§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
11.40 pm§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)I raise a matter which is of national importance, and of particular importance to the circumstances in Hull and Humberside. At the outset, I thank the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science for the courtesy that they have shown to my colleagues from Humberside and myself, and to representatives of the county council and city, by their readiness and ability to discuss these problems. I bitterly regret that they could not listen to our pleadings, which were not special.
I do not, and nor do my colleagues, who, if they are successful will probably want to raise their own points, challenge the need to rationalise marine education. Our arguments are that if rationalisation had to take place, the decisions that the Department has taken are wrong and perverse, and have seriously and adversely affected the position in Hull.
The national advisory body on higher education, the NAB, produced a paper suggesting that the number of colleges providing advanced marine education courses should be reduced to four, which should not include Humberside college. The college went in for a great deal of lobbying, persuasion and the production of arguments, which resulted in that decision being overturned by the NAB board, only to be reinstated when the matter went to the NAB's committee.
That raises a number of fundamental questions, not the least of which is that, if local authorities and departmental people are members of the board, why did they not venture their opinion that, on the basis of all the criteria, such as academic work, regional work and service to industry, Humberside college should be retained? The decision was reinstated after being overturned, and, as a result, the long and proud history of training for advanced marine, deck and engineering officers at the Humberside college will come to an end. The overall result of that is that we shall lose the equivalent of 150 full-time students in the deck and engineering courses—280 students altogether, and the knock-on effect into the advanced courses, which are the responsibility not of the NAB but of the local education authority. As a result of the integration of the various courses in the colleges, there will be a loss of about 1,000 part-time students—320 full-time equivalent students—and a total of about 420 full-time students will lose educational opportunities in Hull.
This decision is amazing. The volume of trade coming into the Humber ports has been rising annually. The Humber has become a major gateway for exports to the EC and Scandinavian countries, with cargo and passengers going in both directions, and there is a major centre for dealing with the enormous network of inland waterways and the Humber ports. The pattern of United Kingdom shipping is drifting away from the traditional west and south coast ports. The greatest proportion of the east coast ports now being used are those on the Humber. Over 25,000 merchant ships traded between the sea and Humberside in 1982, excluding fishing vessels— more than the sum total of shipping using all other east coast 849 ports. Thus, the use of Humberside for trading purposes demonstrates that there should be a college with a facility and ability to serve the merchant marine of this country, but it is to go.
The second major argument is that 80 per cent. of the students are local. Some may go elsewhere to take preliminary courses, but for the optional courses for first and second engineer, first and second mate, and master's ticket, they choose the college on Humberside. I repeat that 80 per cent. of the students are local students, drawn from our catchment area. It is nonsense to expect them to go to South Shields, Liverpool or the south of England to pursue their courses.
Moreover, the cost of many of the specialised courses at the college—for the Humber pilotage authority, or the automatic radar plotting aids for the special problems of the estuary — will now rocket as a result of this decision. It will be very difficult to maintain these practical skills.
The college provides the most comprehensive education, training, research and consultancy base for fisheries and marine engineers in the country. Although the fisheries section of the college has been protected, the cost of running that section will be increased considerably, as will the cost of running the Humber Pioneer and maintaining the bridge simulations and the various tanks. The courses will not disappear, but their cost will increase out of all proportion to any savings that might be made as a result of the abolition of the marine courses.
The Rochdale committee said that there should be a full range of Department of Trade courses. It said that the college should be well equipped to provide deck, engineering and radio courses; that there should be maritime-related degrees and postgraduate work; that it should be part of a larger, broadly-based college; that it should meet regional needs; and that it should have deck and engineering cadet courses. All those Criteria were laid down, and the original DOT statement on which the secretariat made its decision was erroneous. It was corrected, but the damage had been done, and the original decision based on that erroneous information, particularly in relation to cadetships, adversely affected the decision.
