§ Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
§ 3.9 pm
§ Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central)When the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) — replied to a similar debate to this one initiated on by 18 June by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), he said that there was a
possibility of extra cash for the universities for the 1987–88 and subsequent financial years"—[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1164.]subject to certain qualifications about better management, especially financial management, the quality of teaching, and so on. The hon. Gentleman went on to use selective statistics to show how grateful Scotland should be for the wonderful advances made in Scottish education in the past seven or eight years. He cited the number of full-time students in higher education, but the debate was not about that. It was about universities. In fact, the number of university undergraduate entrants in Scotland remained virtually static between 1978 and 1985 at between 11,500 and 12,000.I do not want to play the numbers game, because we have become used to the Government playing that game in health, housing and unemployment and few people believe a word they say. I prefer to use the more reliable test of what those at the sharp end of this operation think and say. On 14 June 1986 the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom sent a letter to, I presume, all hon. Members. It concluded:
The universities now face a major crisis. Because funding is too low, protecting excellence involves damaging much that is good.The Committee offered a remedy — for 1986–87, £15 million should be provided from the contingency fund and for, 1987–88 to 1989–90, there should beEnough extra cash to provide genuine level funding and the modernisation of equipment. At least £100 million is needed just to stabilise the system at the depressed 1986–87 level.Whether that cash becomes available depends on the result of the struggle now going on in the Cabinet on future levels of public expenditure. The smiling face of the new Secretary of State for Education and Science and his skill as a public relations man will be no substitute for that hard cash.I come to the St. Andrews problem. As I listened on 25 June to the new Secretary of State, I began to wonder, as did many other hon. Members, what the large lobby of university teachers on 12 June was all about. University staff are not, the most militant of people. They are civilised, reasonable men and women. But on 12 June they came marching down to this place from all over the United Kingdom to protest about the crisis in our universities. They came to complain not only about their salary, which is a scandal in itself, but about the overall funding of universities, the cuts they have had to endure over the past few years and the consequential effects of such shortsighted policies.
At that lobby I met representatives from St. Andrews university. Although it is not in my constituency, it affects the whole of Fife, indeed, the whole of Scotland. It draws 1376 its students from all over Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world. Those representatives put a case to me which I promised to bring before the House.
Before I do that, I should like to say a word or two about the plight facing all Scottish universities lest it be presumed that St. Andrews has a particular grievance. It is a general grievance. All eight universities in Scotland are facing major cuts in the next financial year. Five universities, Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, St. Andrews and Stirling face cash cuts even on last year's figures. Although three of the universities have received cash increases, those increases are significantly less than the rate of inflation. Therefore, they are, in effect, real cuts.
The 1986–87 grants in Scotland are, on average, over 5 per cent. less than the minimum needed to maintain the position as it was in the previous year. If one looks at the whole period 1979–80 to 1985–86 the total of University Grants Committee grants to the Scottish universities has fallen in real terms from £191.9 million to £176.08 million, a cut of nearly £16 million. To put that another way, in order to restore the level of grant paid to the Scottish universities in 1979 the 1986–87 recurrent grant settlement would have have needed to be about £220 million, instead of which it is only £182 million. Despite the Minister's denial in an answer to me a few weeks ago and in the debate on 18 June, there is evidence of some regional discrimination in these matters. I shall try to spell out what that is.
I supplied the Minister with some information about St. Andrews which I hope has helped him to prepare a reply to the debate. As a result of the UGC's letters of 20 May and 27 May specifying funding allocation for 1986–87, St. Andrews will suffer a 0.4 per cent. cash cut, which is approximately a 5.4 per cent. cut in real university finance terms. That requires about £400,000 to be added to an already projected deficit for 1986–87.
The grant allocations were presumed to be based on an assessment of the quality of research being done in universities. Each university was examined department by department for the quality of its research. At St. Andrews 14 departments and sub-departments were graded as above average and five as below. However, it suffered a cut in its financial provisions. The reason for that treatment is apparently that the above average performance of St. Andrews was in the arts faculty, which attracts little external income for research. While the UGC and the Government tell the universities to concentrate on their strenghts they penalise universities such as St. Andrews because their recognised strengths are in the arts and there is an inability to attract external finance with such a discipline.
