§ Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
12.26 am§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the problems facing University college, Swansea, and the university of Wales. The college in my constituency is on one of the most delightful campuses anywhere in the country and it has an extremely good academic record. However, it is in a state of complete demoralisation. The college has already endured cuts over the past five years —quite severe cuts for a small college—and over 30 of the academic posts have already gone.
The college had been warned, as had other universities, that a successive round of 2 per cent. annual cuts lay ahead for the college. That would have been a severe enough blow, but, out of the blue, it was told of the latest massive University Grants Committee cut. That cut was portrayed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who does not seem to quite understand these things, as a cut of only 0.5 per cent., carefully ignoring the fact that when inflation is taken into account the cut actually becomes 5.5 per cent. In cash terms, the university now has to save £850,000 during the next academic year.
It is worth noting that the average cut in Wales at university level has not only been higher than in Scotland, but has been much higher than the average in England. When the UGC cuts were first announced it was feared that compulsory redundancies would be necessary at academic and non-academic level. As the Minister will appreciate, the prospect of further redundancies in one of our major employers, in a city that already suffers from abnormally high unemployment, was regarded with considerable alarm, especially as the university is at a financial disadvantage because the loss of industry that there has already been in the area limits its ability to find industrial sponsors.
At least we have now been told that there is a possibility that the cuts can be accommodated without compulsory redundancies. They can be accommodated by natural wastage, which is a nice way of saying that we do not fill the job again, so jobs are lost in the area anyway, and possibly by voluntary redundancy, if enough people come forward and offer to give up their jobs. If not, I assume that we are back to the situation where compulsory redundancy may be under consideration.
Whichever way the matter is resolved, we are at the end of the road for the college after so many years of cuts. We are now at the limit of the cuts that the university can take without there being severe redundancies. Even if we achieve this round of cuts without compulsory redundancy, the effects will still be severe on some of the lowest-paid people who work on the campus. Many people do non-academic work there. For example, the National Union of Public Employees tells me that a decision to save on cleaning work in the university by cutting four and a half hours per person off the working week, which may not sound severe when one first considers it, is put in a different perspective when one realises that 100 cleaners on that campus work only 19 hours in the first place. In losing four and a half hours, they will be losing a quarter of their income, even if they manage to save their job. Also because 575 they will be below 19 hours, they will lose their national insurance, and their employment and redundancy protection.
The university is having to make severe cuts in its structure. We are losing the department of oceanography and the economic history department, the only separate economic history department in the whole of Wales. We are losing our drama unit. There is to be a 50 per cent. cut in the Taliesyn arts centre on a budget of £120,000, which is made even more severe by the fact that it will also lose some of its bread and butter income, because the closure of the drama unit will mean that it loses the productions that the drama unit previously put on. Already, it is facing the need for cancellation of contracts for events that were due to take place in the next two terms, and is having to consider scrapping programes for exhibitions in the arts centre.
The arts centre manager assures me that the cuts are so severe that he will barely be able to meet the wages of a skeleton staff at the centre, yet that centre is important because, in addition to its general contribution to the cultural life of Swansea and the surrounding areas, it is a focal point in south-west Wales for Welsh language activities, and has a co-ordinated programme to help local school examination candidates with their set text work. To try to make up the money that it will lose as a result of the UGC cuts, it will have to convert its operations to that of yet another conference centre. It will be one more competitor for the already limited number of conference engagements available.
In a perverse way, to add to an already severe position for the centre, it now faces the possible crippling demand from the Welsh Arts Council for a refund of part of a capital grant of £90,000 because the grant was provided in the first instance for the building to operate as a theatre.
The whole exercise in relation to Swansea and the University of Wales as a whole is based on serious misunderstandings. First, there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the role of the University of Wales. It is deliberately a federal structure. As the Minister may have been told, it was set up, not by great endowments and charitable funds or Government money but by the collection of pennies from the people of Wales. They were determined that they would have their own national university. In order to ensure that the facilities were available to the maximum number of people in Wales, it was decided to organise the university on a federal basis. Thus there is a series of colleges, each of which is small, but they need to be widely diversified in the courses that they offer. Because they are small, any changes in financing—even small changes—quickly affect viability. Because they are small, they have been at a disadvantage in the latest round of assessments by the UGC. Their size has exacerbated the problem of research financing. The research criterion has been used by the UGC vastly to the disadvantage of the Welsh university colleges.