Let us compare this college with the others that have been chosen. Hull college is the only one that is integrated on one site. It is the only one that offers all the professional certificate courses for deck officers, for engineer officers and for senior marine radio officers. It is the only one of the 10 colleges that offers all those facilities on one site. All the other colleges are a mish-mash or do not provide all the courses. Nevertheless, Hull is singled out as one of the colleges to go. It does not make sense, particularly bearing in mind the situations at Liverpool and Plymouth. I do not knock those areas. Those areas must fight for themselves. I am glad for their sake that they are being retained, but on the criteria laid down by the Government and by Rochdale they have no prior claim over Hull.
The Hull college supplied nearly one quarter of all the cadetships on deck and in engineering in 1982–83. That is important. It is estimated that, in the coming year about 70 cadetships will be supplied. Hull will supply a quarter of them. Two of the other colleges cannot do that. Finally, in teaching efficiency, Hull had better results than the national average.
850 Let us consider the problems involved in this decision. We have a proud history. We have an estuarial demand. There is regional under-provision of higher and further education. Commitments were made by previous Ministers, and by the Prime Minister when she visited Hull to see our problems, that, because of the decline of our fishing and other industries, we would not be knocked or suffer in such a way. Nevertheless, in the Minister's earlier round of cuts our university suffered one of the greatest cutbacks in the provision of further education places, and now we are facing this additional cut. The decision does not make economic, political or educational sense, and even at this late hour it should be reversed.
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)I support the excellent case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the consequences of the closure of the nautical college. No doubt we will be told again this evening that such actions are almost inevitable, simply because there is a fall in the demand for the facilities provided. However, that fall in demand arises directly from the decline of the merchant fleets which have fallen since the Government came to office from 1,600 to 900 ships. It is estimated that by the end of this Government's term of office—if they run their full term—the fleets will fall to 600 ships. That decline has been caused not by the inevitability of market forces but by the inevitability of Government inaction. The world demand for ships has increased. Even now, the world demand for goods is continuing to increase.
We have seen the growth of fleets in other European countries — even Common Market countries — which have taken steps to protect their fleets. Norway is one example. Flags of convenience are another matter, and the fleets of those countries have also been growing. Fleets have been growing, and yet the British fleet has suffered a calamitous decline. The Government have refused to take positive action, even when requested by the shipping industry itself to do something to meet the tremendous decline which is affecting our economy.
It is ironic that this debate should follow so closely after the debate on shipbuilding borrowing powers. Shipbuilding is another industry that is directly affected by the decline of the great merchant fleets and of demand in our yards. We are paying considerable amounts of money in order to meet the problems created by the decline of our fleets, which was by no means inevitable.
When the Prime Minister came to Hull after the collapse of our fishing industry caused by the Common Market agreement — another Government agreement—she encouraged us to believe that she wanted us to utilise our best assets. Among those assets were the nautical facilities in Hull. The Prime Minister encouraged us to make the most of those assents, and we have set out our stall in Europe to establish a European centre. Now, just as we are making that case, the Government are taking away the jewel of what can we offer to Europe. We are trying to pull ourselves up by own bootstraps, but we are being defeated by the Prime Minister's own actions.
The fall in demand for our facilities arises directly from the inaction by the Government in other areas, particularly in the shipping industry. That is why we are appealing against the closure.
§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)I would like to add to what my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) have said about the effect of the proposed cuts on fishing training. The college of higher education in Hull runs nautical and fishing courses. There are teachers and staff conducting classes on nautical training. The cuts will clearly have an effect on fishing training.
Although there have been enormous cuts in the fishing fleet in Hull, Hull is still one of the United Kingdom's major fishing centres. The distant water fleet has gone, but we still have an enormous processing and distribution industry there. Therefore, training is an integral part of fishing in Hull. It would be a disaster if Hull had yet another kick in the teeth when it is on its knees after the loss of fishing opportunities following the Icelandic war and the application of the common fisheries policy.
Therefore, I was very disappointed to hear the news from the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the proposed cut in nautical training in Hull. We should be building up Hull's training facilities, not knocking them down. We were very disappointed to receive that news. The timing is a disaster. The people in Hull, are—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said—trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. We have implemented several initiatives to try to rebuild the industry. The Hull Fish Landing Company is a very good example of the way in which the local authority, skippers and owners, and both public and private enterprise, have got together to try to rebuild the industry.