As the universities pointed out, research selectivity is not the main problem. The real problem is what is called the common unit of resource. The UGC has apparently made some calculations on the cost per student for each subject in each university. No university, and certainly not St. Andrews, seems to know how the calculations were made and whether they took account of the different teaching patterns in Scottish universities. It is significant that six of the eight universities in Scotland were told that for 1986–87 the implementation of the common unit of resource had operated to their financial disadvantage. It is important that the universities should know the full details of the criteria on which they are being judged. The UGC has apparently made no judgment of the quality of the teaching in our universities in arriving at its common 1377 unit of resource. I hope that the Minister will agree that the quality of teaching is of no less importance than the quality of the research that is undertaken at our universities.
The overall impact of recent developments at St. Andrews since 1979–80 can be summed up shortly. Since that year there has been a 27 per cent. cut in real income. That has far-reaching effects both long-term and short-term, not least on the threat to jobs, careers and morale. There is also the diminution of opportunities for university education for the increasing number of youngsters with academic qualifications that are sufficient to qualify and entitle them to enjoy them.
In an area of higher than average unemployment, it is especially tragic that these savage cuts are endangering the community and tourist services that the university can offer. I shall give one of two examples. The Crawford arts centre promotes exhibitions, professional drama and concerts, children's activities and community education. It is funded jointly by the university, the Scottish Arts Council and local authorities. Its present annual turnover is £100,000. The university contributes £45,000, the Arts Council £25,000 and the local authorities £4,500. The exhibitions at the arts centre attract over 20,000 visitors annually, covering painting, architecture, photography and other crafts. The university's funding of salaries has been cut. One full-time post has already gone, and it is now planned to cease payment of the director's salary after 31 March next year. Unless external funding of the centre can be found, the centre will be closed.
The Government might take the view, "What does it matter that such a centre should be closed? It has no bearing on the country's economic prosperity and it can be disbanded."
The same argument might be advanced in response to my second example. The department of music was started in 1946 and it now has four full-time teaching staff, all of whom conduct choirs and orchestras and perform on instruments as well as teaching and engaging in research. The concerts of the university's musical society and the chapel choir are open to the public. The department promotes organ recitals on one of the finest organs in Scotland, I gather, and gives a series of concerts in the summer vacation. Apart from providing a full range of music courses, the staff gives extra-mural courses for the adult education department. Again, the Government might brush that aside as having no consequence in the economic battle in which we are now engaged.
The same argument might be applied to my third example, which is the archaeological museum. The museum has a rich collection of Roman and middle east antiquities as well as early Scottish items. It obtains its funds from the university and the local authorities. It is in danger of closing for the same reasons that I adduced earlier.
Another example is the university's botanical garden, which has been built up over the past 20 years into one of the country's great botanical gardens. It is of international renown. There, the effect of the cuts in the past six years has meant that a staff of over 17 is down to half that figure, and is likely to fall still further unless the gardens get more cash.
Overall, the picture is very depressing, to put it no higher. The recent UGC proposals must result in the decline in the number of home students and an increase in overseas students who pay fees, although the university is 1378 forced to extract those fees. At a time when the country and employers are calling out for graduates and well-qualified personnel, St. Andrews and other universities are turning away would-be students.
The Scottish universities and the whole educational system have a vital contribution to make to counteract the decline of Scotland's manufacturing industry by the provision of a highly qualified work force and by the stimulation of technological innovation in new industries. The cuts in the finances for teaching and research can only accelerate Scotland's economic decline. We can only hope that the Government will heed the warnings coming from all quarters. They cannot pretend that the evidence is not there. It comes not, from political parties and those with axes to grind, but from people from all walks of life who are urging the Government to invest in our future, which means investing in education and, in this case, our universities.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden)The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) set out his worries about university funding in general and his particular constituency concerns in his own inimitable way. As always, I am grateful. I receive a heavy postbag on higher education matters. Scottish university concerns take at least their fair share of that. We have now had three debates on higher education—including two on Scottish universities—in the last fortnight.
