University Grants Committee (Hansard, 11 May 1982)

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)
I beg leave to bring in a Bill——

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am not taking any more points of order.

§ Mr. Canavan
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the University Grants Committee more representative and accountable and to provide for adequate financing of universities; and for connected purposes. Among the terms of reference of the University Grants Committee, set up in 1919, was to inquire into the financial needs of university education in Great Britain and to advise the Government as to the application of any grants made by Parliament towards meeting them. Recently, the purpose of the UGC seems to have changed somewhat. Instead of being responsible for the distribution of university finance, it seems now to be responsible for the distribution of cuts in university finance. The circular letter of 1 July 1981 from the UGC meant savage cuts in higher education, which plunged many universities into the most serious crisis in their history. It is proposed to destroy 20,000 student places by 1984, at a time when the participation rate in higher education in this country is poor compared with those in many other industrialised countries.
The Government are directly responsible for the volume of the university cuts, but the UGC must bear a responsibility for the distribution of the cuts. The truth is that, instead of standing up to defend the university system as a whole, the UGC has failed in its duty and is behaving like a docile puppet of the Government, meekly implementing Government policy. Even Lord Robbins, who chaired the committee on higher education that enunciated the Robbins principle and that led towards its implemention—a principle that has now been abandoned by the Tory Government—is on record as saying that he would have resigned as chairman of the UGC rather than implement the Government's cuts.
The present composition of the UGC is heavily biased in favour of an Oxbridge elite, whose main concern seems to be to try to give the maximum protection to a privileged minority within the university system without caring about the consequences for some of the younger and more innovative universities that are not hidebound by ancient, ivory-tower traditions. It seems that the new motto of the UGC is "The smaller and younger you are, the harder we will hit you."
If we examine the academic background of the UGC, of the 18 members and secretary—that is 19 people—we see that 15, nearly 80 per cent., were educated at either Oxbridge or London. Of the 18 universities to suffer larger than average cuts, not one has a representative on the main UGC committee and only three have representatives at sub-committee level.
For example, Stirling university, in my constituency, has no representation on the UGC. It is the youngest university in Britain and the UGC proposals would mean a 23 per cent. cut in the current grant and a 27 per cent. cut in student numbers by 1984. This would bring the student population down to just over 2,000, yet, for the next academic session alone, there are 8,000 applicants for 606 a mere 600 first year places. Therefore, Stirling desperately needs an injection of extra finance to cater for the increased number of young people who are applying.
Stirling is not alone. In Scotland, for example, the university of Aberdeen is in a critical situation. Other universities, not just those in Scotland, are suffering much larger than average cuts, including the universities of Strathclyde, Salford, Keele and Bradford and the university of Manchester institute of science and technology.
Some of these institutions specialise in science and technology courses, the very courses that are so essential to bring about an industrial recovery. It seems that the Government, by cutting the number of science and technology graduates, are cutting the supply of the very life blood of British industry, which is so important for our economic revival. Successive appeals by myself, and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the Secretary of State and the UGC, have fallen on deaf ears. That is why I am introducing the Bill.
The Bill proposes an immediate supplementary grant to be given to help those universities which are critically threatened. There would also be a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate finance is provided for all universities in future years.
The Bill also proposes a radical restructuring of the UGC to make it more representative and accountable. At present, the UGC has no statutory authority at all, yet Ministers consistently use the UGC to try to avoid accountability. When we put questions to Ministers about individual universities, they try to pass the buck to the UGC and thereby to dodge the questions.
Under my proposals, all universities in the United Kingdom would have the opportunity to take part in elections to the University Grants Committee. Instead of the members of the committee being appointed by the political patronage powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, there would be a system of election in which all universities would have the opportunity to take part.
Trade union representatives would also be elected to represent not only the academic staff and their unions such as the AUT but the ancillary staff and their unions—NUPE, NALGO, ASTMS and so on. Those unions also have members whose jobs are at stake as a result of the UGC's decisions. The employment considerations are considerable. For example, Stirling university is the largest employer in my constituency.
To counter any accusations of infringement of academic freedom, I propose that any decisions or deliberations of a purely academic nature should be remitted to an academic sub-committee along the lines of the proposals recently approved by the Association, of University Teachers executive. There could be other sub-committees within the general committee of the UGC. Because of the distinctive features and traditions of the Scottish educational system, I propose that there should be a Scottish sub-committee consisting of representatives from the eight Scottish universities. When devolution becomes a reality, this may develop into a fully-fledged Scottish UGC but, even in the meantime, such a Scottish sub-committee would have a valuable role to play in defending and developing the Scottish university system and improving the liaison between universities and schools and between universities and other colleges of tertiary education in Scotland.
607 I ask the House to support my Bill. It is not only about restructuring a committee; it is intended to make the higher education system in Britain more democratic, more accountable and more responsive to the needs of the whole community. It would also help to protect our education system from a dangerous and destructive Secretary of State who, having spent some time at the Department of Industry before his appointment to his present position, and having destroyed much that is good in British industry, now seems hell-bent on destroying much that is good and excellent in our educational system.
At present, thousands of people, particularly young people, are literally queuing up to get into the universities and colleges. The Government are using the UGC to slam the door in their faces. The purpose of my Bill is to turn that closed door into the open door and, eventually, to turn all universities into open universities.