This bitter news will have an indirect effect on fishing training as a result of the cut in nautical training. The timing and the extent of the proposed cuts are a disaster. I very much hope that the Government will revoke their decision.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for raising this important issue, and to his hon. Friends who have supported him. In particular, I am grateful for the kind words with which he opened the debate. I should like to reciprocate by mentioning the constructive way in which delegations were brought to see the Secretary of State and I in August, September and October.
I am also glad to have the opportunity to set what at first sight appears to be a largely local matter in the national context. The work of the national advisory body is very important to the local authority higher education sector, and the more opportunity we have for explaining its work, the better. Provision for nautical education and similar training in education establishments nationally is in excess of what is required by the shipping industry to meet its current recruitment and training needs, and those of the foreseeable future. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was candid about that. Unfortunately, the size of the United Kingdom's merchant fleet has declined dramatically in recent years. At the moment, recruitment to the industry is less than 15 per cent. of its last peak in 1975. A return to previous manpower levels is not realistically to be expected.
852 It follows that there must be rationalisation of provision for nautical education and training. Indeed, the desirability of some rationalisation was recognised as long ago as 1970, when recruitment to the industry was still buoyant. A report produced in 1970 by the committee of inquiry into shipping, chaired by Lord Rochdale, made recommenclations to that end, and some rationalisation took place, notably in south Wales and London, although the report was never actually accepted as a basis for the planning and development of marine education and training.
Then, at the turn of the decade, in the winter of 1980, the Merchant Navy training board sought a meeting with the Council of Local Education Authorities, and at the meeting concern was expressed by the MNTB over the rapid fall in the number of cadets being sponsored by the shipping companies for training. The representatives of the MNTB drew the attention of CLEA to the rapid drop in numbers of cadets in colleges. The Council of Local Education Authorities agreed to look into the problem, and a series of meetings was held, gathering together representatives of all the local education authorities in England and Wales that maintained institutions undertaking nautical education and training in whatever form.
Reliable information was difficult to assemble and progress was slow, so when the NAB was set up in early 1982 it was agreed that it would work jointly with CLEA on the exercise. A report was considered by the council in January 1983 and the outcome was that CLEA felt unable to go further than requesting local education authorities to examine their provision and to caution them against allowing any institution to accept non-sponsored cadets. That has some relevance to the present case.
But local authority higher education was in any case facing a period of major readjustment. The main impetus for this had been the Government's drive to reduce public expenditure and to increase the responsiveness of the education system to changing industrial, economic and social needs. The Government believed that there was scope for economy and improvement in efficiency in local authority higher education without damage to standards through rationalisation and a more effective use of capacity.
Against that background, my right hon. Friend set up the national advisory body for local authority higher education to advise him on the best pattern of provision in the local authority sector within the resources available. NAB took the view that an across-the-board restructuring nationally was needed if provision and resources were to be spread in a way that made sense in terms of national and local priorities and launched the major planning exercise to take effect in 1984–85, which is still going on. Following the breakdown of the CLEA attempt, nautical studies were the subject of a special study by NAB and its recommendations on this subject have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis. However, the NAB secretariat has drawn up draft plans for all other areas of provision in consultation with local education authorities and institutions concerned and, of course, other interested bodies. These will be discussed by the NAB committee later this month prior to the submission of firm recommendations to my right hon. Friend on 1984–85 institutional target student numbers and advanced further education pool allocations.
With regard to the review of nautical studies provision, NAB looked at the provision of advanced courses leading to the then Department of Trade, now Department of 853 Transport, certification for deck and engineering officers. It is important to note that the NAB review did not include the entire provision of nautical education departments. Courses for the fishing industry, such as the excellent courses on offer at the Humberside college of higher education, and many professional short courses for the Merchant Navy, as well as all non-advanced courses, were outside the scope of the review.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to the recomendations made by the NAB secretariat to the board in the first instance and, as he said, the conclusion of the review was that there was not sufficient recruitment or sufficient demand to sustain more than four centres. That point of view had been expressed by my Department in the preparation for the review and officials from my Department argued their case during the board meeting. There was a misunderstanding at the time of the vote when the proposal was put that the number should be extended to five and, as the hon. Gentleman implied, no one on the board voted against the decision to move from four to five when it was taken at board level.
