had taken over the functions of the D.S.I.R.— is primarily concerned with the training at postgraduate level of scientists and engineers, but there are borderline subjects, such as management studies, which come into their field of interest. Where these borderline subjects are concerned we have to look carefully at the background of the student who seeks further training and the end product of that training. In business studies we are anxious to give training in this field to well-qualified scientists and engineers. We consider it is important that more such people become involved in the management field of industry … So far I would agree with the Secretary of State, but I cannot see why other suitable persons apart from scientists and engineers should not participate in management studies.

The Secretary of State went on to say this: It is, however, outside the Council's terms of reference solely to provide a supply of business management specialists unless they have, to start with, the desired scientific or technological background. Mr. Heptonstall's first degree was in P.P.E. which, the House will be aware, is a very well known school of Oxford University and, one would have thought, very suitable as a basis for management studies— and I am satisfied that this rules him out of consideration for an S.R.C. overseas award, since his is clearly an Arts degree. Had he graduated in pure economics he would have studied mainly mathematics and statistics and thus have qualified for consideration by the Council. The Secretary of State, who is always helpful, if he can be, added this: I have also looked into this case from the Arts side. Students proposing to attend full-time courses in U.K. universities leading to a higher degree in business administration may apply for one of our state studentships. If the course leads to a post graduate diploma or certificate in business administration, awards may be made at the discretion of the student's local education authority. Normally, however, awards are not available from these sources for the study abroad of business administration. The result of this is that Mr. Heptonstall was debarred from getting a State studentship at Harvard because it was abroad, although if he had had a physics degree without any industrial experience whatever he would have been permitted to participate in the scheme for overseas research studentships and partake of the Harvard course in business administration. On the other hand, he would have been entitled to study in this country. This was all the more absurd since in the very same Cranfield course as Mr. Heptonstall was taking part in a fellow student who happened to have a science degree of some kind was given exactly the same award as that for which Mr. Heptonstall applied, although this other student was devoid of industrial experience.

Surely the Minister of State will agree that this is an absolute absurdity. Because Mr. Heptonstall has a P.P.E. degree, which, after all, is most suitable for business studies, he is debarred from Harvard, though not from courses in the same subject in this country, in spite of having business experience.

It is impossible to blame the Science Research Council for this. The Secretary of State is responsible for the Council's terms of reference. If the Council's terms of reference are so pedantic that they exclude this kind of award and make this kind of award depend upon a wholly artificial distinction—wholly artificial for this purpose—between arts and science, the Council cannot be blamed.

However, I do blame the Secretary of State, unless he can tell me more now than he could on 15th June. The Secretary of State seems quite content to allow what I can only describe as an absurd anomaly to continue.

It is fair to say that Mr. Heptonstall has now gone to Harvard under private auspices with private money and therefore no actual harm has been done. However, I ask the Minister of State frankly to tell the House that there is no reason whatever behind the anomaly to which I have drawn attention and that in future it will be put right. I do not draw attention to this matter in any kind of hostility or from any party motive, but I am sure that if there had been no change of Government the Secretary of State who was then in office would have put it right.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice)

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for raising this point. I agree straight away that what he has said reveals a situation which is to some degree anomalous. There are certain aspects of it which I agree will have to be studied. I intend to have them studied. However, I cannot go so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did and describe it as an absolute absurdity. I will give the House the reasons for that.

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said as clearly as he did towards the end of his speech that in so far as something may be wrong here this is not the fault of the Science Research Council. I intend to develop that point and show that the Council acted quite clearly within its proper terms of reference. If fault there is, it is the fault of Ministers, including, if I may be so bold as to say so, previous Ministers who laid down the terms of reference on these matters or allowed them to continue; and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an ex-Secretary of State in the Department of Education and Science perhaps he will agree that the responsibility for the development of these policies should rest fairly with himself as well as his successors.

