HL Deb 05 March 1953 vol 180 cc983-1010

2.55 p.m.

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Home.)

LORD REITH

My Lords, I wish to make a general comment on this Bill, based on communications I have received from many people in the University of St. Andrews. I do not think the Bill, as now drafted, will bring either unity or peace to the University of St. Andrews. I believe, on the contrary, that there will be more dissension and more ill-feeling between the north and the south banks of the Tay than before. That is the general remark. Now one particular which arises on Clause 1 and on which, I am informed, I must comment now, since the first Amendment relates to Clause 3. I propose to support the noble Earl in his Amendment to Clause 3, so I will not talk about that now.

Clause 1 refers to the ancient Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and the College of St. Mary's becoming "unincorporated societies of teachers and students," forsooth. And Clause 6 says that these ancient and honourable colleges shall cease to be bodies corporate and their governing bodies shall be dissolved. I think that is not only necessary but quite deplorable. I understand that the reason that prompts it is parity of treatment between the two sides of the Tay, but, as the Chairman of the Royal Commission remarked, the situation that had to be dealt with on the north bank was extraordinary, if not monstrous. To give parity of treatment as the reason for similar action to be taken with these ancient colleges I regard as irrelevant and quite unworthy.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 [University Court, 52 & 53 Vict. c. 55]:

(2) The Principal of the University shall preside at meetings of the University Court, and, in the absence of the Principal, a chairman for the time being shall be elected by the meeting.

The person presiding at any meeting of the University Court shall have a deliberative vote and also a casting vote in the case of equality.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE had given notice of Amendments to subsection (2) the first being at the beginning of the subsection to insert:

"Her Majesty may, if it appears to Her desirable for the reorganisation of the University, after the expiry of three years from the passing of this Act by Order in Council provide that."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment to provide for the retention by the Rector of the Chairmanship of the University Court. At the end of the debate, I think mainly owing to a proposal submitted by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I drew from the Minister of State rather a reluctant agreement that the matter should be further considered. Accordingly, I have drafted two Amendments. They are alternative, but I think that it will be for the convenience of the House, and for the Minister in his reply, if I deal with them together. The second Amendment is a repetition of my Amendment on the Committee stage, and the first is a compromise suggested by the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to which I have referred.

May I, in the first instance, recapitulate the argument for the main Amendment, which is to retain the Rector in his present position ex officio as Chairman of the Court? The Bill lays down that this responsibility is to be transferred to the Principal of the University. By so doing it cuts right across a tradition and a deliberate decision of Parliament given in 1858, under which the four Scottish universities have operated for nearly 100 years—namely, the rule that the Rector should be elected by the vote of the matriculated students and, by virtue of that office, should preside over the University Court. We are told that the reversal of this decision by the present Bill is based upon the Report of the Royal Commission. May I venture to suggest that the paragraph from that Report quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, at the Committee stage is a very inept and inaccurate description of the duties undertaken by the present Rector of St. Andrews—a kind of students' assessor on the Court, if he so desires? I have personal knowledge that the present Rector does not look upon his duties in that light. I believe that, in spite of the various duties which fall to him in other directions, he gives a very large proportion of his time to attending to the duties of St. Andrews University Court, and he is constantly there. If, therefore, the judgment of the Government is based upon this suggestion in the Report, I suggest that it is a complete travesty of the fact.

As against this, the students have declared themselves strongly in favour of retaining the Rector as the Chairman, and the Grand Council of the University have also endorsed this view. The Grand Council is a body which, at St Andrews, numbers over 7,000 and I think, therefore, that its decision should be carefully considered. The Grand Council further states that it is alarmed by the change in the composition of the Court. The present composition allows for the following representation: Of the Senatus, five, together with the Principal; of the Grand Council, four; and of the others, five, making the total of fifteen for the composition of the Court. Under the Bill the Senatus will have eight representatives, plus the Principal, who also has a casting vote.

It will be seen that the Senatus representation in the Court equals the representation of all the other bodies, and the casting vote lies with the Principal, who is a member of the Senatus. I do most strongly urge that this is a further reason for retaining the Chairmanship in the hands of the Rector. As I said in Committee, the procedure under the Bill means the substitution of dictatorship for democracy, which I submit is regrettable. The students value their privilege and responsibility and, as has been testified by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, in the debate, and also by the Minister of State himself, the students of St. Andrews have never abused their privilege. If we are legislating from fear of what they might do in the future, I suggest that it is a bad foundation for legislation. It is surely asking for trouble to bring in a Bill dismissing the Rector when it is admitted on all hands that the students' choice on this occasion has been one that is almost perfect.

It is plain that at this critical period of reorganisation, it is essential that the Principal should be absolutely supreme, and that his hands should not be tied, his powers "cabin'd, cribbed and confined," as they would be if he had not the Chairmanship of the University Court, but had to go cap in hand to the Rector. Is this the position? Personally—and I feel many noble Lords will join with me in this—I find it difficult to accept such an assumption, and I would rather believe that the Principal's position would be greatly enhanced and strengthened by knowing that he had at his side the assistance of a broadminded and experienced Chairman. I can envisage that sometimes there may be difficulties. There again, the members of the University Court and Committee might require very skilful and patient handling to provide for a safe and happy landing. The presence in the Chair of such a man as the present Rector would be invaluable. Is this not the position which we see every day in the conduct of industry, where we have chairmen and managing directors? Here we shall have a man responsible for the University playing his part, and at his side the wise guidance of an experienced Chairman.

