HL Deb 01 April 1987 vol 486 cc588-98

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on higher education and research which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Government's policies for higher education.

"Higher education is crucial to help our nation meet the economic, social and intellectual challenges of the final decade of this century. We must ensure that our universities, polytechnics and colleges respond to the country's requirements. Important reforms are already under way. I pay tribute to the efforts that are being made, especially in our universities, to adapt themselves more closely to the needs of the nation. The White Paper we publish today announces new policies in three key areas: wider access to higher education so that the United Kingdom gets the skilled people we need for economic success and to compete in international markets; secondly, the financing and management of polytechnics and colleges in England; and, thirdly, the thoroughgoing reform of the University Grants Committee, along the lines recommended in the Croham report.

"It is 21 years since the polytechnics were conceived. They have now come of age. They are successful mature institutions with a strong national role, complementary to our universities. But they are held back by current planning and funding arrangements. Control by individual local authorities inhibits their progress towards meeting the challenges of the 1990s and towards managing their resources to best effect.

"We therefore intend to legislate to convert the polytechnics and other mainly higher education colleges in England to free-standing corporate bodies under boards of governors. Local and regional industry and commerce will be strongly represented on these boards. We want industry and these colleges to work more closely together. Industry will find it more attractive to place contracts for consultancy and research. We will be setting up a new polytechnics and colleges funding council which will be independent of government, although subject to guidance from the holder of my office. This council will succeed the National Advisory Body and will contract with individual institutions for the provision of higher education.

"Local education authorities will retain control of those colleges which do not provide predominantly for higher education. The polytechnics and colleges funding council may contract for the provision of degree and full-time HND and equivalent courses at these colleges. Other courses, including all part-time sub-degrees, at colleges remaining under local authority control will be a local responsibility. The present expenditure pooling arrangements will end. Responsibility for the 530,000 students on non-advanced further education courses in some 360 colleges will continue to rest with local authorities.

"The voluntary and other colleges of higher education which are grant-aided by my department will be brought within the ambit of the new funding council. For the present, however, these arrangements will not be extended to cover the polytechnic and colleges of higher education in Wales.

"Secondly, we intend to introduce legislation to change the University Grants Committee to an independent statutory body on the lines recommended by the Croham Committee. We accept the Croham recommendations that this body should be smaller, with broadly equal numbers of academic and non-academic members, and a chairman with substantial experience outside the academic world. The new body will be called the universities funding council and its primary responsibility will be the allocation of funds to individual universities under new contractual arrangements.

"Thirdly, I want to encourage more people of all ages to go on to higher education. The Government already have an outstanding record on access to higher education. Student numbers have increased by almost 160,000 since we took office in 1979. After its fall in the 1970s the participation rate for young people has increased by 15 per cent., and the number of mature entrants has risen by about a quarter. We remain committed to providing places for all with the intellectual competence motivation and maturity to benefit from higher education.

"Over the next decade, however, the number of 18 year-olds will fall by one-third, and student demand will no longer be a sufficient basis for planning. A major determinant must also be the nation's demands for highly qualified manpower. The increase in graduate output already planned seems unlikely to do more than keep pace with the nation's requirements until 1990, and may be insufficient by the mid-1990s. This view is echoed in the excellent report published yesterday by the Council for Industry and Higher Education, which is chaired by my right honourable friend the Member for Waveney.

"For the present, the Government's best judgment is that they should plan for the student numbers envisaged in the higher of the two projections which I published last November. This projection involves an increase in full and part-time student numbers from 906,000 in 1985–86 to 957,000 in 1990; that is to say, an increase of 50,000. By the year 2000 almost one in five school-leavers would then be going on to higher education. The Government want to ensure that within the total numbers the shift towards scientific and other vocational courses should be carried through.

"Whether we reach these student numbers will depend crucially on this shift being achieved; on whether the schools and colleges succeed in raising the proportion of young people who qualify; and on whether the universities, polytechnics and colleges can admit more mature students and more young people with vocational qualifications. The Government believe that higher education will meet these challenges.

