§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
12.10 am§ Mr. Steve Norris (Oxford, East)Oxford is well known for its university which, over seven centuries, has established a worldwide reputation. Oxford is less well known for its polytechnic, which has not had the advantage of being in business for seven centuries but which is, nevertheless, fast making a name for itself.
I have the privilege of representing the constituency in which Oxford polytechnic is located and I should like tonight to draw attention to its achievements as well as to some of the problems that confront it. In so doing I wish to pay tribute to, and to thank Dr. Clive Booth, the director of Oxford polytechnic, who has prepared for me a most excellent brief for this evening. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will appreciate that his Department's loss is clearly Oxford polytechnic's great gain.
Oxford illustrates as well as anywhere the complementary roles of a great university and a thriving polytechic. The polytechnic has many special features not to be found in most universities. These include the opportunity to study at a wide range of levels from below degree to postgraduate, to study part-time as well as full-time, and in many applied and vocational subjects, some of which—such as architecture, catering management and planning—are not available in the university.
The polytechnic has a unique and highly popular modular course in which students can combine subjects from similar or widely differing fields. It has very strong links with the local community and industry. Like all polytechnics, it is accountable through many external academic and professional bodies for the quality of its work, and their reports speak highly of its achievements. The polytechnic's students are significantly above average in their success in obtaining employment after graduation.
Oxford polytechnic is a shining example, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, of academic efficiency. Its expenditure per student in 1984–85 was 8 per cent. below the average polytechnic and 24 per cent. below the highest spenders. Let me emphasise that these figures, which were produced by the polytechnic finance officers group, are adjusted to allow for differences in the mix of subjects studies, so they are genuinely comparable figures.
Not only is the polytechnic spending well below the average but it has achieved, in advance, the targets for student-to-staff ratios that are set by the National Advisory Body on the advice of Her Majesty's inspectors. It has achieved these levels of efficiency by exercising stringent economies and by teaching students in larger and larger groups.
But these economies have also had a measurable effect on student performance. Oxford polytechnic will shortly be publishing a research study which shows that over the period 1980 to 1985 student achievement, as measured in the termly examinations, fell steadily. This was in spite of an increase in the quality of the student body as measured by their general certificate of education advanced level grades. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this is a matter not for congratulation but for deep concern, 145 specifically because the fall in achievement correlates with increasing class size and the relationship is highly significant in statistical terms.
The evidence reinforces that recently assembled by the Council for National Academic Awards, based on hundreds of course courses in the public sector. In its report on resources and standards, a copy of which has been sent to my hon. Friend, the council registered its concern. The standards of courses approved by the CNAA are required by the council's charter to be comparable with university standards. The CNAA's function is thus to offer public reassurance about the quality of public sector courses. But this CNAA report makes sombre reading. I do not have time to quote extensively from it but the council do point to the many problems caused by the sharp reductions in the available resources per student in recent years. The council concludes:
The Council believes that serious consequences will follow if there is a further decline in the unit of resource; and secondly, if action is not taken in the longer term to raise the unit of resource and capital equipment allocations to levels that will sustain quality.Oxford polytechnic, in common with others, continues to face a deteriorating situation. I shall deal with Oxford polytechnic's 1986–87 budget problems. These have arisen because it is self-evident that the Government's expenditure plans have made inadequate allowance for inflation and the way inflation affects academic institutions.The expenditure required simply to maintain the existing courses exceeded income by some £300,000. The governing body has had to consider savings which demonstrate the difficulty of finding economies in a polytechnic which is already poorly funded. The proposed savings included the early retirement of academic staff even though the polytechnic has already achieved the staffing levels recommended by HMI and has lost 40 academic staff within the last two years. A reduction in non-academic staff levels has been considered and yet this level is already below average. Another consideration was a reduction in library opening hours. However, because of past economies in the teaching staff, students have to rely increasingly on private study. To reduce to the already ungenerous library opening hours will hit those students hard.
Another saving which is being considered is a reduction in industry visits and field work. That would be on top of the savings made in 1975 and 1979. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who is to reply will appreciate the difficulty of running vocational and applied courses without adequate industry visits and field work. It is self-evident.
These are some of the economies under consideration but they make it clear that the cuts strike at the heart of student education. Oxford polytechnic has the sympathetic assistance of the county council. I am glad to say that the council has agreed to meet some of this year's deficit and, as a result, the worst cuts will be avoided. It cannot be right that a higher education institution of national importance should depend on the willingness of local ratepayers to top up its budget.
