Higher Education in Scotland

HL Deb 17 July 1986 vol 478 cc1036-42

4.40 p.m.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement following consultations on the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council's report on a future strategy for higher education in Scotland, which was published on 9th December 1985.

"First of all, I wish to thank the council for its work. Its report has stimulated wide debate, and there has been particular interest in its proposals with regard to the number of colleges of education in Scotland and future arrangements for the planning and funding of higher education. In these two important areas, my conclusions are as follows.

"The council endorses the vocational character of the colleges of education and recommends that teacher training should continue to be provided in specialist institutions. I accept that recommen-dation in principle, while not ruling out entirely the possibility of some other arrangement if circumstances appeared to warrant it. I agree also with the council that there is a very real problem of overcapacity in the colleges, which militates against the best use of the available resources and which must be reduced. The present accommodation will substantially exceed expected demand even in the 1990s when student numbers are expected to increase to some extent. I consider, however, that there would be merit in seeking to retain, if practicable, a fairly wide geographical spread of provision. I have accordingly decided against closure of any college of education and I intend to seek to achieve the necessary capacity reductions in other ways.

"I have reached the following decisions. First, the training of physical education teachers, both men and women, will be centralised on the site of the present Dunfermline College of Physical Education, and accordingly the training of men PE teachers at Jordanhill College of Education will cease. Dunfermline College will itself be merged with Moray House College of Education under a single governing body.

"Secondly, Aberdeen and Dundee colleges of education will be merged on their existing sites under a single governing body. Thirdly, the detailed arrangements for bringing these organisational changes into effect will be a matter for discussion between my department and the governing bodies concerned. Fourthly, I shall expect all colleges of education, whether or not directly affected by the organisational changes, to take early and strenuous measures to dispose of surplus accommodation on any of their sites, whether for educational or for other use. This will require the co-operation of the colleges themselves, the local authorities and other interests.

"Fifthly, my department will undertake a further programme of course rationalisation designed to make the best possible use of manpower and facilities throughout the college of education sector as a whole, including those colleges, Craigie and St. Andrew's, which are not otherwise directly affected by the organisational changes.

"I shall review the position again next year in the light of progress made. I must make it clear that, if overcapacity remains a real problem, site closures will then become inevitable. I believe that it would be appropriate also, as the council recommended, to review the continuation of teacher training at the University of Stirling. I shall be discussing the most suitable form of this review with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, involving the UGC as appropriate.

"So far as the planning and funding of higher education in Scotland is concerned, I accept the council's view that there is scope for improvement in the existing arrangements for the planning and co-ordination of provision across the university and non-university sectors. I agree that there is a gap in the planning process which could better be bridged.

"I accept the council's rejection of a planning body for the public sector of higher education only, the bulk of which is in Scotland directly funded by central government. The situation is different from that obtaining in England and Wales and a planning body for the public sector alone is not required in Scotland. I agree also that the Northern Ireland model would not be appropriate.

"Nevertheless, it does not seem sensible to proceed immediately to the establishment of an overarching planning body in Scotland with responsibility for the planning and co-ordination of provision across both the university and the public sectors. Like the council, I regard it as important that planning mechanisms should be backed by appropriate systems for the delivery of results. I have therefore decided to defer a decision on the establishment of such a body until the Government can form a clear view of the future funding arrangements for the Scottish universities. This will require advice, which has already been sought, from the committee chaired by Lord Croham which is reviewing the UGC and also from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. I am in touch with my right honourable friend and he will be seeking the ABRC's views shortly. The Government will consider the advisory council's recommendations in respect of planning and funding arrangements for Scottish higher education, in the light of the further advice received.

"I have today given the Government's response to the advisory council's many other detailed recommendations in a Written Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Cunninghame North.

"Finally, in order to allow time for decisions to be taken on planning and funding arrangements, I am asking the members of the advisory council to serve for one further year until July 1987. This will also enable the council to complete its review of the Scottish Business School, which the chairman now expects will not be possible until late this year. I shall make a further statement to the House when decisions on the matters outstanding are reached."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we should be grateful and express our gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, for undertaking the task of repeating the Statement. He is fast becoming an expert on Scottish business. Last time, it was sheep. Now it is tertiary education. I am sorry that the noble Viscount should be landed with this, but he read it very well. The fact is that the STEAC report appeared on 9th December last year. So the mountaineers of St. Andrew's House have laboured for nearly seven and a half months. And now this is what they have produced. What is it? It is purely and simply a holding Statement. What it states loud and clear is that this is not the time to make decisions that might not be popular. To my mind, the Statement underlines the fact that we are going to have an election next year.