This brings me to my compromise Amendment. It is based on letting well alone. It has been acknowledged by many speakers in this House, it is recognised by the University Court, by the Grand Council, by the students themselves and, generally speaking, by everyone connected with the University, that in the person of the present Rector we have a man well fitted for the job and one who is trusted by all. Why at this critical moment deprive the University of his services? If noble Lords will look at my Amendment, they will see that it provides that this change of Chairmanship shall not take place until after the expiry of three years. After that period it will be possible by Order in Council to bring into force the procedure contained in subsection (2)—namely, that the Principal shall become the Chairman, but it is possible that during the intervening period, under able Chairmanship, some, at least, of the present and anticipated difficulties may be solved. The students, in any case, will realise that the wisdom of their choice has been recognised, and they will be put on their mettle to find an equally good candidate for the next election under the possible penalty of losing their right if they abuse it. My Lords, that is the position as I see it, and for that reason I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 7, at beginning insert— ("Her Majesty may, if it appears to Her desirable for the reorganisation of the University, after the expiry of three years from the passing of this Act by Order in Council provide that").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)

3.9 p.m.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES

My Lords, I rise again to support my noble friend in the Amendment he has just moved, though it may seem a very personal and, therefore, somewhat invidious Amendment for me to discuss. I think that the Amendment removes—I am talking of the non-compromise Amendment—something irrelevant to the Bill, something which is quite unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable. As your Lordships know, the present position is that the students of all the Scottish universities have imposed upon them by Parliament the right to elect for three years a Rector whose duty it is—or may be, if he so desires—to preside over the University Court. That has become a tradition much valued by students and one which is, I believe, of great value to the Universities as a whole. Yet at St. Andrews this privilege is by this Bill withdrawn. Why? I find it very difficult to answer that question, and certainly I do not think that adequate reasons have yet been given to your Lordships.

I had thought that, as was suggested by my noble friend who has moved the Amendment, the main reason was fear. But the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, who wrote the Report on which this Bill is based, has emphatically denied that suggestion. So we must rule out fear of what the students might do—but, in point of fact, have never done We must rule out that reason for this provision. We are told that one of the reasons is that at St. Andrews there are special circumstances which make this provision necessary. There are, indeed, special circumstances at St. Andrews, and there have been great difficulties in the past which have caused these special circumstances. But the position of the Rector in the Chair is not among them; nor have the students done anything which has created difficulties or caused these special circumstances. The argument of special circumstances is, I think, completely irrelevant to the question of whether the Rector should continue or discontinue to hold the Chair.

We are told that stable government and continuity of policy at the University may be endangered if the Rector, who is elected triennially, remains in the Chair instead of the new Principal. I do not believe for one moment that that is so. We can find examples to the contrary from our own lives. Take an example closer to this, Oxford, where the Vice Chancellor is changed. I think, every three years. He is changed every three years, presumably, lest he should become too powerful, lest his position should give him more authority than is proper. Very wisely, the Vice Chancellor, like the Rector of St. Andrews, is changed every three years. That change does not in any way injure stable government; it creates it. About Cambridge I know less, but I very much doubt whether the new Chancellor of Cambridge University could tell me what the policy of the University is. In any case, it seems to me that this argument is one which will not hold water for one moment. If there is to be so drastic a change at the University of St. Andrews, if this tradition is to be abolished, if the opinion of the students is thus to be offended and their privileges and rights, given to them by Parliament, destroyed, I think we must have very much sounder and closer reasoning than we have been given so far. We have been told very emphatically that the change must take place, that it is in the interests of the University that it should. But we still wait to hear the reasons why.

Of these two Amendments, I very much prefer the direct one, by which the Rector would be retained in the Chair, rather than the compromise Amendment which provides for waiting for three years. The latter is a very ingenious and very clever Amendment, which has been well argued by my noble friend, but I feel that, if there is to be a change, the change had better take place as soon as possible. As I say. I prefer the Amendment which deals with the principle that there should be no change whatever. On the other hand, if the noble Earl, Lord Home, is friendly to the compromise Amendment, I need hardly say that I, too, will be friendly to it.

The Rector to-day presides over the University Court and I, in all modesty, must agree with the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, in saying that this is no mere nominal duty. In fact, I have never been so hard worked in my life as I have been during the three months since I became Rector; and the description which Lord Elgin quoted on the Committee stage, from the speech of a noble Lord sitting on the Benches Opposite, is, I agree, a complete and, indeed, a monstrous travesty of the position of the Rector. Presiding over the University Court is, of course, only one of the duties that a Rector undertakes. He presides over the University Court, but not over the Senate. The University Court deals with matters of administration: it is the supreme Court of the University. The Senate, over which the Rector does not preside, deals with academic matters, teaching and discipline. But the Court is also the court of appeal from the Senate. To-day, a different man presides over each of those two bodies. Unless this Amendment is carried, the same man, the new Principal, will preside over both those bodies. That, I should have thought, was a travesty of the normal traditions of justice. That, I should have thought, was in the nature of what is described in that poem in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in the words: I'll be judge, I'll be jury, Said cunning old Fury. The same man might well have to review his own decisions, and under the clause he is provided with a casting vote in case there should be any doubt on the ground that his own position might be in danger. I think that places the new, unappointed, unknown Principal in an almost intolerable position, and one in which no man would wish to find himself. The new man will be a paid professional. The Rector is an unpaid layman.