Oxfordshire county council, given its own circumstances, has understandably had a policy of not topping-up Oxford polytechnic, although it has come to the rescue on occasions and the polytechnic is grateful for that. However, the effect of topping-up is inequitable and 146 impossible to justify as some polytechnics receive generous contributions from their local education authority and others receive little or nothing. That is not helped by the attitude of the Government and NAB which is, in effect, to pretend that topping-up does not exist.
The Green Paper on higher education said that universities and polytechnics should increasingly look for private sources of funding. I wholly agree with that proposition with which the polytechnic also concurs. The polytechnic has met with increasing success obtaining private funding through research and consultancy. However, the Confederation of British Industry and Engineering Employers Federation has confirmed in its responses to the Green Paper, as my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware, that industry cannot be expected to subsidise mainstream courses on any significant scale beyond their present level of subsidy.
I shall attempt to put the financial problems of polytechnics in a broader national context. Recently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that under this Government, the number of students in polytechnics and colleges had grown by 40 per cent. Thanks to the efficiency of the institutions, however, that has been achieved by a much less than commensurate increase in resources. For example, between 1980–1981 and 1984–1985 polytechnic expenditure fell from £3,600 per student to £2,800 per student, which is a reduction of 22 per cent. in real terms.
In the same period, university expenditure per student fell by a few percentage points. Indeed, the stark differences between the universities and the polytechnics were recently brought out in a paper published by the Department of Education and Science entitled, "Comparison of Funding across Sectors". It shows that even after discounting 30 per cent. of the universities' budgets for research, the polytechnics and colleges received 20 per cent. less per student. I fail to see how a Government who have often reinforced their support for polytechnics and for the particular courses that they offer can justify that disparity.
Oxford polytechnic's difficulties are compounded by the inadequacies of its capital budget. This year, the amount earmarked by the Department for 1986–1987 is £776,000. That is a hopelessly inadequate sum for a major higher education institution that is attempting to cope with large teaching groups, changes in the balance of work, and the introduction of new technology into its science, engineering and vocational courses. It is less than the amount required solely for replacing outdated and broken-down equipment, which at Oxford polytechnic is estimated to amount to about £1 million per annum.
The situation has become so serious that the dean of technology is now having to consider complete withdrawal from a subject area, since the polytechnic cannot hope to maintain standards in all areas of science and technology on the Government's present capital budget. It is interesting to note that a university of similar size to Oxford polytechnic would receive from the University Grants Committee three or four times the amount earmarked for the polytechnic by the Department.
One result of the inadequacy of the capital programme is the severe pressure on accommodation. The polytechnic in Oxford is now accommodating 30 per cent. more students than the Department's space standards indicate should be accommodated. That means severe wear and 147 tear, which is exceptionally heavy and which puts pressure on the maintenance and cleaning revenue budgets. It is a vicious circle of the most unappetising sort.
I turn briefly to the future. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the NAB's officers have recently issued plans for the 1987–88 year as a basis for consultation. The NAB officers have had to make assumptions about the resources likely to be available, and they have quite reasonably assumed that, after all the economies made by polytechnics and colleges in the past six years, the amount spent per student must be protected. The result of protecting the amount per student is a planned reduction in intakes of 9,500 students. That figure has, not surprisingly, attracted much publicity, and I welcome the recent statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he hopes that those cuts in places can be avoided. But I must warn my hon. Friend the Minister that the 9,500 students cannot be accommodated unless matching resouces are provided. The loss of student opportunity if those places were not to be provided would be very sad indeed. At Oxford polytechnic, the NAB plans would perforce include cuts in computing, construction, mathematics, business studies, catering, modern languages and the in-service training of teachers. All of these are applied courses of central importance to our country's economic success. How can it make sense to cut them?
I conclude on this note. In a recent television interview my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would be willing to make extra money available for purposes where he could be satisfied that they would be used wisely. If that is so, I urge my right hon. Friend to support extra funding for polytechnics. Understandably, they feel undervalued by the Government. My right hon. Friend claims to value higher education, which is closely linked to industry and commerce. That is exactly what the polytechnics are providing and they are doing so with great efficiency. They deserve our material, as well as our moral support.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden)I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) for giving the House this opportunity to debate the affairs of Oxford polytechnic. The distinctive role and formidable achievements of the polytechnics are not always as well known as they should be. The popular perception of the polytechnics is too frequently as the poor relations of the universities. In fact they are at the head of a thriving and successful collateral branch of the higher education family with their own independent household, means and interests. They merit a better and more extensive press.
I am particularly glad that it should be in relation to Oxford polytechnic that this opportunity arises, because it epitomises many of the typical virtues. My hon. Friend, who of course knows the polytechnic more intimately than I, has alluded to many of its achievements already this evening. But perhaps I, who know it more by its national reputation, although I have visited it informally, could single out three which refer back to the intentions which led to the creation of the polytechnics in 1966 and which are the hallmark of their distinctiveness today.