The second misunderstanding is about the interrelationship of departments within any one college. Increasingly, youngsters want to study joint honours courses. They do not want all their academic and intellectual eggs in one basket. They want flexible choices to be available to them. If the number of departments within a university is limited, the range of options available to students is reduced, perhaps deterring 576 students from attending that university. The position is a little worse in Wales because of the way in which part 1 of a degree course is organised. A wide range of choice is required in the first instance.
One can demonstrate the problem by referring to the loss of the drama unit. It will be bad enough to lose the drama unit, but inevitably the English department will be hit. There is a tendency for students to take drama with other English studies. I believe that when Bangor university cut back on classics, it also lost enrolments in English departments because of the tendency of young people to link the two subjects.
The University of Wales is a major central Welsh national institution. It is part of our national, cultural and educational inheritance. It is no good the Secretary of State for Wales trying to wash his hands of it. It must be recognised that his reputation as the Welsh Secretary is inevitably linked to what happens to our university. I find it disturbing that he has been, at best, ambivalent, and more aptly evasive, in his responses to the university's future.
I asked the Secretary of State whether he would allow me to take a deputation from University College, Swansea, to meet him. He was unable to agree. He said that responsibility rested with the Department of Education and Science. That would have been fine if he had said that he had no responsibility in that context. However, when we had a debate on higher and continuing education on 25 June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales—the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts)— trying to show the depth of concern that he and his right hon. Friend have for the university, said:
We keep in close touch with the UGC to ensure that Welsh needs are fully taken into account—On the basis of the review, they are not making a good job of it. He continued:My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairman of the UGC recently to discuss next year's allocation—".—[Official Report, 25 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 414.]The Welsh Office must make up its mind. It cannot, when it suits it, say, "It is nothing to do with us; it is someone else's responsibility", and try to win dubious applause in Wales by pretending that it is taking action when, in fact, it ducks for cover as soon as it is asked to take responsibility. It is no good trying to evade the fact that, in Welsh eyes, the Secretary of State for Wales and his reputation are closely linked to the future of the university colleges of the principality.When the Secretary of State saw the Association of University Teachers recently—he will see the AUT, but apparently he will not see his parliamentary colleagues — he advocated a collegiate approach based on small colleges each of which would concentrate on areas of excellence. But that fails completely to recognise the departmental relationship and the need for breadth of choice and linked choices to which I referred. The vision of the Secretary of State is false and too restrictive. It is a formula for low enrolment. As numbers become smaller, income will become smaller, and the university will be pushed further on the downward spiral.
On 25 June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales—the hon. Member for Conwy— said that the UGC had made a "special allocation", recognising the needs of the university in relation to the Welsh language. If our allocation is already worse than those in Scotland or England, even with a special allocation, how 577 bad would it have been without that special allocation? Our position would surely have been worse. Is not the Secretary of State for Wales defending our university at all? Does he accept that it should not be among the most severely penalised of all the universities? I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked the UGC to review the financial position of the Scottish universities. We expect at least the same for Wales. We expect the UGC to consider the Welsh position again, bearing in mind the unique role played by the university of Wales in the context of Welsh national aspirations and life. If we do not get this second look, we shall want to know why the Secretary of State for Wales seems to have so little influence with the Government and his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden)I listened with interest to the statements by the right hon. Member for Swansea. West (Mr. Williams) about University college, Swansea, the funding of the university of Wales and universities generally. He set out his case with his usual diligence, and I am grateful for his clear exposition of his concerns.
I sympathise with some of the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties. I hope that this does not sound frivolous, but it was while he was lecturing at Swansea that Kingsley Amis wrote "That Uncertain Feeling". I know that this is a difficult period for the whole university system, including Swansea. It is important at the start to get the debate into context. My right hon. Friend's predecessor, the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, announced on 20 May that the Government were willing to increase financial provision for the universities. That willingness is, however, clearly and reasonably dependent upon the universities committing themselves to a programme of action to improve quality and cost-effectiveness. In particular, we have told the universities that we shall be looking for evidence to demonstrate progress towards better management, improved standards of teaching, selectivity in research funding and rationalisation of small departments. We have started discussions with the UGC and the vice-chancellors on this and are aiming to reach agreement in detail on the way forward before public expenditure plans for 1987–88 and later years are finalised in the autumn.