My noble friend mentioned the managing director as being beside the Chairman. The position is, perhaps, rather that under this provision the lay chairman is removed and the managing director put in his place. Of that sort of situation we have all had experience, and we have all realised that it was not a good practice. What is more, the Rector is elected; the new Principal will be appointed—and appointed by the Government. He will become part of the Government team in what I think will be the most closely State-controlled University in the country.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I ask the noble Earl's pardon for intervening, but the Principal of the United Colleges, who is also Principal of the University, is to-day appointed by the Crown.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES

He happens to be both to-day, but that would not necessarily be so. The position, if I am right in amending what my noble friend says, is that the new Principal will be over the heads of the two Colleges, and will, therefore, be a new officer superimposed on the two heads of Colleges. He is a completely new officer, appointed, as was the head of the College, by the Government. That is exactly how it stands. But if the head of the College, who was previously the Principal, is a Government appointee, this new Principal, also appointed by the Government, is part of a very large and very formidable team of people who are also appointed either by the Government or by those who are appointed by them.

As I counted, there are to be no fewer than twenty-two people in this category—twenty-two new people who are to be appointed either by the Government or by those whom the Government have appointed. They can form a couple of football teams and go down to the University football ground on a Saturday afternoon and play each other. But who is to be the referee? To-day it is the Rector impartial, and no one can question his impartiality, which is inherent in his position. But that, of course, would never do: the impartial, unpaid Rector might be too independent. When St. Andrews House whistles, he may not come to heel. Instead, in his place, the twenty-third Government appointment, the Principal himself, is to be the referee. Of course, I do not say that the new Principal will not be an impartial man. The greatest care will be taken in selecting him, and no doubt he will be as impartial as the Rector; but with these great powers which he is given, and with the almost dictatorial possibilities inherent under the Bill, will it not be very difficult for him to be impartial, and might it not be almost impossible for him to give what is almost as important, the appearance of impartiality? I cannot help feeling that it will be better to have a Rector who is not a Government official, who is not paid and who is not appointed, particularly at a time when there is this very real danger of increasing Government control over the University.

The office of Rector is a high one, indeed. Past members of your Lordships' House—Lord Balfour, Lord Haldane, Lord Dufferin and many others, world figures like Field Marshal Smuts and Nansen, figures from the Victorian past like Dean Stanley, J. A.. Froude, and John Stuart Mill, have all looked upon their election as Rector by the students of St. Andrews as not the least of the honours that have fallen to their lot. If what they have written is true, it is an honour of which they have felt proud, as they have felt proud of the service they have been able to give to the students of the University. If this high tradition of honour is to be debased, is it not possible that students may be less scrupulous than in the past about whom they elect to this honour? Is it not also possible that the men they might desire to have as Rectors would be more reluctant to serve when the area of service at their disposal is reduced? Before we close the door on yet another area of public service, and open it to yet another area of Government control, before we inflict a blow on the opinions and rights of the students, before we remove privileges which Parliament has granted, I cannot help feeling that we ought to hear from my noble friend Lord Home very formidable and very cogent reasons.

3.25 p.m.

LORD TEDDER

My Lords, I find this discussion slightly embarrassing, because we are dazzled by the eloquence and brilliance of the man whom the students in their wisdom have chosen to be their Rector. But, with all respect, I feel that that is irrelevant to the issue. It has been suggested that this Bill should be modified to meet the fact that the students have once again chosen an eminent, brilliant man as their Rector. Again with all respect, I suggest that to legislate on the basis of the accident that a particular individual has been elected is about as unsound a proceeding as one could possibly conceive. The students have made good choices in the past; and we can be certain that the present Rector is in every way suitable to be chosen for this difficult position. But fate is not always reliable—accidents do happen. suppose that one of these foggy days a motorist does not see the zebra stripes and, long before the three years are out, this remarkable Rector and Chairman has to be replaced. Is he to be replaced for the unexpired portion of the three years, or do we require to have further legislation to allow for a new Rector? I do not know. It seems to me to be unsound to work on that basis.

To my mind, the question is purely a simple matter of organisation. Accepting the noble Earl's analogy, do we have the managing director as chairman of the management committee or do we not? Actually, the University Court is the management committee of the University, and there, the noble Lords say, we cannot trust the Principal to be chairman of that management committee—he might be a dictator. I am surprised at so many Scotsmen being afraid of dictatorship. I cannot imagine any Scottish organisation in which a dictator would have much chance of lasting long—although I must admit that one of the troubles in the past was a tendency towards dictatorship, which one hopes that the provisions of the Bill will remove.

Referring to what my noble friend Lord Reith said, my experience as regards the reactions to the proposals of the Bill and the Commission's Report is entirely contrary to his. I have had reports from responsible people, on both sides of the Tay and in all spheres, all on the same note—"For goodness sake, do anything you can do to help make sure that Parliament do not tinker with the recommendations! We do not like all of them, but they fit together. Leave them alone and we can work them."

3.29 p.m.

LORD BILSLAND

My Lords, I rise with diffidence to make a brief contribution to this discussion. I venture to make five points with regard to the Amendments. Several noble Lords made the point on Committee stage, and again to-day, that it has long been a tradition in the Scottish universities that the Rector shall preside over the University Court. I have made inquiries, and I find that although, under the Acts of 1858 and 1889, the Rector is entitled to preside, in general in Scotland he rarely does so.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES

That does not apply to St. Andrews.

