§ 8. Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which subject courses he expects will be most affected as a result of the decisions of the University Grants Committee following the reduction of Government grant to the universities.
§ 11. Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the expected reduction in the number of university students over the next five years in courses of science and engineering; and what is the comparable figure for students of the humanities.
§ Dr. BoysonThe student number targets set by the University Grants Committee on the basis of its allocation of grant for 1981–82 and its provisional indications to 1983–84 provide for a fall of 8.4 per cent. in the number of arts-based students and a fall of 1 per cent. in the number of science-based students, compared with 1979–80. Within this overall reduction, however, the Committee has provided for increases in medicine, in physical and mathematical sciences, and in engineering and technology.
§ Mr. NeubertDoes my hon. Friend accept that if the rationalisation of university finance on which the Government have embarked results in a reduction in the endless surfeit of sociologists and social scientists, he will be popular with many people? Will he confirm that it will also strenthen the country's scientific and technological base, on which much of our future prosperity must depend?
§ Dr. BoysonI can assure my hon. Friend that it strengthens the technological base. There is an increase of 2 per cent. in engineering and technology, an increase of 3 per cent. in mathematics, and an increase of 7 per cent. in physical sciences. Cuts are being made not on subjects which are going to be needed in greater numbers in the future but on subjects which are possibly going to be in less national demand.
§ Mr. MontgomeryDoes my hon. Friend agree that we should maintain the number of technological places in our universities? I draw to his attention the plight of Salford university, which is having to resort to very severe cuts? Should not the University Grants Committee be compelled to explain the reasons for its actions?
§ Dr. BoysonI appreciate the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings about Salford. The remit of the University Grants Committee is the rationalisation of provision. If every university in the country provided laboratories and libraries in every subject, the cost would be tremendous. The UGC has looked at the matter nationally. It has increased the number of technological and science students by rationalisation and by ensuring that the money goes as far as possible.
§ Mr. DalyellDoes the Minister agree with what the UGC has done at Aston, Bradford and Salford?
§ Dr. BoysonI am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. We support what the University Grants 967 Committee has done. A lump sum goes to "the UGC" as it has done every year since 1919. By convention we accepted, as we always have, the advice which it has given us. Nationally, there is no doubt that the money will be spent more efficiently, although I appreciate the hard feelings that must be felt by people in areas which are the subject of rationalisation.
§ Mr. Dalyellrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall call the Front Bench Member but that means that I shall not be able to call as many Back 13enchers as I would have done.
§ Mr. DalyellWill the Minister answer my question?
§ Dr. BoysonI thought that I had answered it. I said that the Government support the decisions made by the University Grants Committee. Nationally, there is no doubt that the money will go further and be spent more effectively. I am not commenting on every decision made by the University Grants Committee. If we did that, we might as well do the lot ourselves and not leave it to the UGC.
§ Mr. BeithDid the UGC not make it clear, rightly or wrongly, that it wanted the numbers of social studies students to be reduced but that it wished staff numbers to remain the same and for more research to be done?
§ Dr. BoysonI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that the UGC has said that the student ratio for social studies is so high that research is not being done. By decreasing the number of students on the social science side, the research level will be raised. The hon. Gentleman is right.
§ Later—
§ Mr. Arthur LewisOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to the remark that you made when most of those now present were not in the Chamber? Rightly, we make no objection when you give preference to Front Benchers, especially those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, who often do not table questions but come in on hon. Members' questions. But then they take liberties by asking three or four supplementary questions, thus infringing the rights of hon. Members who have taken the trouble to table questions. With respect, Mr. Speaker, this matter is within your control. I have heard you, rightly, stop Back Benchers from asking more than one supplementary question. May I ask you to ensure that there are fair shares for all, including Front Benchers?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the House will probably have noticed, I was making a conscious effort to try to reach question No. 4 at least during Prime Minister's questions. I was hoping to achieve that today. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) had a substantive question on the Order Paper. I have tried to encourage substantive rather than open questions. I shall give consideration to what the hon. Gentleman said.
§ Mr. WellbelovedFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not expedite the passage of Question Time if the hooligans of the Right and Left were to contain themselves and allow the proceedings of Parliament to proceed along the lines set out in the many letters that you, Mr. Speaker. have received deploring the ya-boo politics of the discredited political parties?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that I receive no more letters of that sort, because it is not I who am making the 968 noise. If such letters are sent, they should be sent to Members who represent the constituents who write the letters and not to me.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise the strength of criticism about noise in the House, which is reflected in the letters that are sent to you. I hope that in your replies to the writers of such letters you indicate that noise in the House is frequently associated with genuine feeling and emotion about the conduct of the Government, and that one of the ways in which Ministers are tested and deterred from doing stupid things is by having to face a racket in the House. Anyone who has stood at the Dispatch Box knows what a salutary means of enforcing democratic rule that is. The noise that we make in the Chamber is part of the way in which we serve our constituents.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have stood at the Dispatch Box. I always liked the House to listen to what I had to say.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that we have had enough points of order on these matters.
§ Mr. WinnickOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are concerned about the reputation of the House, would it not help its reputation if those elected to this place in the name of a party and who resign from that party—
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order for me. I suggest that we move on to the statement by the Lord Privy Seal.
§ Mr. James LamondOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt will be unfair to those who have to stay late into the night if we spend our time now on issues that have not so far been points of order. If the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) is seeking to make a point of order, I hope that it is a genuine point that relates to the rules of the House.
§ Mr. LamondI make what I genuinely believe to be a proper point of order. I make it to assist you, Mr. Speaker. As one of the Back Benchers who feel exasperated when you, Mr. Speaker, in trying to be fair, have to call hon. Members representing other parties, such as the Social Democratic Party, at Question Time, may I ask, when considering whom to call, that you bear in mind, for example, the 48 questions directed to the Prime Minister that appear on the Order Paper today? None of those questions has been tabled by the Social Democrats. Will you bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker, when you are deciding who should be called?
§ Mr. Neville SandelsonGo back to Moscow.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) may be giving me good advice.