§ Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
§ 4.5 p.m.
§ Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)Even though the hour of the week is very late, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this problem on the Floor of the House. The first task is to determine the order of magnitude of the problem facing students coming up to their finals this next month. It is clear that industrial recruitment is severely down this year on previous years. The estimates of university appointments officers and others vary between the optimists, who suggest a shortfall of some 10 to 15 per cent. on previous years, and some of the more pessimistic, who are thinking in terms of a 25 or 30 per cent. shortfall.
Secondly, the number of graduates this year as compared with last year is up by some 5 to 7 per cent. to a new total of about 60,000. Thirdly, although there has been a selective expansion in graduate recruitment in certain areas—notably banking, some parts of the Civil Service 1918 and so forth—the quantum of graduates being recruited to these jobs even now is so small as not sufficiently to offset the decline in the manufacturing industry sector. Any numerical estimate of the net effect of this at present would be dangerous but, whether it be The Times or the Economist or The Guardian or the Financial Times, there is a consensus that the position facing a large number of graduates—it may well be over 60,000 of them—in this coming June in seeking employment is very grave indeed.
The next question therefore, is why this should be the case. I think we must distinguish here between the short-term reasons, important as they are, and those of a secular, long-term nature. It is obvious that, when national unemployment is running at over 800,000, it would be unreasonable to expect graduates to be immunised from its effects. When business confidence and investment in commerce are so low, it is natural that the investment programmes to be curtailed should include investment in human skilled resources. At worst, it could be argued on a partisan political level that, their fathers having attained wage awards, the abler children shall be without employment, and there is also a regrettable element of truth in the view that, by permitting the present economic situation to occur, the Government bear a heavy responsibility for the specific cyclical element in this problem.
But there is, below and behind that, a much more important long-term problem which has been becoming apparent over the last four, five and more years. This is that the balance between the demand for graduates, particularly in industry, and the production of graduates from our universities has been moving in such a way as to make graduate opportunities harder over the long term. We may well in this country be witnessing the first stages of a perennial condition already only too common in countries such as the United States and Sweden, where the under-employed or unemployed graduate is a common phenomenon. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us that we should examine very carefully why one should produce graduates at great expense to the community if they are not then to be used.
Clearly, one Durham miner unemployed is socially and personally no less 1919 unacceptable than one graduate unemployed, but if one spends up to £10,000 per head producing a high-class chemistry graduate and does not then employ him, it makes one look carefully at the criteria for that investment. When the international market for graduates is such that, particularly if the American upswing in business activity should gather momentum, those graduates will be more than welcome elsewhere, at salaries far greater than they could command in this country, again one wants to question what we are doing investing money on this scale if we do not know what to do with the product when we have it.
There seem to be four possible areas of solution which I ask the Government at least to consider, if not to consider sympathetically. The first, which I should not regard at all sympathetically, is a reduction of the number of graduates being produced. That is the easy solution; it is the facile, the narrow, shallow-minded solution. In this country we have but one great natural resource, our fellow human beings, and if we deny to those with the ability to benefit from higher education the opportunity to have it, we do great long-term disservice to society and the economy. As the negotiations for a further quinquennium for the universities are in progress, that the present surplus of graduates should be used by the Treasury, or anybody else, as a reason for reducing the number of students going to university would be a tragedy, educationally, economically and socially.
The second area, which carries much greater prospects for examination, is that the three principals involved in this situation—the employers, the students, and the universities—should carefully examine what they are doing. There are many employers who do not think of employing graduates but who could well benefit from doing so. There are some employers who employ a few graduates and who perhaps could employ more.
The difficulty of that as a solution is that it simply shifts the problem to those who are slightly less qualified. If posts currently filled by someone with only A-level qualifications are filled in future by graduates, that simply lowers the point at which under-employment or unemployment may occur.
1920 However, the level of graduate employment in local government is deplorably low. I hesitate to suggest that one of the reasons why certain areas of local government have a reputation for less than efficiency is a correlation of cause, but it seems that the amount of money spent nationally on local government and the proportion of graduates therein involved are out of line with much of what goes on in our national life.
Then we come to the students. Until recently, the glamorous professions such as the Foreign Office, were dangled before every student the moment he went to any university.
If one asked, as I have had to ask over the last four years as an admissions tutor at a university, people wanting to read languages what they wanted to do, one found that eight out of ten wanted to go to the Foreign Office, yet one knew that with the best will in the world not one in 80 of them would get near the Foreign Office and that, if they did, the likelihood of their ever using the language they were studying was minimal.
Some students at present have inflated ideas that the world owes them a living on their own terms once they have the letters B.A. or B.Sc. after their names. Regretfully, they will have to learn the hard lesson that the world does not owe them a living on those terms. There are still some students who choose to go to the university as a holiday camp excuse for postponing the time when they have to decide what they are to do. The message that the Government and everyone involved in education must get across to the rising generation of potential university students is that the days are gone when one went to the university and at the end a job automatically appeared out of a hat.
