HC Deb 10 July 1953 vol 517 cc1579-86

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "America," to "the," in line 10.

The Amendment has been tabled because I think that the opportunities for American citizens to qualify for the Marshall scholarships are rather restricted. The proposals to give these scholarships should be a little wider, and they should not be restricted to people who have become "graduates of recognised institutions" in the United States. I see no reason why the field should not be extended so that students, both men and women, who have not had the opportunity to become graduates should be able to visit this country and receive the benefit of these scholarships.

I have no prejudice whatever against graduates, universities or such institutions in the United States, but I believe that there are many more young people in America who have not had the opportunity of becoming graduates who could be students and could benefit under the scheme. For example, there are large adult educational organisations in the United States under which education courses are organised by the big trade unions. Most of the unions in America have education officers. For example, one that is well known is run by one of the biggest United States unions, the United Garment Workers of America, which has a very well known education officer, who was born in this country and lived here for many years—Mr. Mark Starr. Anyone connected with the New York office of the union knows that he has a wide educational organisation which caters for the adult worker.

Many young Americans have not had the opportunity of going to universities. Many of them had their education interrupted by the war. Why should they not have an opportunity of visiting this country? I believe that they are quite as capable of benefiting from these scholarships, of becoming diplomats and being able to render some service in the field of international relationships, as university graduates. Indeed, had these restrictions been in operation in the past, I doubt whether General Marshall himself, or even the President of the United States, would have been able to qualify for a scholarship. I am quite certain that Senator McCarthy would not have qualified.

I suggest that these scholarships should be offered to the citizens of the United States of America and that there should be no limiting qualification that they must be graduates. If this scheme worked the other way round we should find that in this country there are very well-known workers in the field of foreign affairs who have not had the benefit of university education. Mr. Ernest Bevin was an example. I suggest that the Government should make this scheme wider and give an opportunity to many young people, professional people, trade union people and manual workers in the United States who are intelligent enough to qualify for a scholarship without having to spend years at an American university.

I had an interesting letter about this scheme. It came from Brighton, not Brighton in this country, but Brighton in Massachusetts. That shows the interest already taken in this scheme in the United States because I made certain remarks about the matter last Friday and received this letter by air mail yesterday from a student who is already interested in the details of the scheme. I suggest that the Government should accept this Amendment. It would make the scholarships more popular and there would be a bigger range of students. Under the circumstances it is the most democratic thing to do.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I wish to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He said he had no prejudice against university graduates as such. I was very pleased to hear that and I have even less prejudice because I happen to be a university graduate myself.

I think there is some merit in the suggestion put forward. It certainly would afford a wider latitude to the persons who will form the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission. In a vast country like the United States of America there are suitable people who for one reason or another have not technically qualified as graduates of an institution of higher learning, and there are all kinds of reasons quite intelligent people do not become graduates. It seems rather unfair that the majority of the American population should be excluded from the possible benefits of the provision we are now discussing.

I am strengthened in the argument I am putting forward by the fact that later in the Bill it is specified that the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission shall consist of seven members … of whom not less than two shall be … persons of eminence in academic matters. That seems to indicate that the people who have the job of selecting the scholarship holders need not necessarily be university graduates, with the exception of two. The other five may not even have been near a university. Yet it is considered right and proper that while the persons selecting scholarship holders shall for the most part not be graduates, the holders of those scholarships must of necessity be graduates. I see the Joint Under Secretary of State is smiling sympathetically at the argument put forward. I hope he will translate his magnanimous appearance into acceptance of the Amendment.

11.15 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting

I am afraid I must disappoint the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). The smile I gave was in sympathy with the thought rather than with the application of the thought. The difficulty of accepting the Amendment is twofold. In the first place we should make the task of the Advisory Council in the United States and the regional committee quite impossible if we were to broaden the scope of selection of scholars in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, to cover virtually every American citizen.