"Fourthly, the White Paper rightly acknowledges that the quality of our research is recognised worldwide. The Government are committed to maintaining and enhancing the strength and quality of the science base, of which our institutions of higher education are a major and essential part. We attach particular importance to sustaining the work of the most able scientists and their teams. The Government are accordingly making available an additional £15 million for 1987–88 through the Science Budget. This funding is in addition to the £39 million increase in that budget for 1987–88 which I announced on 6th November last year, and the extra £17.5 million over three years for AIDS research by the Medical Research Council announced since November.

"The consequences of the increase I am announcing today for later years will be taken into account when we consider the Science Budget in this year's Public Expenditure Survey. But I emphasise that we, and the scientific community, face difficult choices in the future. We must be more selective. We must concentrate resources. We must get even better value for money from better targeted research. We must exploit our science to the utmost—and that is a matter as much for industry as for government, the research councils and higher education.

"Mr. Speaker, our country's higher education is among the best in the world. Our policies will secure and develop its distinctive strengths. They will extend its benefits to a wider section of the population and will ensure that it serves the nation."

My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

3.53 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place? Will she accept at once from this Dispatch Box that that Statement is by no means as bad as it could have been? When I look back at the statements which have been made from these Benches, and by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, I recognise many of the pleas that we have been making about the future of higher education, particularly in the light of the somewhat doomsday projections which were made in the Green Paper two years ago, as being reflected in the Statement made today. Will the noble Baroness accept that, in so far as that reflects a conversion, we welcome it?

But wider access to higher education is not just a matter of numbers, though indeed the numbers are more complex than she indicated in her Statement. Does she not agree that the bulge of 18 year-olds was actually reached in 1982 and that participation rates at that stage went down, although there has been some recovery since? Does she recognise in what the Statement says about access that it requires not only increased numbers in higher education but also increased resources for 16 to 19 year-olds?

Will it not also require better provision for part-time students? This House has expressed its view quite recently about the provision for Birkbeck. Will it not be necessary to look again at mature student grants to assure access? Will it not be necesssary to look at the cost of access courses, to which some consideration is given in the White Paper?

Will it not also be necessary to look at the requirements by the higher education sector in terms of A-levels? The Council for Industry and Higher Education in its report yesterday called A-levels a ticket for limiting entry. Do the Government accept that there should be some relaxation or widening of the requirements for entry into higher education, and is that not the responsibility of our higher education sector as a whole?

I must also ask the noble Baroness about resources. She referred to the £15 million increase in the Science Budget for 1987–88, but will she not accept that that £15 million only provides for the salary increases which have been already agreed and will not provide for a single additional research project? When the Statement uses the words "more selective", does that not mean that more valuable research projects, more alpha research projects, will be turned down?

The Statement refers to the effect on public spending and says that the projections in the White Paper on expenditure plans are adequate for two years after 1987–88. Will she tell us more about what projections are likely to be necessary after that period and what provision is now being made for increased public expenditure on higher education? I hope the noble Baroness will accept that these are not intended entirely as antagonistic questions, but I think that they deserve to be spelled out before your Lordships' House.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which in general we welcome. But even now the scale of the changes proposed does not begin to meet the need. The type of universities at the present stage is such that only a quantum leap is adequate for making up the deficiencies. When the Statement says that we hope to get one in five of school-leavers into some form of higher education, we still shall not be up with the level which is adopted by our major competitors, and this is only a step in the right direction. It is not by any manner of means what we should like to see if we are to meet the needs of this country and to give the opportunities that we would wish to give to people seeking higher education.

Following the report yesterday from the Council for Industry and Higher Education, which I think the noble Baroness will agree was very encouraging, let me say that we need very much to look at the whole position for mature students and for people who can only work on a part-time basis. I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about entry requirements. If we are to draw into higher education a great many people who have the capacity to take it—and many of them may not be aware that they have—the traditional educational entry requirements which were appropriate for sixth form school-leavers are no longer appropriate for the sort of people that we have to draw into these institutions. That is a matter of the very greatest urgency.

I would also ask the noble Baroness to pay great attention to courses for part-time students. As we all know, there are a number of new types of teaching which help part-time students, but it seems odd that we have had these repeated appeals on behalf of Birkbeck College to be able to maintain its part-time student teaching, where it has been a pioneer in making part-time courses available for mature students. Surely part-time students, who are of the most serious kind or they would not be there and who are often studying at very great sacrifice, need major help and encouragement. There is a hint in this paper that that is so, but can it not be developed further?