Thirdly, it behoves the universities to change what they are doing. The production or reproduction of the species "don" is a highly desirable activity, scholarship as an activity of the universities is not lightly to be cast aside, but the proportion of students who will now become dons has changed. The universities are facing a new situation in the ratio of dons to those who will earn their living outside academic life. Too many syllabuses, curricula, and so forth 1921 are still geared to the needs that sufficed Balliol to run India for over 80 years with its inferior products while sending its better products to this place.
That no longer suffices for any university or college. Without diminishing the academic and intellectual content of their courses, universities must accept that they have a rôle to provide their students with a bread ticket; that the higher esoteric intellectualism of the ivory tower may be bought at the expense of the unemployment of the products from that ivory tower. I do not accept that there is a built-in conflict of interests here, but there is a need for the universities to change their ways.
I can deal briefly with the last two areas at which I ask the Government to look very closely. We may very well feel, nationally and politically, that it is our duty to use our surplus graduates as a formidable contribution that we can make to overseas aid for the underdeveloped world. If, in this very year, the Ministry for Overseas Development were to make more funds available to permit graduates who are finding a temporary difficulty of employment in this country to give their services in the third world, where their training is most desperately needed, it would be a very considerable contribution to the immediate short-term problem but, in the long term, we must accept that we shall produce graduates for export, and that it is part of society's function to see that those exports are canalised in the right directions.
It may be that a re-examination of the whole structure of higher academic education is called for. That is why I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science present. If we could change the three-year course, with finals, carried out in seclusion and isolation from the real world which of itself makes it more difficult sometimes for the student to understand the world which he is about to enter, into a five-year course with intermittent sandwich courses on a larger scale—and I accept that this is going on in the polytechnics —that might be a solution.
The problem is serious. It is immediate this year and is likely to be with us in 1922 the long term. Unless the Government take cognisance of it in all departments, we shall produce one of the most important revolutionary elements—the highly-trained unemployed intellectual.
§ 4.21 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)Apart from one unfair jibe about the Government's connection with unemployment, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) has made a very thoughtful speech on a very topical subject. He could hardly have chosen a more topical subject, because hardly a day passes without its quota of reports in newspapers and periodicals about employers cutting back their graduate intakes, about university appointments boards' experience of lower levels of recruiting activities by employers or of reports about the difficulties encountered by individual graduates in getting jobs. These have been well publicised. Both editorial and correspondence columns are copiously supplied with writings which display lively controversy about the nature of the problem and the remedies which ought to be applied.
That there is a problem cannot be denied. There is the old saying about smoke and fire and the public interest and concern now being shown would be sufficiently symptomatic of the existence of a real issue, even if we were not already aware of it. It is, however, a far from easy problem to quantify and I shall have something to say about this in a few minutes. But I think that the first thing I want to do is to set it in its true perspective.
The hon. Member in his speech related the prospects for this year's graduates to the general employment situation in this country. He was quite right to do so.
Last week the House debated the general question of unemployment. In a situation in which so many firms feel the necessity to raise prices, cut output and reduce investment, it is inevitable that staff will be laid off and that unemployment will increase. I do not think that we can realistically expect that new graduates will be protected 1923 from these cut-backs. Many firms are having to lay off existing staff, including many in occupations for which university qualifications are normal.
Where firms have a choice between retaining those they already employ and taking on a newly qualified man, it is to be expected that they will reduce, and in some cases even stop, graduate recruitment for the time being.
In winding up last week's debate on unemployment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment gave the Government's views on the priorities which should be followed in tackling the general unemployment problem. I do not intend to repeat the arguments, but I must emphasise that my right hon. Friend declared that it was one of our major national objectives to lower the level of unemployment and to keep it low.
Until we are firmly on the road to achieving that, I think it would be unrealistic to suppose that the employment prospects of graduates or, indeed, of any other particular group, can be brought to a level at which both their individual needs and those of the community for their abilities can be fully satisfied.
In considering the specific problem of graduate employment prospects, we must also bear in mind the very sharp increases in the numbers of those now studying for degrees compared with ten years ago. The hon. Member has referred to the expansion which has taken place in higher education.
In 1961 there were just over 100,000 places in universities in England and Wales. By 1971 that figure had more than doubled. Degrees can also be obtained by routes other than going to university—for example, by full-time and sandwich courses in advanced further education. Places in this sector increased fourfold over the period 1961–71.
This means that, even excluding colleges of education, there are currently about 320,000 places in full-time higher education in England and Wales. As to the immediate problem, it is extremely difficult for me or indeed any Minister to make any very precise estimate of the job prospects for students graduating this year, because of the lack of up-to-date information. As I have said, there has been a considerable amount of Press 1924 speculation on this, and university appointments officers have been widely quoted as taking a somewhat pessimistic view of the situation.