What have we got? The Statement is in two parts. The first deals with colleges of education. That means, in Scotland, the teacher training colleges, funded entirely by the Secretary of State. No one is going to impede him in respect of anything he wants to do there. It is his decision. What the Secretary of State has done is to bow to the EC. He has ended the segregation of women and men in relation to physical education by taking away the physical education department from Jordanhill and putting it into the Dunfermline College. And be not deceived! Dunfermline College, where the ladies are trained, is in Edinburgh. There, it is to be put, I believe, under one governing body. No one will have much objection to that. But the Statement goes further and says that Dunfermline College is to be merged, I believe, with Moray House under a single governing body. What is to happen eventually there we have no idea.

The other great decision is that Aberdeen and Dundee training colleges will be merged on their existing sites, which are, by the way, just 61 miles apart, under a single governing body. What is the purpose of that? Is it a prelude to merging the colleges on one site? It will be remembered what happened in relation to Notre Dame and Craiglochart. These are now called St. Andrew's in the Statement. They became one college. Is that what will happen here? It is rather strange to have one single governing body for colleges which are 60 and more miles apart. Where will they meet? Will it be like the EC jumping from Strasbourg to Brussels? Will it be Aberdeen one month and Dundee the next, or will they settle for somewhere like Montrose in between? What is the reason for this? Is it the prelude to complete merger? The decision not to do anything about any of the other colleges is to my mind somewhat negatived by what the Government eventually say: I shall review the position again next year… I must make it clear that, if over-capacity remains the real problem, site closures will then become inevitable. That is a little mealy mouthed. It is not the site that will be closed but the college. Why did the Government not say so? What is the clue to this? How will they save themselves? They will do so by getting rid of surplus accommodation on any of their sites.

Of the many colleges the one that I know best is Ayr, which already has close links with the technical college. It has close co-operation with Manpower Services and quite a lot of its accommodation is being used for training. Only a week or so ago we had a Statement from the Government's head window dresser, the noble Lord, Lord Young, giving us an impression that there was going to be a great new link-up with education and industry, that there will be new courses for the young and older unemployed, in-vocation training, all of which were mentioned in the Government's Green Paper, Higher Education in the 1990s, published in May last year. Surely if the Government are going to make progress along these lines this is where one has to do it if one has surplus capacity in the training colleges. But all the Government talk about is getting rid of spare capacity, selling it, giving it to somebody else, and doing something with it or the whole college will be closed next year. It is a purely negative Statement. In the light of the Statement that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, this Statement makes his ring with insincerity.

Can I be informed how many reviews there are to be? There will be a review next year of the whole matter. There will be a review of the continuation of teacher training at the University of Stirling. When we come to planning and funding of higher education what do we get?— I have decided to defer a decision on the establishment of such a body". That is an overarching body linking the planning of the public sector—they are the local authorities and the Scottish education department—with the universities. But have the Government forgotten what they themselves said? While the STEAC was still sitting the Government saw no practical scope for a united planning body for higher education of the kind comprehended by the term "overarching body". Now they say, "We shall defer a decision". They have already given us the decision. Why do they not make their real purpose clear? Then they say that it will complete the review on the Scottish business school.

Why on earth was this Statement made when they are deferring decisions and announcing reviews? There is little or nothing in it. What there is in respect of the teacher training colleges with reference to Aberdeen and Dundee will arouse the greatest suspicions—as indeed it will from the others who are told, "Close down, get rid of spare capacity, or else". It is a very negative Statement on Scotland's higher education.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount very much for making this Statement and also the council for their admirable report. It seems to me that the report and the Statement raise issues which would be better dealt with in debate than by question and answer. I hope therefore that the Government will forgive me if I do not go at great length into the details of these matters which they have mentioned.

There are three points, however, which I should like to raise with them. First, there is in the Statement a proposal to place certain teacher training colleges under a common governing body. Can the Government tell me whether this is the same process that has gone on in England with the arts colleges? If so—I do not suppose that they will be able to answer now—will they look into the question of whether it has been successful and whether it has led to economies and satisfaction?

Secondly, there is mention of the University of Stirling. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us that they appreciate the great work that the University of Stirling has done in the educational field, and that this will be taken into account in the future.

