§ 3.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH)My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient moment for me to give your Lordships a statement on university grants which is being made by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in another place. I will repeat his statement in his own words:
"In the White Paper issued on October 24 the Government accepted the Robbins Committee's proposals for immediate university expansion in the next few years and for the ten years down to 1973–74, and stated that recurrent and capital grants for the university institutions concerned would be adjusted accordingly. The University Grants Committee were asked to discuss with these institutions the best methods for securing the expansion. I am now in a position to make a statement about the adjustment of recurrent grants to universities for the remaining three years of this quinquennium, and the accelerated university building programme for the calendar year 1964. Consultations about the level of building starts for the calendar years 1965, 1966 and 1967 are in progress, and the Government's decisions will be announced in due course.
"The total recurrent grant to existing universities for the remaining three years of this quinquennium will be increased by £3.5 million, £7.2 million and £9.8 million, respectively, making a total of £20.5 million. The total estimated recurrent provision for the three years, including rates and salary supplementation, will thus rise to about £275 million, as follows:
"The new level of recurrent grant, together with the corresponding provision at present borne on Education Department Votes for institutions which are to have university status, is fixed with a view to attainment of the objective recommended by the 158 Robbins Report of about 197,000 full-time students for the first year of the next quinquennium. The grants take account of costs as calculated to the most convenient date (July, 1963) and the cost of the recently agreed increase in the wages of university technicians. In accordance with normal practice, any adjustment in academic salaries following the Report of the National Incomes Commission will be the subject of a special earmarked grant.
1964–65 £82.1 million 1965–66 £91.8 million 1966–67 £101.5 million "On the capital side, the Government are authorising an increase in the value of building starts in universities in 1964 from £33½ million to £48½ million. This increase will be devoted to an accelerated programme to accommodate the larger numbers coming into the universities up to 1967–68. The House will remember that the money figure for building work started expresses only part of the total cost involved, which must also take account of substantial expenditure on sites, professional fees, and equipment. The total capital commitment in respect of 1964 building starts therefore works out at about £70 million.
"Appropriate provision will be made in the 1964–65 Estimates for the consequent expenditure in the coming financial year. The Vote concerned, at over £130 million, will be more than four times the corresponding provision ten years ago.
"In reaching these decisions, the Government have had in mind Recommendations 170–173 of the Robbins Report. They recognise, as indeed the Report states, that the achievement of the new objectives will mean improvisation and pressure, and the deferment of many desirable plans in the universities during these years. They are, however, sure that they can rely on the universities to co-operate fully in extracting the best possible value for money from these increased allocations."
My Lords, that is the end of the statement.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the Government for giving us this early notice of this most important statement, so technical and so detailed. 159 I am going to leave it to my noble friends who have made a study of it to ask the questions.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl some questions, first of all on the question of the recurrent grant to which he referred. He said that the grant did not include the corresponding provision at present borne on Education Department Votes for institutions which are to have university status. Can he tell us what institutions he is referring to? Is he referring to colleges of advanced technology only, or to CATS and the teacher training colleges?—because this will make a great deal of difference to the amount of money involved. We should be glad if he could tell us that.
The second point I should like to ask him about is on the capital Vote. He said that the current capital Vote will go up from £33½ million to £48½ million, and then he gave us the extraordinary information that in fact the total will be £70 million, the difference, which is £21½ million, being accounted for by the costs of sites, fees and equipment. This is an enormous proportion and a rather alarming figure—to think that practically one-third of this great sum of £70 million has to go on professional fees, presumably architects' and quantity surveyors' fees, and on the purchase of sites and so on, rather than on actual buildings. I wonder whether he can tell us a little more about that. There is a third point about which I should like to ask him. When he quoted the figure of £130 million for the total Vote, was he including in that the educational vote, or is this only the University Grants Commission Vote?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, in regard to the first of the noble Lord's questions, when I referred to university type institutions I meant, of course, notably the CATS, which by that time will have been integrated into the U.G.C. system. The target is the figure of 197,000 to which I have already referred. 'That target of 197,000 in the statement does not in fact cover teacher training colleges. But this does not mean that they will not be expanded. The second question of the noble Lord related, I think, to breaking 160 down the figure of £130 million—or perhaps it was the third question?
