University Grants Committee and Student Intakes (Hansard, 30 March 1983)

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, I understand that the University Grants Committee has decided to make an adjustment in its 1982–83 grant allocations to seven universities in the light of their levels of student intake. The Government are content that the committee should take what action it considers necessary to protect academic standards and the overall balance of provision.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer to my Question, and I put to him two supplementaries. First of all, were the universities acquainted with the targets that they were expected to meet? At least one university says that it has been fined for something it knew nothing about. Second, is it Government policy to refuse admission to well qualified students just to meet a target?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, as I understand it and I have no reason to doubt it—all the universities were informed. In fact, UGC wrote on 10th December 1982 to 10 universities, and the other three obviously met the criteria. I understand that all the seven I mentioned in my original Answer were written to on 10th December. As far as Government policy is concerned, it is to try to provide education at this level for everybody, but a lot of people find difficulty in getting into the first university of their choice.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, I declare an interest as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Keele, which is one of the seven referred to in this Question. Is it not in fact the case that these universities are to suffer retrospective penalties for exceeding, in the year 1982–83, student intake numbers that were not specified as targets to which they would be required to adhere? Is it not also the case that in their evidence to the Select Committee in another place the UGC stated that if these numbers were exceeded they would wish to discuss the matter with the university concerned, and that no such discussions took place before these penalties were imposed?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, as I understand it they were indeed warned that this would happen—that the fact that they were prepared to take this number of extra students would obviously have an effect on what was going to happen to them for the next three years. I think it fair to point out that there is a lot of talk about penalties and fines, but in fact the UGC has decided to make an adjustment in grant which will not be more than the additional fee income the universities concerned are receiving in respect of the extra students they have admitted. So I do not think it can be described as anything too punitive.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he approves of the logic of the UGC, which wrote to one of the universities in question to say that the money was being removed because they believed that the admission of these students would diminish that university's contribution to research? Does the Minister believe that the UGC is right in believing that there is an exact equation between the number of students in a class and the amount of research done by the teacher? If he does not believe it, could he call the attention of the UGC to the fact that this kind of logic is widely resented?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, I have no evidence of the letter to which my noble friend refers, but, although, I am not in a position to dispute this, I should be very surprised, because one of the points of the UGC's letter was that the whole point of this was to aid research. I hope that they took this into account.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, will the noble Earl explain to the House exactly how it would safeguard academic standards to withdraw grant from universities which have the temerity to take in a few additional students? Surely it will have exactly the opposite effect.

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, I do not think it is a question of a few extra students. In fact, the degree to which each university is over-recruited above the steady-state intake that the UGC estimates each institution needs in order to reach its target varies from 11 per cent. to 24 per cent.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, may I, too, declare an interest as President of the University College of Wales, Cardiff, and also on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who has a similar position in regard to Aberystwyth? Is not the admission of these students by the colleges on whose behalf I speak an 1557 indication, at any rate in the view of the university authorities, that they were fit and proper persons to enter into and carry out graduate courses at the university? Is not the effect of this stringency to deprive hundreds of students, fit and worthy to be university students, of that opportunity?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, as I said earlier, I do not think that every student in this country can get into the university of their first choice. This happens on a very large scale.

§ Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, will the noble Earl give us a piece of information which many Members of this House believe is central to the whole issue? How many well-qualified students in the current academic year have failed to find placement in any university in the United Kingdom?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, I think that I shall have to write to the noble Lord with that information.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would honour me by answering my question as to whether the denial of opportunity to students already admitted into the university would be a penalty inflicted upon those students.

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, it might be a disadvantage to them. I would go as far as saying that.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, will the Minister please clarify something for me? I find some of the answers a little confusing. Is it or is it not still the Government's policy to restrict the number of students, even at this time when 18 and 19 year-olds are at a peak? If it is still their policy to restrict the number of students, why are they claiming credit for the increased intake into polytechnics? Can we please have an explanation?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, this decision has been taken by the University Grants Committee, and not by the Government. But I think we should get this into perspective. I think it is 13.2 per cent. of the age range of 18 to 20 years old who are participating in higher education. This rate has increased steadily under this Government, despite the fact that the size of the relevant age group has been increasing. I think that it might not be a bad thing to point out that spending on higher education and research in 1979–80 was about £2½ billion. I use the expression billion as meaning one thousand million. The department's programmes provide for £1 billion more to be spent on higher education and research this year than was spent in 1979–80.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the noble Earl has not dealt fully with the point on consultation raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Can the noble Lord say whether or not consultation can now take place, and whether there is provision for some form of appeal by the universities concerned?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, I really thought I had answered the question. The UGC wrote on 10th December 1982. It then considered the responses that 1558 it received from the universities, and wrote again to the seven on 23rd February. If they are to review their student numbers over the next few years, I am sure there is room for more correspondence.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that the information in his possession is not the same as that in mine? Is it not also the case that the University Grants Committee have threatened to impose further penalties for the year 1983–84 without deeming it necessary to indicate the number of admissions to be aimed at in that year?

§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, I think the whole thing in fact arose from what the numbers were going to be in 1983–84—or was it 1984–85? I think it was 1984–85. The UGC wrote to the universities concerned at the end of 1982 seeking information about their intakes for 1982 and their plans for reducing their 1983 and 1984 intakes consistent with achieving their targets by 1984–85. Having considered the universities' responses, the UGC decided that the intake patterns for these universities indicated that they were likely to exceed their targets by a substantial margin. The committee therefore decided to make a small adjustment in their grant. However, the UGC has said that it will be studying the intake numbers for October 1983 before making any revision of the 1983–84 recurrent grants announced in February