Thirdly, on the question of funding, the Government will be well aware that the future funding of the Scottish universities is a matter of considerable controversy. Are they aware that, although there is a case for more control in Scotland over the funding, the future entirely depends on the funding being adequate? It is the scale of the funding which will decide whether the measures are successful or not. I very much hope that the Government may be able to give some reassurance that they intend to give the Scottish universities the funds which they deserve.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for their reception of this Statement. That of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was somewhat qualified. He will not expect me to enter into a debate at this stage on his many points, some of which were quite political. The noble Lord asked me three questions. Why was there such a delay in responding to the STEAC report? The answer is that the Government allowed a period of more than three months up to 27 th March for comments on the STEAC report. They then took time to consider all the comments received before making the Statement. I therefore do not think that it was as long as the noble Lord thought.

On the question of the merger of Aberdeen and Dundee colleges of Education, they are 50 or 60 miles apart—

Lord Ross of Marnock

Sixty-one, my Lords.

Viscount Davidson

Sixty-one miles apart. When I was last there they were about 70 or 80 miles apart. The merger will facilitate the rationalisation of courses over the two sites and will, I hope, make it easier to dispose of surplus accommodation at both of them. We expect the outcome to be a single strong college of education operating at a reduced overall unit cost but well adapted to meet the teacher training needs of the North and North-East of Scotland. The noble Lord also asked me how many reviews there will be and then told the House the answer. I do not think, therefore, that I need to answer him on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked about the mergers and whether they resembled the recent arts colleges merger in England. I understand that this involved more than just two colleges, but we shall certainly see what lessons can be learned from that arrangement.

On the future funding of the Scottish universities, the Government are open minded on this matter and will take account of the views that have been expressed on both sides of the argument before reaching a decision. We shall also take account of the comments of the Croham Committee. I would add that the committee hopes to submit its report early next year.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, may I also thank the Minister for the Statement he made. Can I point out that the only positive decision in the Statement concerned a college that is literally on my doorstep in Glasgow? 1 refer to the men's physical education training at the Jordanhill College of Education. Is the noble Viscount aware that this is a very beautiful college in a very lovely park and that there will be considerable worry about the disposal of any of the surplus buildings?

Will he take back to the Scottish Office the real concern which there is and which there will be in Scotland about even the mention of the disposal of colleges of education? The last major college of education that was disposed of by the Government— Hamilton College of Education—caused, to say the least, a great deal of disquiet in respect of the price for which it was sold to a private school. Will the noble Viscount ensure that in future the public valuer is involved in setting the price and that it is not done in the very unsatisfactory way in which I think everyone in Scotland is now convinced Hamilton College was disposed of?

5 p.m.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I shall certainly convey his views to my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State. The noble Lord may be reassured if I tell him that it will be up to the Government to secure the compliance of all governing bodies as to the disposal of parts of their colleges. We would of course expect the governing bodies to act responsibly. I understand that it may be the intention to appoint independent consultants who would report to the Secretary of State on the marketing prospects of the land and buildings at each college.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I should like to ask him two questions. First, clearly it is extremely sensible, in view of the history of the difficulties of rationalising the colleges of education accommodation provision in Scotland to merge colleges rather than to close them and to ask new governing bodies to do the rationalisation within themselves.

However, in view of the fact that that is the method that has been chosen, will my noble friend convey to his right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State the importance to the local areas of there continuing to be some provision in the local areas of Dundee and of Aberdeen, and point out that at present there is community education training in both these colleges and it is extremely important that that community education provision should be located in both areas and not only in one? I should be most grateful if my noble friend would convey those sentiments to his right honourable and learned friend. Will he also convey to him the importance of the freedom of those colleges to make the right decisions in regard to the local areas?

My second question is directed to my noble friend As regards Dunfermline College, where I had the privilege of conferring the degrees the other day, it struck me that that college has a very small but very important identity of its own. While I can accept that, due to European legislation, the merging with the men's college is sensible, will it be possible to keep the indentity of that college clear and separate once it ha; merged with Moray House? I hope that that will be possible, and I should be grateful if I could be reassured on that point.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, and I shall certainly convey what she has said to my right honourable and learned friend. As regards the merger between Dunfermline College and Moray House, at present there are no plans for any new name for the joint college, but I shall certainly convey my noble friend's views. It will be a matter for discussion with the governing bodies. We do not have any preconceived ideas. As regards the existing staffing of the two colleges, that will be a matter to be discussed between my department and the governing bodies. It will be for the governing bodies to make the decisions.