LORD BILSLAND

In most cases it is impossible that he should. The Bill changes the Statute in this respect as regards St. Andrews, but not the general practice. That is my first point. My second point derives from my experience some years ago in serving for a term as Assessor to the Rector on the Glasgow University Court. The view I formed was that the infrequency of contact with the University—contact consisting mainly of attendance at a monthly meeting of the Court—made it difficult for anyone placed as I was then to preside effectively at a meeting of the Court. I have had some experience as chairman of industrial companies and various representative bodies, but I never felt less sure of myself than when I was asked, in the absence of the Principal, to preside at a meeting of Glasgow University Court. I conceive it to be the duty of a chairman not only to perform the routine functions of that office, but to have a complete grasp of the business to be discussed and a clear idea in advance of the decisions that should, in his view, be taken. I submit that he can be in that position only if he is in fairly close contact with the work of the organisation over which he is presiding; a contact which enables him also to form his own assessment of the various contributions made round the table. I appreciate that St. Andrews is indeed fortunate to-day in its present Rector but, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has just said, we are not considering that to-day.

Further, I submit that continuity is most desirable in the conduct of the affairs of the University. That is my third point. My fourth point is that the heads of the colleges will sit on the University Court by virtue of their offices. I submit that it would put the Principal in a difficult and unfortunate position in relation to them if he were not chairman of the Court. Finally, I submit, with great respect, that the Royal Commission, after a prolonged study, submitted a solution to a long-standing problem. I believe it to he the case that the senior governing bodies of the University, which contain representatives of St. Andrews Colleges and University College, Dundee, are strongly in favour of accepting the recommendations of the Commission. Therefore, I hope that those recommendations will be accepted.

3.32 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, we have just listened to two speeches which have neatly cancelled each other out. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has on this occasion undertaken a most unfortunate flight: his navigation has been defective, and his bomb dropping inaccurate. He appears to take the view that, although in the long history of St. Andrews University there have been no instances of unworthy Rectors being appointed, for some unexplained and unexplainable reason, that might not be the case in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, has been at pains to point out that usually in the Scottish Universities the Rector does not preside at all. So that, even if Lord Tedder's forebodings were justified, it would appear that this imaginary unworthy Rector of the future would be unlikely to take his place in the Chair at the University Court and so be a nuisance to the Principal and other members.

Having listened throughout a large portion of the earlier stages of the Bill, and having read the proceedings carefully, I am still entirely at a loss to see any justification for this proposal, which is in direct contradiction to the traditions of all the Scottish universities and which, I may say, is causing considerable anxiety to all the other—I understand there are representatives from several of them here to-day. Unless the noble Earl, Lord Home, is able to produce something much more cogent than anything that has yet been urged, I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and, at least, in part, delete something which I believe not to be in the interests of the Scottish universities as a whole. There is one further point I should like to make in regard to St. Andrews itself. As the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has said, the Rectors of St. Andrews University have been, almost without exception, men of high standing and eminence in our national life. Why, then, in this particular Bill, which affects only St. Andrews University, are we to have this assumption that the students are likely in the near, or indeed the distant, future to depart from the good sense they have shown in the past? Until such time as some evidence of this is forthcoming, I, at least, am opposed to this proposal.

3.36 p.m.

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the First Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elgin. We have been told of many difficulties that will arise if the Principal is not appointed Chairman. The difficulties are certainly obvious, and they were referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, on Second Reading and on the Committee stage. What is required to solve them is mainly common sense. They are not so much educational difficulties, as old quarrels, financial difficulties, and such like. I cannot believe that it can be other than helpful that the Principal should have the Chairman to assist him, as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, so strongly emphasised. If there are quarrels, or unpopular things to be done, what a help it must be to the Principal to be able to put the troubles on to the shoulders of the Rector, and to say that he is sorry, but that the Court will not allow it! If he has to face the difficulties and unpopularity alone, he will be in a much less enviable position.

The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will forgive me if I am personal, because it is difficult not to be in such circumstances as these. I feel that the students have, in the dispensation of providence, appointed their present Rector, and I cannot think that it would be a wise thing for us to fly in the face of this. On the question of the new constitution, one of the difficulties which it is suggested the Principal will have to face, no Chairman of the Court is going to interfere with the Principal. One cannot imagine that any Chairman would be a hindrance to him, but rather, as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has said, he would be a help. It is common practice in Scotland in every business to have not an expert but an independent man in the chair. The point has been made about giving more control to the Government. I could not quite follow the reasoning of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, when he said he hoped that this Bill and the putting of the Principal in the Chair would meet the danger of dictatorship. As has been said, the Principal appointed by the Government is going to be Chairman of the Court, as well as of the Senatus. That cannot but tend to add to the danger of dictatorship. We are told that it will not happen in practice, but when one is making and bringing in a new measure, it seems to me that we are moving in the direction of more dictatorship.

My noble friend Lord Crawford said that he preferred the second of Lord Elgin's Amendments. I find it difficult to agree with him there, for this reason. One of the main difficulties of the Government is that they fear that if the Rector is in the Chair, if the new Principal cannot be offered the Chairmanship they will not be able to get the best man. I imagine that when you are appointing a new Principal you will appoint a man of great vision, with very high ideals and a man of great ability. Can one conceive that such a man, when asked to undertake this most important position in a university, would decline that post and say: "If the Rector is going to be in the Chair of the Court my authority will be undermineds"? As other noble Lords have said, it is difficult to understand the real objections to this Bill, and I cannot think it will mean losing the best man, because my noble friend Lord Crawford is in the Chair. I prefer the first Amendment, because it gives the Government the opportunity, at the end of three years, of making a change. It will then be possible to say to the new Principal, "If there are difficulties in the future, you have the opportunity of making your complaints, and you can put it to the Government that there should be a change." I think Lord Elgin's first Amendment does give the Government that opportunity. If it were carried, the Government could get the best both of the Bill and of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, with the great advantage of leaving the present Rector in office for at least his present term.