Sceptical commentators have dismissed all that as "jam tomorrow". "I Want It Now" they say, in the words of another Kingsley Amis title, and they affect the belief that, unless the Government hand out a specified sum of hard cash now, without conditions, many universities will be on a slippery slope towards closure. That is just not so. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West did not go that far.
I should like to take this opportunity to reassure the universities that the Government will not make statements like that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 20 May unless they intend to follow them through. There will be an increase in financial provision if universities will make progress on the changes which we have identified as necessary. The amount of the increase will be determined in the autumn. It will depend in part on the Government's decisions about relative spending priorities. The universities' case will be 578 greatly strengthened if there is clear evidence of their determination to press ahead with measures to reinforce quality and value for money.
The vice-chancellors have said loudly that they are seeking funds sufficient to maintain the universities' activities at their 1985–86 level. At this stage I am in no position to promise such an outcome; and my position tomorrow would be several Benches further back if I were to do that. However, we have heard what the vice-chancellors have said and what the UGC has said and I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West this evening and noted his remarks about his institution.
Most of my remarks relate to the changes to which we hope the universities will commit themselves. I would like to spell these out in more detail and relate them to some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman about University college, Swansea. First, I would like to consider management.
The Jarratt committee on efficiency in universities reported in March last year. It did not find that universities were gnerally wasteful or that there were particular areas in which major economies could be made overnight without any effect on universities' teaching and research activities. But it did conclude that throughout the university system there was scope for improvements in management both to ensure that full value could in future be gleaned from the large sums of public money involved and to make the system more effective in responding to the changing needs of the nation in the fast-changing world of the late 20th century.
Some of those who are concerned about these matters were, I know, worried last summer and autumn about the silence with which much of the university world appeared to have received Sir Alex Jarratt's report. A good part of the explanation for that seems to have been simply that most universities were heavily preoccupied with the preparation of their submissions for the UGC's planning exercise. Since then we have heard a good deal about deliberations within universities about these matters. Many, perhaps most, universities have by now given careful consideration to the central recommendations about the need for streamlined, responsive management structures with clearly identified levels of decision-making and responsibility. Certainly, I know that University college, Swansea has.
The Department has heard rather less about the attention being given to the more detailed recommendations from the Jarratt exercise — on financial management, purchasing, building maintenance, and the use of space.
Let me turn now to the question of teaching standards. As hon. Members know, the UGC's recent grant allocations were not based — even in part— on an assessment of teaching quality in universities. I fully recognise that such assessments are very difficult, but I hope that the UGC might be able to make some moves in that direction over the next few years. I assume that the right hon. Member would share that hope.
However, whilst UGC involvement in that way would be a useful lever, real action to sustain high quality teaching must be centred within each university. There are already a number of promising signs. Later today the CVCP will be publishing the final report of Professor Reynolds' working group on the maintenance of academic standards. I understand that it includes much valuable 579 advice and guidance for universities on matters such as the effective use of external examiners. A few weeks ago the vice-chancellors circulated draft guidance on the training needs of university academic staff. These are important steps and, if universities respond as suggested, significant improvements seem likely. But, to my mind, the greatest promise lies in the talks which the vice-chancellors have been having with the Association of University Teachers about the introduction of more systematic appraisal for university lecturers. Those talks are at an early stage but I am encouraged by what I have heard of how this difficult question is being addressed.
This brings me on to selectivity in research funding and the appraisals made by the UGC of each university's research strength. I have discussed this with many experienced and knowledgeable people in higher education. No one has yet challenged the principle. I admit, though, that most of those with whom I have spoken, whilst agreeing that the UGC's assessments were broadly right, disagree with the ratings given to one or two departments which they know well. Perhaps not surprisingly, in all such cases they believe that the department concerned deserves a higher rating. It may reassure them, and hon. Members, to know that these ratings are not cast in stone for all time. The UGC will he keeping them under review and refining its procedures by experience. However, I must state at this point that I am not aware of any undertaking by the UGC to review the Scottish position. It is possible that I may have missed something but I would hope that I have not. I cannot give any assurance of the kind requested by the right hon. Gentleman.
