§ 1. Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received about his Department's grant to the Open University.
§ 13. Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from west Cumbria on the funding of the Open University.
§ 14. Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the proposed cut in grant for the Open University.
§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)We have received over 700 such representations. No record has been kept of their geographical distribution.
§ Mr. YeoDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the existence of the Open University is a tangible demonstration of our commitment to equality of opportunity? Is he aware that there is widespread dismay about the possible reduction in student places that may result from the proposed cut in real terms in the Department's grant?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe Government have a high regard for the work and functions of the Open University. However, we do not accept that the constraint on finance will necessarily lead to any diminution in its activities.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursIs the Secretary of State aware of the sense of outrage among many of my constituents in west Cumberland, who have historically supported that institution since its inception under a Labour Government? Does he realise that if he strangles this institution, as he has strangled so many other public services, he will be denying many people in my area, who have lost their jobs under this Government, the right to retrain and to be educated in the new skills that they will need if they are to secure employment in future? Will he see sense and rescind his stupid decision?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe hon. Gentleman would he more effective if he were not so strident and did not exaggerate. There is a difference of calculation between the Government and the Open University. We are asking the university to make savings of about £4.5 million in the second of two years. The university claims that it is being asked to make savings of £13.5 million in the second of two years. We do not understand that, and we have asked the university to send us the basis of its calculations.
§ Mr. StrangWhy have the Government singled out this institution—one of the finest in the country — for such savage cuts in expenditure? If the Secretary of State does not recognise the unique importance of allowing those who left school early to acquire a university education from this unique educational institution, does he at least recognise this it is the most cost-effective way to provide higher education?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe Government have not picked out this institution for special treatment. We are proposing levels of financial constraints of the same order of magnitude as those for other institutions of higher education.
§ Mr. FormanI strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend said about the necessity to get the best value for money from the large sums made available to the Open University. However, will he consider appointing an independent third party to examine the discrepency between the two figures, otherwise it may not be possible to reconcile them?
§ Sir Keith JosephWe intend to study carefully the figures for which we have asked, when we receive them. The Open University is setting up an efficiency study in the near future and the Government have invited the visiting committee to discuss the proposed finances with the Open University, after which the visiting committee will report to me.
§ Mr. WallaceWill the Secretary of State acknowledge that in rural areas, such as the one that I represent, the Open University represents one of the few opportunities that people have for further education and retraining? Does he appreciate that great fear is being expressed in those areas that if the cuts go through there will be a serious diminution in that service, particularly in terms of the loss of part-time tutors? Will he bear that in mind and have a rethink about his proposals?
§ Sir Keith JosephI accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
155 The answer to the second part is that I do not believe that the fears being stoked up by the figures distributed by the Open University are justified, but I await the basis of its calculations.
§ Mr. GreenwayIf the Open University raises money externally, will my right hon. Friend's Department reduce its grant proportionately, or will the university be allowed to keep the money that it raises in that way?
§ Sir Keith JosephWe have told the universities that we shall not deduct from their grants money that they raise from the private sector, and that applies to the Open University.
§ Mr. FlanneryIs it not a fact that this morning the Select Committee thought this question so important that it devoted over a quarter of the two hours it spent with the Secretary of State to this subject? Is it not also a fact that the Open University, at a time of unemployment, has increased by 10 per cent. its intake of students and received a cut of 4 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Open University has conveyed the impression that, if the proposed cuts take place, the whole character of the university will change? What is he doing to ensure that its character does not change?
§ Sir Keith JosephI am not the least convinced that its character need change. I do not believe that the Open University is the only institution in this country which cannot find economies while still maintaining its activities. The hon. Gentleman failed to add that the Government have provided a significant extra sum to the Open University to enable it to give additional subsidies to students, such as the unemployed or disabled, as it thinks fit.
§ Mr. HirstDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the Open University represents a ladder of opportunity for people who did not go to university as teenagers and therefore deserve to be encouraged? Will he publish the report of the visiting committee, which has been asked to look at the future options for the operations of the Open University, so that the House may judge for itself whether the grant allocations for 1985 and 1986 represent any impairment in the operations of the Open University?
§ Sir Keith JosephI regard the Open University as a ladder of opportunity, as were the grammar and direct grant schools before the Labour Government abolished them. I shall consult the chairman of the visiting committee about the publication of the report that I expect from him.
§ Rev. Martin SmythDoes the Secretary of State acknowledge that, while some public money may be saved by reducing the allocation to the Open University, it may need other sums for retraining purposes?
§ Sir Keith JosephThere is generally a case for more money for almost everything, but the Government want to reduce the conditions which have helped to create the high unemployment that we have, and constraint on public spending is one of the imperatives.
§ Mr. HarrisWhile rejecting completely the wilder allegations that have been made by Opposition Members about the cuts in allocation to the Open University, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether his mind is completely closed on the matter? If it is shown that the Government's figures are, to a degree, wrong, may we be assured that he will consider the matter again?
§ Sir Keith JosephI would find it hard to say that the Government would in no circumstances think again in a case such as this. However, I have decided, and told the Open University, what its allocation from the taxpayer will be over the next two years, and it is most unlikely that that will be changed.
§ Mr. RadiceBut is not the Secretary of State planning to give the Open University a smaller recurrent grant in 1986 than it gets now, not taking into account inflation and the cuts that have been made in the past? It is these problems which should be concerning him — he described the Open University this morning as "very remarkable" — not what is taught on a particlar Open University course. Does he recognise that, in a democracy, it is the business of Ministers and civil servants to discuss resources and to listen to what is said to them, not to meddle in what is taught at universities and polytechnics?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe figures that I have announced take account of inflation——
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettThat is not true.
§ Sir Keith JosephOnce again the hon. Gentleman is misinforming himself. The Department has received a significant though relatively small number of complaints——
§ Mr. RadiceHow many?
§ Sir Keith JosephAbout seven. These have been received during a time when we have received no complaints about other university courses. When we asked the Open University to consider the complaints, it replied that its rules prevented it from considering complaints without evidence. It implied that it would consider the complaints with evidence. The Department asked for a professional judgment of the course concerned and forwarded it to the university. The Department made no judgment itself. It simply passed on the judgment of others, and that judgment is in the Library for hon. Members to study.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.