3.44 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, if one from South of the Border may ask a question and intervene in a Scottish matter, I was wondering how the situation in St. Andrews compares with that at Oxford and Cambridge. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has unfortunately gone at the very moment when I would have hoped he would be here, because I understand that at both Oxford and Cambridge the Chancellor is appointed. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, is Chancellor of Oxford University, and the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, Chancellor of Cambridge University. I understand that they are the senior officers, although they do not normally preside over any university body. They can preside, and they remain the senior person, the day-to-day work being clone by the Vice-Chancellor, who is normally head of a College and who is appointed Vice-Chancellor for a term of four or five years, or whatever it may be. It seems to me that if we put the Rector here in the second place, it would be tantamount to putting the Chancellor at Oxford or Cambridge under the Vice-Chancellor.

THE EARL OF HOME

There are a Chancellor and a Vice-Chancellor of St. Andrews University.

LORD LLEWELLIN

There are?

THE EARL OF HOME

Yes.

LORD LLEWELLIN

There are a Chancellor and a Vice-Chancellor?

THE EARL OF HOME

Yes; and a Rector and a Principal.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I was not aware of that. Then, of course, the Rector is not the senior person in the University; the senior is the Chancellor, with the Vice-Chancellor second. That really answers my point. Otherwise, of course, if the Chancellor is placed under the Vice-Chancellor, as I was about to say, the best people will not stand as Chancellor, to act under the Principal. If St. Andrews has a Chancellor, a Vice-Chancellor and a Rector, my point does not really arise.

LORD REITH

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, cares to study the constitution of the universities of France he will find there an analogy which he will not find in the English ones. I support the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and I will support him whatever he decides to do, whichever Amendment he presses, and whether he presses it to a Division or not. I hope that the noble Earl who replies for the Government will take cognisance of the very strong feeling that exists. I content myself by saying that I think the proposal to put the Rector—the most distinguished present Rector or any Rector—out of the Chair is silly, sickening and subversive.

EARL WAVELL

My Lords, I intervene only because I think I am one of those young enough to have a number of friends among the students of St. Andrews University and other universities. Your Lordships might first be interested to hear this comment of Dr. Johnson on his visit to St. Andrews, when he said: The chief magistrate resident in the University—answering to our Vice-Chancellor—and to the rector magnificus on the Continent, had commonly the title of Lord Rector—but being addressed only as Mr. Rector in an in-auguratory speech by the present Chancellor, he has fallen from his former dignity of style. There is apparently to be a yet further decline. I have had some acquaintance with negotiations in India with rather intractable personalities, and I therefore do not quite accept the argument of the necessity for continuity. It seems to me that if certain deadlock has been reached over a field of matters under discussion, when a new Chairman comes along there is always the opportunity of a fresh approach and a reopening of those questions.

It seems to me that the whole value in life at a university is that there should be at all times a certain drama about the personalities there. If in other universities, where life is proceeding very placidly and smoothly, students elect as their representatives somewhat colourful personalities, to heighten the tempo of life there, I do not think we ought to keep in the back of our minds that the students of St. Andrews will necessarily do the same. They will, in their elections, take into account the very delicate situation here and realise the importance of choosing, as they have done in their recent elections, someone who is living near St. Andrews and who can devote his time to the affairs of the University. I think we should bear in mind that some of the students who will be taking part in the next election for Rector are now doing their National Service. Some of them are commanding platoons in battle in Korea and Malaya. If your Lordships reject all these Amendments this afternoon, I am afraid it will go out to or be interpreted by many of the young people all over the country that Parliament cannot trust young people to exercise responsibility.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, it is probably unwise for an Englishman to intervene in this debate—

LORD LLEWELLIN

As I have found out. The noble Lord is quite right.

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, did not come off very successfully; no doubt, I shall come off equally unsuccessfully. The noble Lord raised a point which I think is of some importance, as to how this matter of the Court and the Senate is governed in most of the English universities. I do not say that Oxford and Cambridge are perhaps the best examples in that regard, and the pattern of the newer universities in England is quite different. It would be completely contrary to the whole spirit of the arrangements in the modern English universities to have the Chairman of the Court and the Vice-Chancellor or the Principal the same person. I think all the modern English universities, sometimes called the "red brick" universities, get some distinguished man from outside to be Chairman of the Court, because there may be a clash of opinion between the Senate and the Court. It is very important in those circumstances that the Chairman of the one institution should not be the Chairman of the other.

In the University of London, with which I have worked for many years, we have had the advantage of having two distinguished lawyers as Chairmen of the Court. One was the late Lord Macmillan, who was a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. He was for many years a most successful Chairman of the Court at the University of London, and his work was very much admired. From an Englishman's point of view, for the Principal or the Vice-Chancellor of the University to be appointed by the Crown is quite contrary to the tradition of autonomy upon which every English university prides itself. I am surprised to find that in Scotland a rather more totalitarian conception of a university appears to prevail. Even in Germany it never got to the position where the appointment of the Rector, who in Germany is the head administrative officer of the university, was an out-and-out appointment by the State; the university itself had some say in his appointment. But I find Clause 2 of this Bill says: The Principal of the University shall be appointed by Her Majesty. However, it is probably too late to debate that particular point.

Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the time of the Second Reading, but it seems to me that in one way or another the position of Chairman of the Court ought to be separated from the position of Principal. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, in whom I am sure for once the undergraduates made an excellent choice, it seems to me, as a teacher in an English university, that to leave the appointment of an important officer such as the Rector to the choice of the students is a rather nonsensical plan. Although they may, from time to time, succeed in choosing a competent and distinguished man to hold that office, in quite a number of cases the choice is ludicrous. It does not seem to me a sensible method, by and large, of selecting the head of the Court. However, perhaps that is neither here nor there. Probably it is just as well that an Englishman should at this stage retire from the discussion

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I have often wished before, but never so keenly as this afternoon, that your Lordships' House was provided with fences and not with Benches, because there is no question in regard to which I would more gladly sit upon the fence than this. I think it is a serious and undeserved wrong to the students of St. Andrews that their Rector should lose the privilege and duty of presiding over the University Court. But, though that is my own opinion, I have taken a good deal of pains to ascertain as well as I could the opinion of the Royal Commission that sat on this matter and had the circumstances closely and carefully brought before them. I think I am correct in saying that, notwithstanding the very important change of circumstances to-day from the circumstances which existed when they made this recommendation, they still adhere, and adhere firmly, to the recommendation they have made to Parliament in their Report. I gather that it is largely for the reasons which were so ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. It is a great honour to St. Andrews and to the students of St. Andrews that they have exercised their privilege of electing a Rector so worthily, so wisely and so ably in the years of the past, and I am confident—I am almost completely certain—that they would always do so in the future. I do not share the nervousness, which was perhaps more apparent than real, of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder. I am quite certain that they would.

But the situation in which we are today has been brought about not through any fault of the students, but through the sins and errors, I believe, of their superiors and leaders in the past. It is not the first time in history that the sheep have suffered for the sins of the shepherds. This is a sacrifice which they are called upon to bear through the faults of others and not by their own. It is a case of delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi. In my lifetime, and over many years, I have found that the errors committed by our leaders are always expiated by the innocent, and I think this is a case in point. I realise what the Royal Commission wished for when they made this recommendation; I realise what the Government have in mind, and I honestly think that to pass the Bill as it stands gives the best chance of peace in the future, much as I regret the step which I am going lo support if necessary.

3.59 p.m.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I am not in the least surprised, nor do I in the least complain, that at this stage of the Bill we should be taking up a good deal of time talking about the status and the position of the Rector. I anticipated that that would be so from the very start of the Bill. We are all reluctant to break with tradition. There has been a strong tradition in Scotland, in all the universities, and in particular in St. Andrews, where the students have always chosen their Rector. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has just reminded us—and I think I must remind your Lordships, too—of the background against which this Bill is proposed. It is one of fifty years of continuing dissension and bitter controversy. That controversy, we hope, lies behind us. Ahead of us, if the Royal Commission's proposals are accepted, there is a period of rather complicated constitutional reform. Our objective, therefore, must be to do the best we can to provide the University with the best possible administrative machinery to achieve peace in the future. The first question that has been posed to me this afternoon by Lord Elgin's Amendments is this: Should the Rector or the Principal preside over the Court? That is a straight issue. Then there is a compromise Amendment, which is really plainly put in these words: Should the decision be postponed for three years?

My Lords, this Bill is based on the findings of a Royal Commission which was unanimous. The general proposals of the Royal Commission have been widely accepted in Scotland and by most of the responsible St. Andrews University opinion. The Royal Commission propose that the Principal of the University should no longer be attached to any college, that he should no longer be the Principal of the United College in St. Andrews, and should not be the Principal of the new College to be created in Dundee. They propose that he should be a person over and above the two College Councils—a man of high distinction, and impartial, who would preside over the whole of the teaching, discipline and administration of the University. That was one of the central recommendations of the Royal Commission.

My noble friend Lord Crawford says that in a paragraph of their Report the Royal Commission gave an account which was a travesty of the Lord Rector's duties. And Lord Crawford asks: Do the Government rest on that statement their case for making the Principal the Chairman of the Court? The answer is, No. The Government rest their case for including this provision in the Bill on that part of the Royal Commission's Report which stresses that it is absolutely essential that there should be continuity of administration in the early years, and for as long as possible, under the constitutional reorganisation. My noble friend Lord Tedder, Lord Greenhill and other members of the Royal Commission, have been able to hear all the arguments that have been used in your Lordships' House at earlier stages of the Bill. They are still firmly convinced that the right proposal is to put the Principal into the Chair of the University Court from the start; and the Government are convinced that that is the right view.

There is perhaps one aspect of this matter to which noble Lords who have been associating themselves with this Amendment might perhaps be willing to give a little more attention. The reorganisation which the Royal Commission propose is as follows. There should be two Councils—one for the new College at Dundee, and one for the Colleges at St. Andrews, and on those Councils there will be the heads of the Colleges. The Principal of the University will be a member of each of those Councils. He will therefore have at his finger tips all the administrative problems; he will be able to judge the interplay of personalities on each of the Councils. The Rector is not a member of either of those Councils. If my noble friend Lord Elgin has his way, what will happen at the level of the Court, the highest level of administration? There will be the Principal of the University a member of the Court as a member of the Senate, but with no administrative function or authority whatever.

LORD CHORLEY

Is the noble Earl not aware that that is what happens in London at the present time, where the chairman does his work in a way that is satisfactory to everybody?

