§ 2.51 p.m.
§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the report of the Open University Visiting Committee, they will reconsider the grant allocations proposed for 1986 and 1987.
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, the grant allocations proposed for 1986 and 1987 announced in February already take into account the report of the visiting committee. They are, however, indications rather than firm grants and are subject to review in annual public expenditure surveys.
§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and of course we are glad for small mercies. However, is he aware that the downward trend of the grant still continues and that between 1980–81 and 1986–87 the Open University allocation is being cut in real terms by 11.8 per cent. and for other universities it is 9.7 per cent.? Why should the Open University, which is recognised as doing a very good and necessary job, have to suffer disproportionately? Will Ministers please consider restoring the Open University to the same level of deprivation as other universities by allocating a further £1.4 million in 1986–87?
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, the noble Baroness said that she is grateful for small mercies; and then she asked a lot of questions which sounded as if she is not really, though I am sure that she is. The cut in grant from level funding between 1983 and 1986, making allowance for Treasury assumptions for inflation, is £4.7 million. This figure has been accepted by the university. The university's figure of £13.2 million did not purport to be a measure of the cut in grant. It was a measure of a cut in the expenditure which the university otherwise believed it should be making. It was clear from the differences between the figures that the university was planning for substantial increases in expenditure, but the reasons for this were not clear. The visiting committee examined the university's figures and agreed that it was facing increases in costs for which it needed to make provision. But at a time of constraint in public expenditure the university cannot expect, not should it plan, that increased costs will be met by increased funds. It should plan to absorb increased costs in some areas through decreased costs in others, as indeed, as the noble Baroness mentioned, have other universities.
§ Lord KilmarnockMy Lords, is it not maintained that the increased costs to which the noble Earl referred arise in some cases from the need to update the university's programme, and that if it does not get this money it will not be able to bring its programme up to date?
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, I think that this is the reason why the visiting committee's recommendation about the development of the PICKUP programme was in fact received well by my right honourable friend who has said that he is looking at it. He has asked the university to submit plans for the development of its PICKUP activities as follows. First, on the assumption that the present arrangements stand; and, secondly, on the assumption that the loan is converted to grant.
§ Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, if and when the Government consider the grant for 1986–87, will they take into account the Open University's substantial contribution not just to undergraduate education but to continuing education and training, particularly in the scientific, technical and vocational fields?
§ The Earl of SwintonYes, my Lords, and that is again why they look at the pick-up scheme.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, may I strongly support the case that has been made for the Open University by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who brings to this matter the stature and authority—
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMay I strongly support—
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, will the Minister take fully on board the strong case that has been made for the Open University by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who brings to this matter the stature and authority that she carries as a member of the council of the Open University? Will the Minister take on board, too, the very strong support and sympathy which exists for the aims and achievements of the Open University? Will he bear in mind that the report from the visiting committee strongly vindicated the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the Open University; and will he prevail upon his right honourable friend to look again at the possibility of making further resources available to the Open University?
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, the noble Earl is large enough, but at this moment he feels rather like the "Titanic". He has been asked to take so much on board that he feels as if he is about to sink beneath the Floor of the House. It is very difficult to answer all of the noble Lord's questions. I should make it absolutely plain that the university continues to occupy an important place in the Government's strategy for higher education, but it is the Government's view that it should be able to operate more economically. Indeed, the visiting committee said this and pointed to a number of ways in which they suggest that the Open University can make savings. We expect it to contribute to the savings in public expenditure which are required of the higher education system generally.
§ Baroness DavidBut, my Lords, is the Minister aware that your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology, in a report which was debated only on Monday, recommended a vast expansion of distance learning, and that the Open University should be able to give it? Would he not agree that it is an expansion of funds and not a contraction which is needed at the moment if we are to help our industry to revive?
§ The Earl of SwintonYes, my Lords. Of course, we are aware of that, and that is why we are suggesting in 1986 a sum of £1.2 million for new computing facilities and £0.8 million to provide for a more gradual approach to reduce grant levels, the switch to science and technology and the new-blood information technology posts.