To get to the facts of this case, I need not spend long in talking about Mr. Heptonstall, except to say that I am glad that he has gone to Harvard and I hope that he will have a successful time there. I think that he will in view of his excellent record in his studies both at Oxford and at Cranfield. He has gone there as a result of a grant made by the Foundation for Management Education. This is part of an arrangement which the Foundation has made with the Business School at Harvard, designed specifically for those who it is hoped will be teachers in business administration in this country in various institutions and particularly, perhaps, in the new centres in the Universities of Manchester and London which have just begun their work. The arrangement, therefore, is one for which we would all want to express our gratitude both to Harvard for its co-operation and to the Foundation for Management Education for the finances which it has put into this project.

The debate, of course, raises the question why there was no grant from public funds for Mr. Heptonstall and, in particular, why a grant might well have been available to him—and probably would have been available—if he had had his first degree in a science subject or even in that field of economics which could be defined as being on the science side of the borderline rather than on the arts side of the borderline. This gives rise to the wider question why at the present time we are treating more generously for purposes of post-graduate awards overseas those whose studies fall into the science field compared with those whose studies fall into the arts field. This is a subject which intend to have studied within the wider study which is now taking place in the Department on future policy concerning awards.

We have recently been in communication with the universities, with the students' organisations, with the local education authorities, and other bodies asking them to let us have their comments on a whole range of questions concerning the future system of awards to students in this country. There are many aspects of this subject which we consider deserve study and consideration. We are engaged on this and I will see that this point is included in our careful consideration.

Looking back at what happened to Mr. Heptonstall. I should like to say first that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated, the Science Research Council is in no sense to blame for this position. The Council has the duty, among other duties, to administer postgraduate awards for scientists. As for post-graduate awards overseas, in a vast majority of cases where the Council makes an overseas award it is implementing the scheme of N.A.T.O. science studentships. Money has been made available by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council for science studentships to be awarded by N.A.T.O. Governments, sometimes in their own countries, more often in each other's countries and sometimes in countries outside the Alliance altogether. Nearly always if the Science Research Council makes an overseas grant it is using that money—there have been some exceptions to this but not very often—and that money is specifically designed for scientific work.

In this context, science has been interpreted fairly broadly, and I think that, in the N.A.T.O. sense, it is interpreted at least as broadly, if not more so, in this country as it is in the other N.A.T.O. countries. It certainly has included sending people with first degrees in one of the sciences on management courses. In the current year, there are seven British students with N.A.T.O. scholarships studying management in the United States, three of them having been awarded places at the Harvard Business School. The difficulty in relation to Mr. Heptonstall, of course, was the question of definition. I think that this arises generally in defining whether economics is to be one of the arts subjects or one of the science subjects, and it has often cropped up. Some universities offer a bachelor of arts degree in economics while others offer a bachelor of science degree for a very similar syllabus.

So far as the position here is concerned, the Science Research Council does not look to see whether a degree is called a bachelor of science or a bachelor of arts degree. It looks at the subjects offered along with economics. For instance, for a B.Sc.(Econ.) at the London School of Economics, the student takes the economics discipline together with some special subject. If a student did as I did and chose to take government as his special subject, then he would not be considered by the Science Research Council as a science graduate although his degree would be B.Sc.(Econ.). If, on the other hand, he took statistics as his special subject, then he would probably be on the other side of the borderline. It is very aggravating for the people concerned, but, inevitably, there must be a line drawn by the Science Research Council in defining what it means by science, and it is very difficult to suggest where else it should fall.

I accept that, so far as there is responsibility for an anomaly here, it lies in the general policy of the Government towards grants. The particular question arises then as to State studentships for arts graduates and why it is that for many years, under various Governments, there have not been generally available postgraduate awards overseas for these students. This is what I have promised to have looked at, but I must tell the House that there are important reasons which will militate against making a change.

One reason is that in the arts field there is no equivalent to the N.A.T.O. scholarships which I mentioned. I have told the House, that, as regards science graduates, virtually all studentships overseas are paid for through the N.A.T.O. scholarships, not drawing generally on the funds available for post-graduate work. There is no parallel to this on the arts side. There are several fellowships provided privately, of course, and some of these are available at the Harvard School of Business Studies. For example, I am informed that there are six places a year for British students under the Frank Knox Fellowships scheme and there are four places a year under the Henry Fellowships scheme. These fellowships apply to all American universities, including the Harvard Business School, and British students have been attending at Harvard under these fellowships. They are not administered by the Department and, therefore, we cannot control them directly.