Secondly, there is the essential fact that the universities in this country would not accept as scholars over here on a scholarship people who were not graduates of a recognised institution in the United States. For those reasons I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Hugh Dalton (Bishop Auckland)

I am very sympathetic towards the thought behind the Amendment, but I think that on the whole the argument is against it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke of giving opportunities to many people. That is his wish and the wish of all of us in education and other matters, but this is a very small and restricted scheme and I believe the number of scholarships is to be 12. At any moment this scheme could not do very much, quantitatively, in that regard. The problem is to choose 12 people by some means or other who will benefit by this scheme and enable others in this country to benefit by contact with them. There is a vast university population in the United States, vastly greater than here. For that reason there will be even now a very large number of applicants to be considered. Although I support my hon. Friend on the general principle and attach very great importance to it, as I have done for many years, I do not think it would be practical to apply it here.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I beg to move in page 1, line 10, after "State," to insert: after consultation with the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a little disturbing that a matter of this kind should be left entirely to the Foreign Office. It is not a matter which should be dealt with purely by the Foreign Office. Our main concern is that this should not only be a gesture of gratitude for what America did for us in the form of Marshall Aid but to see that adequate funds are provided to ensure the educational success of the venture. It is not merely a very small gesture of gratitude to the American people.

As it is an educational matter it is difficult to leave out of the consultations the two Ministers in the United Kingdom who are primarily concerned with education. The Minister of Education has been left out in the cold for a long time. She is not in the Cabinet. She has been given the cold shoulder time and again by the Government. She is allowed to peep through the keyhole at Cabinet meetings, but I think it is time to give her a little encouragement and tell here that she is not forgotten. It would, I think, be a wonderful uplift for her were she consulted in these matters.

The Secretary of State for Scotland is nominally responsible for education north of the border. We have been told that these scholarships are tenable at any university. I see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart) is present, and I am sure he would agree that the Scottish universities can offer more to these American students than the English universities—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would seem desirable, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his educational advisers should be consulted at the very beginning of this scheme. I am certain that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will accept this Amendment, if only because it will cost nothing. I cannot see how consultations with these two Ministers concerned with education can have a harmful effect.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I hope we are not to be faced with a coalition of the old school ties. This is a very sensible Amendment. I do not know if there is any precedent for the Foreign Office taking over the functions of the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Office. So far as I can gather, all the prejudices of the Foreign Office are in favour of Oxford and Cambridge and the older universities. It is possible that these older universities will be given preference if the orthodox Foreign Office point of view is allowed to prevail.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Minister of Education should have the opportunity to do something really educational and useful during her term of office. We have not seen much sign of that yet, and this would provide an opportunity. If the administration of this scheme were transferred to the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Office there would be less opportunity of interference from the Foreign Office, which interferes in many things completely outside its control. It is quite possible that if one of these students took part in political affairs the Foreign Office would interfere and regard it as some kind of a breach of diplomatic etiquette.

I consider that once the Foreign Office has organised the scheme, control should be handed over to the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Let them carry out the education of these Americans. I have no hope at all of the Foreign Office being able to educate Americans. So far as I can see the Foreign Office is in many respects merely an appendage of American policy. The future welfare of these students would be better left in the hands of the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland—bad as they are.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I should not like it to be thought that every hon. Member on this side of the House agrees with my hon. Friends. If the principal object of this Amendment is to improve the morale of the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland I do not consider that an adequate reason for approving it.

The actual administration of the grants and other arrangements are in the hands of the Commission. Two members of the Commission are to be persons of eminence in the academic world. I do not know who they are likely to be, but I am prepared to state now that I should have much more confidence in them than in the present Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Nutting

I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment. It has always been held to be wrong in principle to write into a statute a provision for consultation between Ministers. The Government of this country works on the principle of a collective responsibility for policy. It is left to the Minister responsible for the enactment and execution of any statute to ensure that the necessary consultations take place with colleagues in the Government. Consultations have taken place, and will continue, between Ministers concerned in this matter. There is no reason to write into the Bill statutory and mandatory provisions that such consultations will take place, and there are sound precedents for avoiding such a course.

Another reason is that the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland are not the only Ministers involved. There is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will have to find the money. There is the Minister of Labour, who will be concerned with the trade union aspect, as there will be a trade union member on the Commission. Once we agreed to write in a provision that consultations should take place with one Minister we should be obliged to do it for all.

I can assure hon. Members opposite that the Scottish universities will not be excluded or forgotten. But the choice of the universities to which scholars will go rests with the Commission and is not a matter about which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will have any say. I can assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the Commission will be broadly based. There will be no undue preference for universities whether old or new, Scottish or English, Oxford or Cambridge. The Commission will discharge its functions with complete fairness and it will have regard to deriving the utmost benefit from the scheme, both from the point of view of the Americans and the universities to which they go.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.