That recommendation came from the NAB board to the NAB committee which then reviewed and discussed it at its meeting at the beginning of August. The NAB committee concluded that four centres were more than enough in terms of the scenario that had been laid out as a consequence of the review. The NAB committee, of which I am the chairman, then made its report to my right hon. Friend in September, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, representations and dialogue were going on between us.
The review had been thorough and NAB had looked at evidence from many sources and interested parties. The decision to retain four centres for advanced course work was reached against this background of decline in the size of the United Kingdom merchant fleet due largely to the world recession in trade. While the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) took us rather wide of the subject, I am not sure that solutions even at the level at which he spoke would have been sufficient to generate demand for more than four centres.
The committee felt that four centres would be adequate and would allow plenty of scope within the advanced further education system should the demand for skilled manpower increase. In fact, the retention of four centres out of the current 13 reflects a fairly optimistic view of future growth and development. There are those who feel that three centres nationally could cope with likely demand for advanced course work in that not too distant future.
I fully appreciate the concern felt by the Humberside region at the Secretary of State's decision to withdraw advanced course approval from certain courses for the academic years 1984–85 and 1985–86. This decision is not intended to reflect on the quality of the courses either in the deck and engineering specialisms or in other areas. I know, to quote an example of the commendable work of the college, that there is excellent course provision for fisheries operation and catching, including a degree course in fisheries studies.
The Government are well aware of the contribution that the Humberside college of higher education makes in 854 higher education and of its regional importance. We commend the fact that, as the former Hull college of higher education, it has diversified rapidly since its formation in 1976. At that time teacher training courses accounted for about 45 per cent. of its provision. Now it offers a wide range of courses validated by the Council for National Academic Awards and the Business and Technician Education Council. I hope that work in such areas will continue to be supported.
The Humberside region is an important centre for maritime trade. I realise that this must, in the eyes of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, suggest that course provision should be retained there if necessary at the expense of other centres. But I remind the House that Humberside is not our only important port. South Shields, Plymouth, Southampton and Liverpool — where the NAB advised that courses be retained—also have claims on the ground of maritime importance, and those are the centres which are overwhelmingly preferred by the shipping industry for the sponsorship of deck and engineer cadets as students. It is necessary to take a national view and to consider the views of the industry. The decision as between the various centres was not an easy one to take, and we carefully considered both the regional aspects and the links between these courses and others on offer in the various colleges which might, to a degree, be interdependent with deck and engineer courses in terms of staffing and equipment. In the end we concluded that course approval should be withdrawn at, among others Humberside.
It is often, and truly, stated that further education in this country — both advanced and non-advanced — can be especially proud of its responsiveness to the needs of the industry. At present in many sectors the needs of industry are for rationalisation of provision so that it can be provided cost-effectively in groups which are both economically and educationally viable. As has been only too evident in the case that is the subject of tonight's debate, decisions on the NAB's recommendations will be hard. They will inevitably cause anger and dismay in some quarters and sighs of relief in others. However hard the decisions may be, the fact that we are prepared to take them shows that we are reacting positively to a difficult situation. It would have been irresponsible to do otherwise. I must emphasise that the NAB committee was unanimous in its vote on that.
It is essential that we work to secure a fully cost-effective provision of vocational education—particularly in important minority areas like nautical studies—if we are efficiently to meet the needs of the late 1980s and 1990s. I pay tribute to all who have worked and are working to achieve that end—in NAB, in the colleges and in industry—and trust that even those most closely affected by rationalisation will feel that their labours have not been in vain and that opportunities remain open to them to make a valued contribution to our economy and society. I repeat my appreciation for having had the opportunity to respond to the debate tonight.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o' clock.