If the suggestion is—we shall certainly look at it—that from those public funds which are available for post-graduate studentships generally we should open the way for places overseas, we reach this difficulty. It is much more expensive, particularly if we consider sending students to the United States, with the need for extra cost of living allowances and so on. I am advised that the cost would be about £1,500 a year or possibly more, which is at least three times what we should spend on a post-graduate award in this country.

Therefore, bearing in mind that funds are limited, it would be very difficult for us to say that we would give support from public funds to the award of a number of American places every year, thereby cutting out of post-graduate work a certain number of other students. This would be a very difficult decision to make on grounds of priority. It is essentially different in the arts field compared with the science field. In the science field, so far as post-graduate awards in research have been concerned, the Science Re- search Council has been able to make awards to a large number of those who applied, in some years to almost all who applied; but in the arts field there is a very much higher demand and less than 50 per cent. of those who apply for awards are accepted for them. Again, it makes it more difficult to give some of the successful candidates a more expensive form of award, because it means cutting out some of the others.

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that, if we were to extend this for arts graduates, while it might be possible to look at business studies in isolation, it would raise the question of other studies. There are many kinds of students who would have a claim, such as those who specialise in languages and want a post-graduate course at a foreign university. Then there are Roman Catholic theological students who would like to study in Rome with a grant from public funds. There are many categories who would have a good case to put up for being considered for awards. All I am saying is that, while we will look at this, we shall have to consider the counter arguments very carefully.

There is a final point that I should like to make. This term the new university centres for business studies—the one in Manchester and the one in London—have begun their work. They have begun so far, necessarily, on a small scale. They are recruiting and adding to their staff. They have started with some of the shorter courses. They will develop more ambitious courses in the next year or two. But they have got off to a good start and with very encouraging support from industry. Industry has raised about £5 million towards the cost of the two schools. I think we should all wish them well.

At the moment it is true to say that we have nothing at university level to compare with the course at Harvard. I think that all of us who are interested in this would pay tribute to Harvard and to the American tradition which made Harvard possible, the tradition in the American universities and the American business world which helped to make it a success. But in this country we have been slow to adapt to this idea. Now we are moving into the field, I hope—I am sure we all do—that it will succeed and that the time will come when Americans will be keen to take a course in our universities and when we no longer think of it as being so important to the career of someone like Mr. Heptonstall that he should go to Harvard. I say that with no ill will to Harvard but simply because we want to see our courses succeed.

I think that the Science Research Council was in this case bound to act as it did. So far as the Department's policy is concerned, it could be changed but there would be the difficulties that I have mentioned and we must examine the proposal carefully. All the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in speaking about it will be borne in mind in this examination.

Mr. Hogg

Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, while I am extremely grateful for the sympathetic tone in which he has greeted my complaint in this matter, I would ask him whether he will bear in mind that business studies is a subject in which there will be a dearth of places for a very long time in this country and that in the particular case to which I was drawing his attention the question was the provision of a teacher in business studies who would have been available here for the purpose of increasing the scope for business studies in this country.

Mr. Prentice

I accept that point. I accept that there is a dearth of places for that kind of course for some years to come. That is why I am glad that the gap here has been filled by an agreement—at least, I do not know whether it has been filled but an attempt has been made to fill it—between Harvard University on the one hand and the Foundation on the other to finance a number of British students going to Harvard, of whom Mr. Heptonstall is one. We are grateful for it. It can well be said that it has filled a need which ought to have been filled by public policy. I do not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I need to argue as to who was responsible and when. The fact was that it was not done in the past and perhaps should have been clone. But as to this particular need, to which he rightly draws attention, I think that we should be grateful that this agreement has been made. For the future I hope that this sort of course and many other kinds of courses, which should have been provided long ago in this country, will be provided by the new business schools.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Ten o'clock.