148 First, Oxford polytechnic is comprehensive in its intake and breadth of provision. Roughly a quarter of its advanced students are studying for qualifications below degree level. Over 10 per cent. of its advanced students are part-timers, a substantial proportion of whom are local mature students.
Secondly, the polytechnic's emphasis is on technical and vocational work—on application rather than pure abstraction. Over 85 per cent. of its advanced students are on technical, scientific and other vocational courses. Many courses have been devised in collaboration with, and in response to the needs of local employers.
Thirdly, the polytechnic is the valued collaborator of local industry, not just as a supplier of training needs, but as a consultant with practical expertise to contribute in its own right. It provides everything from a consultancy service on catering management, to energy studies for local schools, to the development of computer-aided management systems.
Therefore, I am happy to accept and to endorse my hon. Friend's high estimation of Oxford polytechnic. It is an institution of many qualities and with an important contribution to make to local and national needs.
The kernel of the case made by my hon. Friend is that these qualities are now perceived to be threatened by financial stringency. In particular the polytechnic faces a deficit on its budget for 1986–87 which may necessitate the finding of substantial savings to the detriment of existing provision. The moral which my hon. Friend draws from this is that the resources planned for the public sector of higher education as a whole in 1986–87 are inadequate and are being spread too thinly, both in that respect and for equipment.
My hon. Friend will, I hope, understand if I do not attempt a detailed analysis of the management and financial circumstances of Oxford polytechnic. They are matters beyond my Ministerial responsibility. I certainly do not wish to challenge my hon. Friend's judgment that it is a well-run institution, nor the judgment of those within the institution itself and the maintaining authority who have managerial responsibilities, that the budget for 1986–87 is a tight one.
However, I cannot refrain from quibbling with one small detail of my hon. Friend's presentation. I notice that he did not quote from the letter from the local education authority which suggested that there was a possible saving of £100,000—a third of the shortfall—on catering and cleaning. However, I know that the polytechnic governors had serious doubts about the effectiveness of privatisation. I note that for the record, but I do not want to get involved in this local issue.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, however, responsible within the context of the Government's plans for local authority expenditure generally for the annual determination of the advanced further education pool, which shares the cost of local authority higher education between authorities. My right hon. Friend is also responsible, in the light of advice that he receives from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, for determining allocations from the pool to local authorities in respect of their institutions providing advanced education.
Against that background it is pertinent to record that the allocation from the pool in respect of Oxford polytechnic in 1986–87—just over £11.5 million—represents a 6 per cent. increase on that for 1985–86. That is in line with the 149 increase in the advanced further education pool as a whole between those two years and ahead of the Government's forecast of inflation. It yields a level of funding per student at the polytechnic at exactly the overall polytechnic average. Since 1983–84, Oxford polytechnic's allocation from the pool as risen by 18 per cent., roughly in line with inflation. That is not ungenerous.
If, nevertheless, Oxford polytechnic anticipates difficulties in living within its budget in 1986–87, I suspect that two particular factors may be playing a part. The first, which is also general to public sector higher education, is the inflationary cost—7 per cent. in a full year—of the 1985–86 further education lecturers, pay settlement. There are many who would argue that the public funding of the system should keep pace with its component costs, including its salary costs, even if they exceed the rate of inflation in the economy as a whole. I do not accept that argument. The award was made on the understanding that the lecturers' union would discuss changes in working practice that would lead to significant efficiency gains. Although they are the subject of current negotiation, those gains have yet to materialise. In the meantime, I do not think that higher education—and I stress that I am talking about higher education overall, rather than polytechnics in particular—can reasonably expect to be compensated by the taxpayer for additional costs which were incurred with open eyes and full knowledge of the funding consequences. The onus must be on higher education itself to contain the increased cost.
Oxford polytechnic, as my hon. Friend said, has also recently lost its topping up the amount by which the maintaining authority had in the past supplemented the polytechnics allocation from the advanced further education pool.
I noted my hon. Friend's arguments about the whole philosophy of topping up but it would take much longer than we have available at this early hour of the morning to go into that. This is entirely a matter for the authority, which must decide in the light of its available resources and of local priorities whether to divert additional funds to the support of advanced further education.
I recognise, of course, that the diminution of income consequential on the loss of topping up may take a little time to assimilate and may entail some redeployment of resources within the polytechnic itself. But the Government, basing themselves on the advice of the National Advisory Body, are clear that the advanced further education pool is adequate to fund the advanced provision planned for in 1986–87.