The tone of this Statement is for greater encouragement for science and greater collaboration between industry and the universities. That is right. However, let us not forget that we cannot have good technical and applied science unless we have first class basic science. The maintenance of first-class research departments and research work going on in our universities in basic as well as in the applied fields is essential.

The main criticism that I make is that the emphasis in this Statement is too short term, too applied and fails to recognise that the basic work of universities must go on at the same time. Concentration is all right. However, we hope that it does not exclude the smaller institutions which may be enterprising in new fields of research and should not be discouraged in order to build up the larger departments.

This is a matter of such great importance that I should have thought it would be appropriate, through the usual channels, to see if we can have a debate.

4 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, a number of issues have been raised. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have felt able to welcome the Statement and the news which it contains. I thought that perhaps the noble Lord's "not as bad as it could have been" remark was a bit grudging. This is in fact very good news. And it should be welcome both to the institutions involved and to the public in general. It goes to prove that the Government do listen and do, when necessary, revise their policies. In this case, the Government have been reviewing their higher education policies for some time. Sir Keith Joseph published a Green Paper in May 1985, and it is in the light of responses to that, and of subsequent developments, that the Government have revised their policies, particularly on access and on planning and funding arrangements for polytechnics and colleges.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to access and to the increased resources that would be needed. As regards funding, we shall review our spending plans each year to take account of the numbers of students already in higher education and the numbers likely to be beginning courses in the future. We shall ensure that all students who are eligible to receive a mandatory student grant continue to do so. That is the position at present, and it will be the position in the future. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is, as I have said on previous occasions in this respect, conducting a review which will be putting forward proposals for the future of the student support system in due course. I have no doubt that those proposals will be designed to encourage young people into higher education.

On resources for science funding, we have already announced that university funding in 1987–88 will be 10 per cent. higher than that in 1986–87, and that polytechnics and colleges will receive an 8 per cent. increase. Funding in later years will depend on the success of the institution in introducing necessary improvements. The published plans of the Government are that in 1988–89 and 1989–90, the funding will rise in line with inflation. Increases in student numbers have already been included in the planning targets adopted by the UGC and the National Advisory Body.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the additional £15 million to which I referred in the Statement was merely compensation for the recent pay settlements. I must emphasise that that is an addition; it is not compensation for pay settlements. It is designed to buy more first-class science highly selectively and it should go to sustain the work of our best scientists and their teams.

The Government have shown that they are continually responsive to the needs of science. As measured by the GDP deflator, the science budget has been increased in real terms by over 10 per cent. over the last seven years. This year, we have already made a special addition for AIDS research, which is the £17.5 million referred to in the Statement, for the next three years. We have now made this further exceptional addition of £15 million to secure outstanding science which would have otherwise been lost.

The question of access courses was referred to. Action on that subject mainly rests with the institutions and the validating bodies. The White Paper makes it clear that this is a perfectly respectable route into higher education. However, in the interests of the students who are directly concerned and to ensure the general acceptability of access qualifications, there is a need to give careful consideration to standards and, where possible, to avoid a sole link with a single higher education course.

Reference was made, particularly by the noble Baroness, to the question of part-time students. As I have said, this subject has been discussed previously in your Lordships' House and is being considered in the review which is being undertaken by my honourable friend. On the question of greater collaboration for science and technical subjects in schools, I should like to emphasise the opening remarks of the White Paper which point to the fact that the Government are proposing a package of solutions. In the arrangements announced in the Statement, the Government are building on improvements in schools and colleges and in admission arrangements for those with nontraditional qualifications.

As regards the question of holding a debate, mentioned by the noble Baroness, I shall refer to the usual channels. I believe that we have had some very useful debates, including that initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, on scientific research and development and more recently on the Croham Report. Perhaps I may go so far as to say that the White Paper and the Statement made today go in part to meet some of the views expressed by your Lordships in the course of those and other debates.

I may not have covered all the questions raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. If not, I shall try to rectify the position subsequently.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, may I support very strongly the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we should have an early debate on this matter? Fortunately, the Leader of the House is present and has heard the comments. I hope that he will give serious consideration to that matter.

I am sure that my noble friend is aware that this is the most important Statement in respect of higher education since the Government of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel adopted the Robbins Report some 23 years ago—a report which I had, under my noble friend's direction, a modest part in implementing. In view of the great importance of the subject, surely your Lordships' House could contribute a great deal.