Let me start by restating the current position on access and on university funding. The Government have a very good record on access to higher education. The number of full-time home students is now 77,000 higher than it was in 1979. The proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds entering higher education has increased by more than an eighth and the number of mature entrants is also up by about 15 per cent. These increases contrast starkly with the falls in numbers and participation rates between 1975 and 1979 when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. This encouraging national picture is fully reflected in Scotland, as those who were present will know from the figures that I quoted when replying two weeks ago to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
My sensibilities were deeply shocked by the sharp elitist distinction that the hon. Gentleman drew between universities and other aspects of education, such as polytechnics. I advise him to try that line on some of our better polytechnics. The Government's declared aim is to secure still further increases in higher education participation rates. We remain determined to press forward in that direction.
On university funding, matters rest at present with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 20 May, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As announced, the Government are ready to increase financial provision for the universities, provided that they demonstrated real progress in implementing and building on the changes that are needed.
That is the background against which we have to examine the concerns that the hon. Member raised. I readily acknowledge that, like all universities, St. Andrews faces a difficult task in containing its expenditure within 1379 the funds available whilst sustaining quality and reshaping its provision in the light of developing national needs. I believe that, like others, it will be up to the task.
I say that with some little confidence because I had the pleasure of visiting Scotland's oldest university last March. It was a fairly whistle-stop tour, I am afraid—partly because of the diversity of the courses on offer—but I was impressed by what I saw. I also had some usefully frank and informative discussions with staff and students.
I want to look for a few moments now at the areas in which we have identified a need for improvement and at possible implications for St. Andrews. First, management. To a significant extent this must start at the top. I know that the principal of St. Andrews, Dr. Steven Watson, unfortunately died recently. I would like to pay tribute to him. He led the university successfully through a great deal of change over a period of 20 years. He was also an accomplished historian, and among other fields, Mr. Speaker, his researches focused on your distinguished office and on the contribution of some of your illustrious predecessors. It is no easy job being a vice-chancellor in today's world. Dr. Watson's work was well regarded and we wish his successor well.
Finally, on management, one issue which I cannot refrain from mentioning is tenure for academic staff. There can be no doubt that tenure in the form in which it is currently enjoyed by many academics is a major barrier to management flexibility and efficiency in the university system. The Government intend to press ahead, as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows, with legislation to limit the nature of tenure which can be granted in future. Therefore, I was very interested to hear of the strong attack by Mr. Stanley Adams, the new rector of St. Andrews, on the vested interest of tenure.
That brings me to the standards of teaching in universities, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Scottish universities—because of their place within the education system in Scotland and because of their four-year degrees — have long had a reputation for being relatively more concerned about teaching than their counterparts south of the border. I am advised that that distinction is less true than it was, both because of increased recognition throughout the system of the importance of sustaining teaching quality — a levelling up, as it were, to the hon. Gentleman's standards—and because Scottish universities have been giving increasing attention to the need for high quality research.
I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will shortly be publishing the final report of its working group, chaired by Professor Reynolds, which has been preparing advice and guidance on the means by which universities should monitor and maintain standards. All universities—English, Scottish and Welsh —will need to give priority to following up this work.
As hon. Members know, the UGC's recent grant allocations were not based, even in part, on an assessment of teaching quality in universities. The hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. I fully recognise that such assessments are very difficult, but I am hopeful that the UGC might be able to make some moves in that direction over the next few years. Judging from what the hon. Gentleman said, that should be a cause of some satisfaction both to him and to St. Andrews.