More generally, it is clear that the polytechnics as a group are now operating a tight ship. the background to that is the sustained expansion of student numbers that has occurred in the first half of this decade to which my hon. Friend referred. Since 1979, the polytechnics have absorbed a 37 per cent. increase in student numbers and in consequence have achieved a substantial and very creditable gain in efficiency. Their improved efficiency has been reflected in a sustained tightening of the student-staff ratio until, in 1984–85, it stood at 11.5:1, just short of the 12:1 target for the public sector as a whole established by the National Advisory Body as a basis for its planning. There has also been a commensurate fall in polytechnic unit costs of just over 18 per cent.
Oxford polytechnic has followed that trend. As my hon. Friend observed, it has also achieved a student staff ratio of 11.5:1, which, because of its subject mix, is consistent 150 with th 12:1 target for the sector as a whole. Unit costs at Oxford polytechnic are below the overall polytechnic average.
My hon. Friend deduces a threat to quality from this substantial fall in unit costs. He cites as evidence an unpublished research paper—although I understand from him that it will soon be published—tracing a correlation between student performance and resources at Oxford polytechnic over the period 1980 to 1984. I have not seen the paper, but I welcome work in this area. This is a complex question on which the evidence is so far scanty. The more evidence the better. What evidence I have seen, however, does not lend support to any simple formulation of the relationship between resources and quality. I am more inclined to sympathise with the observation of a recent paper on the same subject by the Council for National Academic Awards, submitted as evidence to the National Advisory Body, which was careful to stipulate that the relationship was not a mechanical one.
It depends crucially, for example, on the extent to which resources are being exploited to the full. In the case of advanced further education at the beginning of the decade, they were clearly not. There was substantial under-used capacity—in part because student demand which was anticipated in the 1970s and for which provision of accommodation and resources had been made did not materialise, or materialised at a slower rate than expected. The decline in unit costs is largely a measure of the greater intensity with which resources have been used since. Thus the National Advisory Body, in its strategy advice to the Secretary of State about higher education in the late 1980s and beyond, published in September 1984, judged in the light of the views of Her Majesty's inspectorate and the validating bodies, that the fall in unit costs was not in itself a ground on which it could argue for an increase in the funding per student then obtaining, although it did recommend that there should be no further planned reduction.
My hon. Friend has argued that the spare capacity is now filled up and that, in the case of Oxford polytechnic, the bottle is full to overflowing. He concludes accordingly that the Government should allow no further deterioration in the unit of resource in 1987–88. In so doing, he echoes the views of the National Advisory Body.
I should stress at once that no decisions have been taken about the level of funding available for public sector higher education, nor will they be taken until the autumn. That said, I have to record my scepticism of the unit of resource argument embraced by the National Advisory Body and the relationship it predicates between funding and student numbers—that to add a student costs the same wherever added, and to remove a student saves the same wherever substracted. Common sense suggests that the real world is not like that. How can it be when a proportion of the system's costs are attributable to its buildings and other facilities, which are relatively inelastic to demand?
Only if the system, in each and every one of its constituent parts, was operating at full capacity would an approach based on maintaining a particular level of funding per student make sense. Even that supposes—and it seems to me fraught with difficulty—that it is possible to discern what level marks the Rubicon of acceptable quality. But the system is not operating at full capacity. By contrast with the tight efficient polytechnic ship, the student-staff ratio elsewhere in the local authority 151 higher education sector stood at 9.6 : 1 in 1984–85. That is indicative of substantial spare teaching capacity. Prima facie, therefore, there must be scope for redeploying resources towards the polytechnics.
I dwell on this point, which Ministers have repeatedly made in the light of the National Advisory Body secretariat consultative proposals, because it seems to me that the efficient allocation of places and resources is the key to orderly planning. It could almost describe the National Advisory Body's raison d'être. To place undue emphasis on the average level of funding per student diverts attention away from the effectiveness of the system. By assuming that the system is disposed to best effect now, it effectively excludes consideration of how it might be better organised to make resources go further and to sustain quality.
This is no service to Oxford polytechnic nor to other institutions of similarly high quality. It is axiomatic that we should fund such institutions at a level consistent with 152 preservation of quality and so as to build on existing strengths. I do not see how that purpose would be fulfilled by the National Advisory Body secretariat consultative proposals which would instead divert money away from Oxford polytechnic by curtailing the planned number of students for which it is funded, in the way that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It would be a folly to do so when there are unused resources elsewhere in the system. For that reason the Government look to the National Advisory Body to bear these factors in mind as it continues its planning for 1987–88, culminating in the submission of advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this December.
These considerations have ranged more broadly, perhaps, than the immediate problems which my hon. Friend has raised in the case of Oxford polytechnic, but I hope that they have helped to place them in a rather more comprehensible context.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o' clock.