University college, Swansea did not fare as well as some other universities in these research ratings. Indeed, the UGC has told the college that the main reason why it will suffer a cut in grant of 0.5 per cent. next year, although I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about financial reality was the committee's selective distribution of resources in support of research strength. That does not mean that there is no high quality research at Swansea. On the contrary, the UGC assessed research in chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical and electronic engineering, social anthropology, sociology, German, history, and philosophy as of above average quality. This was, however, more than counter-balanced by the below average ratings given to research in 10 other subject groupings. As in other universites, there are some hard questions for Swansea to address. A central concern may be whether academic developments in the coming years should involve some increased concentration on areas of strength.
Such a concern links with the fourth area of change which the Government have identified—the rationalisation of small departments. The UGC has already begun a programme of rationalisations across the country as a whole. Proposals for small departments involved in the teaching of Scandinavian languages and Italian have already been announced. More minority subjects are in the pipeline and the UGC's programme will progressively move towards tackling some of the large subject areas.
But the UGC cannot act alone. Much of the impetus must come from within universities. That is why I was pleased to hear that the University of Wales has established a rationalisation committee and that the Welsh 580 colleges will be participating in a careful review of whether the present distribution of subject provision can be bettered.
Our other great federal university, London, has grasped the nettle in recent years and committed itself to major restructuring. Much of that is now complete. No one would pretend that it was easy; there has undoubtedly been trauma for many of those involved. But few would deny that London university and its constituent colleges are stronger as a result. I wish the University of Wales well in treading the path of rationalisation.
The fifth part of our four-legged programme for improvements is academic pay. The AUT and CVCP are currently working up detailed proposals to put to the Department this summer. Our willingness to consider making extra funds available on this front will depend greatly on the readiness of the universities and university lecturers to agree a new pay structure which provides greater flexibility and helps the recruitment and retention of staff of appropriate quality.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the position of non-academic staff in universities. I have talked to a number of their representatives on my visits to universities throughout the country and I agree that their position should not be forgotten in the changes that are taking place. I am aware of the strains of readjustment on their position, and any improvement in university funding as a whole will, naturally, be to their indirect benefit, too.
Most of what I have said has focused on the future and on prospective improvements in our university system, which will be of importance to the nation and which, I know from talking to vice-chancellors, are generally regarded as necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman concentrated on the effects of selectivity on his university and on the University of Wales. I reiterate what I have told the House several times, that the UGC does not discriminate in any way between universities on grounds of location. It applies standard considerations to all universities. However, I readily acknowledge that, like all universities, University college, Swansea, faces a difficult task in containing its expenditure within the funds available, while sustaining quality and reshaping its provision in the light of developing national needs. I believe that, like other universities, it will be up to the task.
UCS is, I know, looking in the right directions. Recent developments have included pace-setting work in biotechnology — one of tomorrow's sciences—and the establishment on the Singleton park campus of the innovation centre which, as well as generating some income, should facilitate increasingly important links between academics and industry. These are worthwhile developments and show clearly that, like the Government, University college, Swansea, has its eye to the future.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of small departments. Many difficult decisions will have to be taken by a number of universities in the coming years, but it is my strong impression, judging from the remarks of people within the system with whom I have talked, that there is a growing recognition that — as Professor Bernard Crick put it in a recent article, and his political persuasion is not close to mine—universities can not be department stores. So there is a general and growing recognition that there must be rationalisation of small departments, but it must be sensitively done. I believe that the UGC intends to pursue that in a sensitive way.
581 In conclusion, let me stress that the Government place great importance on our higher education institutions; on the universities, polytechnics and other colleges in the public sector. They make a vital contribution to the nation's economic and cultural development. Our policies are aimed at increasing that contribution and its effectiveness.
Since 1979, full-time home student numbers have increased by nearly 80,000. Our aim is to increase 582 participation rates for both 18 to l9-year-olds and for mature students beyond the record high levels already achieved. We are reviewing university funding levels in the light of the improvements in train in that sector. University college, Swansea, and the right hon. Gentleman's constituency should benefit from these policies as much as the rest of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.