1380 Let me turn now to selectivity in the funding of research. I regard this as of the utmost importance. This was reflected in the recent grant allocations and is generally accepted as necessary in order to provide more support for high quality research. It is also generally agreed that, on the whole, the UGC has done a good job. Not a single academic to whom I have talked about the question of selectivity has challenged the principle, although most of them challenge the result in this or that area. Many people will have the odd quibble. I have just said that nearly every academic to whom I have talked has the odd quibble, and it would be very surprising if that were not so. But without doubt there is no other body that could have tackled the job anywhere near as effectively as it has been tackled by the UGC, in very close consultation with some very distinguished people.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the number of sub-departments at St. Andrews with high research ratings was slightly misleading. I hope that he will not object to my putting it in that way. In fact, the University of St. Andrews emerged from the exercise with a broadly average rating. Six of its 13 main subject areas were assessed as average, three as above average and four as below average. In terms of individual subjects, research in psychology, art, history, classics and Russian was judged to be outstanding by international standards.
The key question now is the extent to which universities, including St. Andrews, pursue selectivity through their own internal arrangements—giving extra support to high quality work and taking a hard look at that which is below average. The UGC will be keeping all this under review over the next few years—refining its own procedures by experience and watching closely what individual universities do. It will be interesting to see how much changes.
In some, though by no means all, cases, lower quality work is a consequence of departments being small. I emphasise that I am not making a particular reference to St. Andrews. Where there are only one or two members of academic staff in a particular discipline it is that much harder to sustain high quality teaching and research cost-effectively. One solution which is appropriate in some cases is departmental rationalisation. St. Andrews, is, I know, already treading this road in co-operation with Dundee university. I hope that this can be actively pursued and that yet more universities will recognise the potential benefits from such changes.
Those are the directions in which Government policy is pointing. In none of them is a finger particularly pointed at St. Andrews or the Scottish universities generally. It is not our aim to disadvantage universities in Scotland; nor, despite the hon. Member's implications, has the UGC adopted grant allocation arrangements that are prejudicial to Scotland. The committee does not discriminate in any way between universities on grounds of their location. Standard considerations were applied to all universities. The UGC has circulated all universities with details of those, and will be spelling out the implications further in meetings with universities during the next few months.
None of that, however, means that the different pattern of provision in Scotland has gone unrecognised. The UGC's grants fully reflect the fact that most honours courses in Scotland last for four years. The hon. Member complained about funding, but, as a result of that, 1381 universities north of the border receive roughly 30 per cent. more funding per honours graduate than do their English and Welsh counterparts.
So far I have spoken only about matters of direct concern to universities, and St. Andrews in particular. That is the extent of the specific responsibilities that my right hon. Friend and I hold.
The hon. Member also spoke, quite rightly, about the impact of the university on its local community. He drew particular attention to the university's importance as an employer locally and to its considerable influence on total spending power in the area. I acknowledge that, but it is true of quite a number of our universities which are sited in or near relatively small towns. Another aspect of a university's impact on its local community is also important. A key part of the Government's policy for higher education is to encourage greater links between academics and industry in their widest sense. These can provide significant support for universities and help industry gain more quickly from the fruits of research by facilitating technological transfer and making highly qualified consultancy services available. St. Andrews' involvement in the Glenrothes enterprise trust and its technology centre are good examples of that.
1382 As the hon. Gentleman referred at some length to the general position of universities, I want to stress that what is now happening in higher education in general and in unversities in particular will strengthen those vital institutions for the future. Of that I have no doubt. In a speech the other evening, which the hon. Gentleman was lucky enough not to have read, I said that in private I have been assured by many university people that they well understood that many of the changes now taking place would strengthen the system for the future.
I understand that many of the reforms being introduced are painful for dons and difficult for those who manage universities, but they are absolutely vital in the longer term. Any Government who allow the not wholly efficient management of the university system to continue would be less responsible than they should be.
The Government aim to increase participation in higher education above the record levels already achieved. We are reviewing university funding levels in the light of improvements in that sector. St. Andrews and its locality should benefit from that as much as the remainder of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Four o'clock.