There are two points which I particularly welcome and about which I hope my noble friend will add a word. The first is that I greatly welcome the decision to make a more workmanlike body of the University Grants Committee. That has been urged, I believe, from both sides of the House for some time. Although members of the University Grants Committee have worked extremely hard and devotedly—I cast no reflection on them—I have always thought that the structure was quite unbalanced. The second point which I greatly welcome is the transfer of polytechnics from local authorities. That should surely make the co-operation with industry which is so enormously important very much easier. It is well known to your Lordships that the relationship between industry and certain local authorities is not at all good. The relationship will be much easier if there is direct contact with the polytechnics.

Will my noble friend draw the attention of all concerned to what happens in that respect in the United States, where industry has the closest of links with higher education institutions and puts a great deal of money into them? Certain industries in this country are good in that way. Building and catering have a good record. Many other industries put little in. I ask my noble friend to give considerable emphasis to that point as part of the whole parcel of the polytechnics' new and improved status.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I need hardly say that I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for being present so that the wishes of the House in respect of a full debate on this topic will be clearly understood by him.

The restructuring of the UGC is an extremely important part of the proposals contained in the White Paper. While I recognise the valuable work that the existing UGC has done, it is hoped that the new body will be able to tackle the task with even more ease and efficiency. The link between polytechnics and local industry is an important plank of government policy. It is being introduced all the way through schools and other institutions. It is extremely important, as my noble friend said, that we look at the valuable example of such co-operation that exists in the United States. That co-operation was frequently referred to during the course of Industry Year last year. A number of initiatives which were taken then are proving valuable in the longer term. I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's remarks to the appropriate quarter.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, welcome the news of the UGC reorganisation. As the noble Baroness said, many of us have been advocating it. We welcome and recognise the work that the UGC has done over the years. One of the matters about which I am concerned, which I think was mentioned in the Statement, is the new independent body. I should like to ask the noble Baroness how independent is independent, because for years many of us have wondered about the independence of the UGC. I hope that this proposed new body will be independent and divorced from any government department.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for the proposals and the proposed new funding council. After all, that is an acceptance of the recommendations and the broad thrust of the Croham Committee's report. Its general approach to the shape and functions of the UGC's successor has been taken on board. Further decisions on the detail will be taken in the light of continuing consultations on the report. The UGC's independence cannot be criticised in view of the number of measures upon which it has insisted. I believe that the UGC can be pointed to as a body which has proved how valuable independence from government can be.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions about the emancipation of the polytechnics, which I believe to be the most important part of the Statement? We are told that they are to have corporate status. Does that mean that they will have the power to award their own degrees; that is to say, will they be emancipated from the CNAA as well as from the local authorities, which I think would appeal at any rate to the larger and stronger among them?

Secondly, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that she is—that the new structure, which gives polytechnics a degree of financial autonomy in matters of expenditure within the grant that they receive, will demand considerable management qualities by polytechnic directors? In future, how are they to be appointed? Will that be one of the tasks of the boards of governors? I apologise if these questions are answered in the White Paper, but Back-Benchers do not have an opportunity to see those documents before Statements are made.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, some of the queries raised by my noble friend are covered in the White Paper. In general, the effect of the new arrangements will be to create a kind of UGC relationship for the polytechnics so that they will, as mature institutions, be able to act responsibly and independently, making the necessary local contacts while being recognised as national institutions. I think that I can go no further than that. Some of the detail has yet to be worked out after further consultations.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, while I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the importance of polytechnic-industry links, does the noble Baroness accept that it is important that some form of local authority link, and linkage with the local authority education system, should be preserved? In that connection, is she aware that the National Advisory Body is either on the point of publishing or possibly even has just published a report on the governance, management and status of polytechnics? Will that be taken into account before firm decisions are made on the matter? Is the noble Baroness also aware that an independent body under the chairmanship of Sir Alistair Pilkington is sitting to investigate polytechnic local links? Before firm decisions are taken in this matter, I ask that those contributions be taken into account.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the whole process of higher education and these arrangements for higher education are always subject to review, innovation and good ideas from any source. The form will not be fixed in concrete as a result of the present change. The work of Sir Alistair Pilkington's committee will be considered. It is important that polytechnics work out their own links with local industry, and to date many have. We have seen the benefit that can result from it. We are of course aware of the good management practice working group which has been studying the position. It includes a representative of the Department of Education and Science. The working group's brief does not go as far as the arrangements which are currently being made. Although I believe that the report is to be published shortly, it would not fully solve the problem that we feel we have tackled in the White Paper.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there will be considerable disquiet in Wales about the irresolute nature of the report as it affects the Principality? For example, the Statement refers to the arrangements not being extended to cover the polytechnics and colleges of higher education in Wales. How long will it take? Wales is smaller than England and even smaller than Scotland. Why should it take all this time? Why are we not being clearly told what will happen in Wales?