However, the only relatively firm data we have relates to the situation of those graduating in recent years. Figures I am able to give about the current problem suggest to me that the long run employment prospects for new graduates are likely to vary considerably with their choice of subjects and, I would add, probably also with the quality of degrees they obtain.
In 1969 there were 22,250 United Kingdom-based new arts graduates and 20,500 new science graduates. By the end of that year, 4.9 per cent. of the arts graduates and 3.1 per cent. of the science graduates were known to be still seeking employment. Last year there were some 1,500 more arts graduates and 1,000 more science graduates than in the previous year, and at the end of last December, the proportion known to be still seeking work was 6.2 per cent. for arts graduates and 4.5 per cent. for science. The overall percentage was 5.4 per cent. compared with 4.1 per cent. in 1969.
These broad figures for 1970 have only just become available. Detailed figures have not yet been prepared by the University Grants Committee, which collates them from returns made by appointments boards.
If we look at the 1970 figures in more detail and compare them with similar figures for 1966, we find that the overall percentage still seeking employment was two to two and a half times as big in 1970 as in 1966.
For those with arts and social studies qualifications the prospects were worse than those for scientifically qualified people in both 1966 and 1970, but the deterioration in the prospects was greater for scientists than for arts graduates. Those with qualifications in applied sciences have, at all stages, enjoyed better prospects than other groups of graduates.
These are, broadly, all the facts at present that we have to go on. However, I understand that there are certainly more students due to take first degrees this summer who are still unplaced than 1925 has been the case at this stage in recent years. I fully understand this, and I am sure the House does. Inquiries made by the C.B.I. suggest that employers in industry are cutting their graduate intake by 15 to 20 per cent.
However, as the hon. Member has quite rightly pointed out, industry should not be the only major recruiter of graduates. Nor is it, I am glad to say. The situation is significantly better in commerce, banking and the Armed Forces. The hon. Member mentioned local government, and I hope that local government will take the hint.
Even as far as industry is concerned, while recognising that firms are not faced with an easy economic situation, there are still opportunities in the current situation for recruitment. The C.B.I. has recently urged organisations and companies to consider employing graduates in jobs for which they have not previously recruited them. It has also suggested that those who have not so far recruited at graduate level, should take advantage of the opportunity to avail themselves of a share of the graduate output. It recommends employers to think of the medium to long-term in considering their need for graduates.
I know that this does not entirely appeal to the hon. Gentleman, and he appeared to reject this as a solution. However, I welcome the C.B.I. statement and hope that industry will find it possible to take positive action on the cogent recommendations which it contains. It does not go anywhere near solving the whole problem, but it can make a significant contribution, and I hope that it will.
While there will be genuine difficulties, at least until the overall economic situation improves markedly, I hope that action on the lines suggested might begin, before long, to affect the situation so that, later in the year, it may turn out to be rather less bad than some more extreme commentators have suggested.
There will also have to be changes of attitude. On this I can agree with much of what the hon. Member said. The possession of a degree will not of itself open the door to a job and graduates will 1926 certainly have to look into new areas for employment opportunities.
Perhaps I might add here that some might benefit from expert guidance over and above that available in the universities. Here I would draw attention to my own Department's occupational guidance service, which might well be able to give real help to some of those who find themselves in difficulties.
Several sectors of our public life which might step up their graduate recruitment have been mentioned. I would like to comment on one of these. Although the police service has not been a large-scale recruiter of graduates, it has operated a special scheme for taking them since 1968. The scheme has improved the rate of graduate entry, but not to the extent the service would wish. The obstacle to recruitment at the moment is the dearth of suitable applicants, rather than any restriction on the numbers sought.
The hon. Member hinted that universities and polytechnics should do what they can in terms of changing their curricula which should line up with the needs of industry. I am sure he realises that this is not a field in which Government intervention is appropriate nor would it be welcome. The universities and polytechnics do not exist to train people for industry. They do, nevertheless, try to be co-operative, particularly in the area of higher degrees and on short post-experience courses.
Their general policy regarding first degrees has not been to tailor the content to the specific needs of industry. Nor is it clear that graduates' long-term employment prospects would be enhanced if they did.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of overseas aid and the formidable contribution which could be made. I take his point, but in regard to aid programmes, the countries to which graduates would go primarily are seeking those with some experience rather than people who have just graduated. This is a lively question and no doubt we shall return to it as time goes on. It is a human problem and it is a matter of the highest importance to those personally concerned. It is a matter which no Government can afford to ignore and we 1927 must constantly keep our eye on the situation.
There are a number of ways of dealing with the matter, all of which will be kept under review by the Departments concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman of our concern and our interest in this matter. I am grateful that he had 1928 the opportunity of raising this subject today. In doing so he has done a service to those who find themselves affected by the current situation.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.