THE EARL OF HOME

I will come to the English universities in a moment, if I may. But let me make this point, that we are comparing the position of the Rector, who does not exist in England, with that of the Principal, and deciding who is the better qualified to occupy the position of Chairman of the Court. I am dealing with the case of the Principal, who has been on the Councils, is aware of all the administrative problems that have been discussed in the Councils, and is able to judge the interplay of personalities. When these problems come up to the Court, he will have no administrative authority, and will therefore really be in an inferior position administratively to the two heads of the Colleges. I doubt whether that is a tolerable position in which to put this new Principal from the start. Any administrative reform or proposal which he wanted to introduce he would be bound always to put through the mouth of the Rector. I rather doubt whether even the noble Lord, Lord Reith, would find himself comfortable in such double harness. I think the Royal Commission were right when they suggested that the University would be best served if the Principal was put in the Chair and was able from the start, continuously, to exercise his influence. Therefore, for these reasons (and I must add to them the uncertainty of the Principal's position, because a new Rector is elected every three years), and with this history behind us and the reorganisation which is to take place in front of us, I think it would be better to put the Principal in the Chair of the Court from the start. That is why the Government propose to do so by this Bill.

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, introduced a slightly new factor, although it was touched on by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, the other day. He said, in effect, that on the Court the Senate will number nine persons; that the other representatives will number nine persons; that there will be equality and that the Principal will have a casting vote. That point was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Llewellyn. There is nothing very strange in that. Lord Simon argued that it was a strange position, the Principal being a member of the Senate, that he should then have a casting vote in the Court and be able to confirm the vote which he had given as a member of the Senate. That sort of situation is not very uncommon. Lord Simon had overlooked the example of his own university and mine, where the Vice Chancellor at Oxford is either chairman or a member of all University committees and also Chairman of the University Council. There is a parallel for this, and I do not really think that that argument holds very much weight; nor do I think that if we got the kind of man everybody wants to see in this position, he would exercise dictatorial powers. Obviously, the right kind of man will use his casting vote only in the most exceptional circumstances. The noble Earl himself knows perfectly well that if the Chairman has a casting vote there are all sorts of ways and means whereby he can avoid using it, except in the last extremity. Therefore, my Lords, I feel that in this Bill we must stand firm on the proposal which was brought forward, that the Principal should take the position of Chairman of the Court.

I now come to the compromise proposal. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, admits that it is a compromise to take advantage of a favourable situation. We all agree that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is a most excellent Rector. But surely we cannot legislate for personalities. Surely, that is a proposition which nobody could possibly sustain. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and the noble Lords, Lord Reith and Lord Kinnaird, argued as though Lord Crawford would not be there; but of course he will be there. He will be on the Court; he will be Rector—a very influential member of the Court. And, of course, being the kind of man he is, he will put his full knowledge, advice and influence at the disposal of the new Principal. Lord Elgin says, "Well, wait for three years and then allow the Secretary of State to decide whether the new Rector is a fit and proper person to go on holding the Chair." I confess that I do not know how that is to be decided. Is he to be invited for a week-end, to see whether he is intellectually and socially a responsible and proper person? For my own part I should not like the duty of making such a decision. The object of this Bill is to close controversy and dissention, but I cannot imagine anything more likely to keep it open than to wait for three years and then to decide whether the person in question is fit or unfit.

I cannot find very much virtue in this compromise, and I find still less virtue when I recall that in the first two or three years of this reorganisation the relationship between the College Council, the Senate and the Court, will be in process of being fixed. It would seem to me most important of all that during this period the Chairman of the Court should be able to take the initiative and, together with the Commissioners, guide the direction which the constitution is to take in the future. Therefore, my Lords, I find that the arguments, although they have been sincerely made, and although the views which they express are sincerely held, are not acceptable. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, will feel that as the case has been ventilated on both sides it will not be necessary to divide the House at this stage of the Bill. We have sufficiently fulfilled our functions. The question of pressing the Amendment is, of course, for him to decide, but I have given these matters the most genuine consideration at every stage.

4.14 p.m.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

My Lords, having listened to the debate in your Lordships' House I should like to thank the Minister of State for his answer. With some of the things he has said I thoroughly agree, notably that the first few years are critical. For that reason it is imperative that we should decide in this House what we feel about it. My compromise Amendment was designed to get over some of the very difficulties which have been mentioned, but in view of what has been said about the compromise Amendment and what your Lordships have said on the whole subject, I feel that the best policy for me to adopt is to withdraw the first Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

My Lords, in moving the second Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper I do not intend to make another speech, but I should like to read a few remarks given to me by a very distinguished member of the St. Andrews University, who might be called the Grand Old Man of St. Andrews, with regard to the Rector's position. He says: I believe that the Marquis of Bute, who was elected in 1892, and re-elected in 1895, attended the meetings of the Court and took the chair. James Stuart of Milton of Balgonie, who was Professor of Engineering in the University of Cambridge and afterwards became a Director of Colmans, Ltd., was elected Rector in 1898. He attended the Court Meetings regularly: they were held on Saturdays to suit his convenience. He, I have been told, did a great deal to help the then Principal to put the whole administration of the University upon a sound basis. The Rectors elected since then—Andrew Carnegie, Lord Avebury, the Earl of Rosebery, the Marquis of Aberdeen, Douglas Haig, Barrie, Kipling, Nansen, Grenfell, Smuts and Marconi (who died shortly before the date arranged for his installation)—never, so far as I know, attended a Meeting of the Court. Before the election of Robert Macgregor Mitchell in 1937, the students in all the Scottish Universities came to feel that the Rector should be, in their interests, an active member of the Court, and each candidate was asked to undertake that he would attend the meetings of the Court. Macgregor Mitchell died during his term of office, and in 1938 Sir David Munro was elected Rector and continued to he automatically re-elected during the War till, in 1946, Sir George Cunningham was elected. He was followed by Lord Burghley in 1949, and Lord Crawford was elected in the autumn of 1952.… Sir George Cunningham was successful in every way; and Burghley proved himself to be a very able chairman and always made for harmony throughout a period of many difficulties. Lord Crawford has taken the chair at every meeting since his election, and all I can say is that it is difficult to imagine that anyone could fill the position more ably and with a greater appeal to every member of the Court. In view of what has been said in this debate—and I make particular reference to the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, whose remarks were specially notable coming