Secondly, I am second to none in my admiration for the work of the UGC and its chairman, but it is clear that the new UFC will have a Scottish committee with a direct relationship with the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, why is there no reference to Wales? Why did not Wales have a representative on the Croham Committee. Is the noble Baroness aware that in the Principality that is regarded as absolutely disgraceful. We shall come back to it again with more force on the next occasion.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House—

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, if my noble friend will excuse me, I hope to hear his question in a moment. Turning to the important question of Wales, which I expected would be raised, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be well aware that that is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. My understanding of the differentiation is that the Welsh system is smaller and very few colleges concentrate on higher education so that the need for change is different. I believe that there is in fact only one polytechnic in Wales.

However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consider making changes similar to those proposed for England if the Welsh Advisory Board does not demonstrate in its current review that it can offer advice based on national, not local, considerations. I can go no further on timing than that.

As regards Scotland, I am not sure of all the reasons but I understand that a separate Statement is being made in another place on Scotland which is not being taken in this House. However my understanding is that the proposals do not go so far as to suggest that there should be a separate arrangement on funding for Scotland.

The Earl of Selborne

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the £15 million injection—

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain what she meant in saying that this is decided on national, not local, considerations? I hope that she does not consider Wales as being a local consideration. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would choose her words carefully. Further, her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales signed the White Paper and, although he may be responsible for polytechnics in Wales, her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible for further education in universities.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I understand that the words "national" and "local" are both to be taken within the context of the word "Wales". Does that help the noble Lord?

The Earl of Selborne

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the £15 million injection of funds to the Science Vote will be of enormous relief and help to the research councils? They are in the great difficulty of having to turn down extremely well presented and important research projects. I am sure that the research councils will be greatly relieved that this injection of funds will give them the opportunity to award research funds to those projects which are so greatly needed.

Furthermore, will my noble friend now consider again whether the advice of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on how industry might be persuaded to be more effective in taking up publicly funded research could be pursued? It will be recollected that in responding to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield—when proposals were made, for example, that industry should be required to list in its accounts the amount funded on research or that there might be further tax advantages—these proposals did not receive as much warm support as he might have wished. Having said that, I am sure we are all grateful for the £15 million investment from public funds and we hope that industry can match it.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments and I shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Baroness Lockwood

My Lords, is the Minister aware that between now and 1990 the majority of our unversities will be involved in the process of cutting back on their departments and on their staffs? Can the noble Baroness tell me how this can be reconciled with the policy for widening access contained in the White Paper when no additional funding is to be available? I ask that because widening access to differently qualified people means that more money will be required for in-service training and different facilities for teaching university students. Secondly—

The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)

My Lords, order! Debate!

Baroness Lockwood

My Lords, I conclude with that one question.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the funding and other arrangements to be made by the universities are very much questions for the universities and the new funding council to work out. As was explained fully in the Statement, the Government's contribution does not represent a cut in funding in any way. Our aim is to urge the universities to co-operate with local industry, to encourage industry to have schemes which will help to provide funding from the private sector and also to make the best possible and most efficient use of the funds that are available.

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Ferrier wished to point out that the discussion on this Statement had gone on for too long. I appreciate fully that it is an important subject, but I must point out to your Lordships that it has taken 41 minutes and that is a great deal longer than we expect a Statement should take in the middle of an important debate. We must bear that in mind and perhaps we can now return to the debate.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, before we return to the debate I should inform your Lordships that because of the time taken for the Statement the conclusion of the debate has now been extended to 8.40 p.m.