§ 59. Mr. Tom Clarke
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Association of University Teachers about the funding of universities in 1986–87.
§ 62. Mr. McNamara
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Association of University Teachers about the funding of universities in 1986–87.138W
three years duration, respectively; and what were the equivalent figures in each year from 1970 to the latest available date.
§ Mr. Walden
I refer hon. Members to my reply of 1 July to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) at column473.
§ Mr. Radice
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage charge in real terms, measured by the gross domestic product deflator, in the funding of each university by the University Grants Committee between 1980–81 and 1986–87, excluding those amounts representing: compensation for changes in home student fees, compensation for redundancy and early retirement, changes to take account of capital in recurrent expenditure, local authority rates and additions made for the engineering and technology, information technology and new blood programmes.
§ Mr. Kenneth Baker
The exclusion of the funding elements selectively listed by the hon. Member gives an unrealistic impression of changes in the funding of universities by the University Grants Committee between 1980–81 and 1986–87. The payment of items such as local authority rates and compensation for early retirements is part and parcel of the cost of running large institutions. The engineering and technology, information technology and new blood programmes are important features in the life of universities which should not simply be ignored. Between 1980–81 and 1986–87 total recurrent and equipment grant paid to universities by the University Grants Committee increased by 39.3 per cent. in cash terms which is equivalent to an increase of 1.3 per cent. in real terms (using the GDP deflator).
However, neither this increase nor the figures specifically requested by the hon. Member, which are as follows, accurately reflect the changes in universities' overall financial position over the period: increases in income from overseas students and other private sources 139W and reductions in tuition fees for home students (paid from public funds in most cases) must also be taken into account.
Changes in UGC recurrent and equipment grant to universities between 1980–81 and 1986–87 in real terms (using the GDP deflator), with selected exclusions listed by the hon. Member, were:
Per cent. Aston -33.3 Bath -6.9 Birmingham -19.1 Bradford -34.5 Bristol -15.5 Brunel -19.6 Cambridge -13.7 City -22.8 Durham -13.8 East Anglia -17.0 Essex -20.0 Exeter -20.5 Hull -21.6 Keele -35.7 Kent -22.8 Lancaster -16.8 Leeds -17.9 Leicester -9.6 Liverpool -19.7 London Graduate School of Business Studies + 25.0 London University -17.4 Loughborough -7.2 Manchester Business School -26.2 Manchester -17.4 University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology -30.4 Newcastle -15.1 Nottingham -15.3 Oxford -14.6 Reading -18.2 Salford -46.3 Sheffield -18.0 Southampton -11.8 Surrey -27.1 Sussex -21.7 Warwick -12.0 York -2.8 Aberystwyth U.C. -21.4 Bangor U.C. -20.8 Cardiff U.C. -19.0 St. David's Lampeter -5.7 Swansea U.C. -21.7 University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology -22.8 Welsh National School of Medicine -10.1 Aberdeen -25.3 Dundee -20.8 Edinburgh -16.6 Glasgow -9.4 Heriot-Watt -13.2 St. Andrews -22.1 Stirling -23.6 Strathclyde -20.2