Clause 5:

Functions of College Councils

5.—(1) The University Court shall delegate to the College Councls, subject to (a) any from a young man—I appeal to your Lordships to retain the Rector in his traditional place.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 7, after the first ("The") insert ("Rector, whom failing, the").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, there are a few words which I desire to add to the argument. The next two or three years will be important ones in the settlement of the new constitution of the University, and no one has questioned the great suitability of Lord Crawford for this position. By removing him from the Chairmanship of the Court, you would be removing the one person of all most suited for that rôle, the one person who could most thoroughly be trusted to see the new constitution come into being. I hope that the present Amendment will be supported and accepted.

On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS
Cholmondeley, M. St. Davids, V. Faringdon, L.
Kinnaird, L
Mansfield, E. [Teller.] Chorley, L. Monson, L.
Wavell, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) [Teller.] Reith, L.
Sempill, L.
Arbuthnott, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Teviot, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
NOT-CONTENTS
Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.) Aberdare, L. Hayter, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Howard of Glossop, L.
Birkenhead, E. Bilsland, L. Leconfield, L.
De La Warr, E. Brassey of Apethorpe, L. Mancroft, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Burden, L. Merthyr, L.
Jowitt, E. Carrington, L. Milne, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.] Croft, L. Morrison, L
Rothes, E. Digby, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Selkirk, E. Dormer, L. Saltoun, L.
Douglas, L. (E. Home.) Schuster, L.
Allenby, V. Douglas, of Kirtleside, L. Strabolgi, L.
Bridgeman, V. Gifford, L. Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Falmouth, V. Haden-Guest, L. Terrington, L.
Long, V. Hankey, L. Teynham, L.
Swinton, V. Hawke, L. Webb-Johnson, L.
Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

directions from time to time given by the University Court, (b) any ordinances made by the Commissioners appointed under this Act and (c) such limitation as may be imposed by the University Court on the expenditure to be incurred for the purpose, the performance of the following functions, that is to say—

4.28 p.m.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES had given notice of three Amendments in subsection (1), the first of which was to omit "(a) any directions from time to time given by the University Court, (b)." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I am glad to see that although Lord Crawford has been removes from his place on the Court of the University, Lord Wigan still retains his seat in this House! The three Amendments which he moves are, in effect, one; and they are moved on behalf of the University Court who are, indeed, fortunate to have someone to represent them in your Lordships' House. The Court were satisfied with the Bill as it stands amended on this point, your Lordships were also satisfied, and Lord Tedder expressed himself as in agreement that the Bill, amended, implemented his wishes. Therefore, I feel I must apologise to your Lordships for raising this matter once again. The reason is that the heads of departments in University College, Dundee, have had some misgivings as to the words in the Bill, as it is now before the House. The Court feel that if the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is to have, as it must have, the good will of all concerned it is desirable that, if possible, there should be no disagreement, particularly on Clause 5, which deals with the relations of the Court to the College Councils. That is a crucial matter in the whole organisation which is to be set up. So meetings between the Court and the heads of departments in Dundee have taken place with a view to finding agreed words.

The words which I move have been agreed unanimously by the heads of departments in Dundee, and the University Court sponsor the Amendments in the interest of harmony. I think that this change is slight. The Amendments leave quite unimpaired the supreme authority of the Court, with powers to give directions from time to time. But the new words in Amendment 6 on the Marshalled List indicate that the exercise of these powers should be occasional and not normal. This seems to implement what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, said in Paragraph 93 of his Report: This power should normally be expressed as a limitation of total expenditure under stated items. I would say that in any case the Court would regard it as their duty to give only such general directions as they deemed essential, so that the words I propose merely make explicit what is already implicit in the Commission's proposals and the intended manner of their implementation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 2, leave out from the first ("to") to ("any") in line 3.—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, Lord Douglas may appear in your Lordships' House, but Lord Home may not be able to appear in St. Andrews! As I have treated the noble Earl rather shabbily earlier this afternoon, I am glad to say that I accept the Amendment which he has moved and the others which follow. Perhaps I may take the opportunity, as I think it is relevant in this clause, to correct one impression which the noble Earl gave this afternoon. In fact, the Crown appointments will not be twenty-two. At the most, there will be ten, and we hope that after five years they will be reduced to one—the Principal.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES

My Lords, unless my arithmetic is wrong, I think that the number of appointments, plus the appointments made by those appointed, number twenty-two.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I should not like to challenge the noble Earl's arithmetic, but arithmetic often conveys the wrong impression, and that is what has been done by this figure.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 4, leave out ("and (c)") and insert ("to").—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES

My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 6, after ("purpose") insert ("and to such directions given from time to time by the University Court as the University Court shall deem essential").—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

House resumed.