§ LORD TAYLORThat was the third question. My second question was concerned with the figure of £70 million.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am afraid that I may have to correspond with the noble Lord about the actual breakdown. He said, I think, that the £70 million was a high figure—or that if one-third was to be spent on professional fees that would be a high figure. I have not got the answer to that question, but I do not believe that the proportion is much greater than in other years. I know that professional fees and the cost of furniture that has to go into the halls of residence can come to a high figure; but I will certainly look into that for the noble Lord. In regard to the third question, about the £130 million, I cannot give the noble Lord details of that; but the details will be published in the Civil Estimates next month.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl two other questions arising out of those answers. He has given us so far a statement in terms of money. I think we are really concerned with a statement in terms of university places available and of new universities to be started. The noble Earl will recollect that Lord Robbins recommended five new universities to be started straight away. When can we expect a statement in terms of places for students as opposed to the money required?
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, before the noble Earl answers that question, I wonder whether I may add another relating to the institutions carried on the Education Vote, and particularly the teacher training colleges. The noble Earl rather glossed over what the intended expansion of those institutions would be. When may we hope for a statement which will put more clearly what we may expect for these institutions: first, as to the provision of new places that will be made, and, secondly, as to the improvement in their status?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, in answer to both questions, I mentioned the figure of 197,000 places altogether, which was recommended in 161 the Robbins Report. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Baroness any further details about teacher training or the various subjects. For the moment, there is nothing I can say about new universities, if I may so describe them. As your Lordships know, the Government have announced that there is to be a new university in Scotland, and the U.G.C. are considering the question of its location. The other recommendations of the Robbins Committee on new universities are as stated in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2165. They are being considered by the U.G.C. and the Government in the formulation of the ten-year programme of university expansion. I am afraid that is as far as I can go for the present.
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl another question on the teacher training colleges. It is most important that the expansion should take place. I was rather worried when the noble Earl said that the universities now had so much on their plate that they might have to put aside some of their own developments. Is it possible that the noble Earl is thinking that the teacher training college expansion may be planned without the transfer to universities taking place? I should like some assurance that although it takes a little time to get a decision on this matter the figures which we have had to-day and the statement which has accompanied them do not mean that the Government have closed their mind to adopting the proposal in the Robbins Report.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am quite certain that the Government have very fully in mind the need for the expansion of the teacher training colleges, and, as I have already said, because I did not refer to them in the statement, certainly does not mean that they will not be expanded. I was also asked whether it is perhaps a good thing that this achievement will mean improvisation and pressure, and perhaps a deferment of other desirable plans. The alternative there is that young people who are fully qualified to go to university will be unable to find places unless this expansion takes place, and it is the Government's view, with which I am sure noble Lords will agree, that every effort 162 should be made to provide university places for these young people.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, the noble Earl has not really answered the question. What is wanted is an assurance that these training colleges will be provided by the universities. There is, as the noble Lord knows, some conflict between the local authorities and the voluntary bodies which are at present administering the training colleges as to the possibility of their being administered by the universities. Many of us want to see them administered by the universities. What we should like is an assurance that, in spite of difficulties and even possible delays, they will be administered by the universities.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am afraid I must make this point clear. Teacher training colleges at present are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The future status of the teacher training colleges is due to be considered when
those most closely concerned have had an opportunity to express views on them in the light of the Report"—that is the Robbins Report. That is a quotation straight out of the White Paper, to which I have already referred.
§ LORD SILKINAt the moment the Minister of Education is responsible for these training colleges. Are the discussions really taking place?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHThat is a question which should be put to my right honourable friend the Minister of Education. I answer for the Lord President.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one further question? I have seen something in the newspapers to the effect that. pending the long-awaited decision of the Government—whose Prime Minister seems to be incapable of making up his mind about the future Ministerial responsibility for education—the Lord President of the Council has been given a running writ to deal with higher education, including these very institutions to which my noble friend refers.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHI thought that was the case.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHThank you. I appreciate that the noble Earl is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science, but as the Minister for Science is also the Lord President of the Council I presume he would have briefed the noble Earl adequately so that he could have answered questions—which, with respect, he has not done this afternoon, except once.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, I do not think there is anything further I can say, except that the various bodies which are to be consulted in regard to the teacher training colleges have not all replied to the letter which was sent to them.