HC Deb 20 February 1967 vol 741 cc1391-400

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

At this late hour I wish to raise the subject of the proposed increases in fees for overseas students, and I should like to begin by informing the Minister of my particular interest in this matter. I was a student at the University of Edinburgh not so very long ago compared with when many hon. Members were at university. Edinburgh University, outside London University, has the highest proportion of overseas students in the country. I was president of the University Students Representative Council, and on several occasions I attended international students' conferences on behalf of the Scottish Union of Students of which I now am honorary vice-president, and I have been in close touch with them throughout the controversy.

Whatever we may think of the actual policy of the Government, the manner in which it has been handled is extremely bad. To announce this change of policy in a Written Answer the day before the House rose for the Christmas Recess was almost an admission that this was something of which the Government were ashamed and were trying to push out to the public at a time when not only the House was in recess but when the universities and colleges were in recess. Moreover, there was no prior consultation with either of the two student unions or the committee of vice-chancellors, or with the countries of origin from which the students came. The decision was made to raise the fees of overseas students attending universities in this country from about £70 to £250.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science, in a broadcast, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in another place, both suggested that this decision followed the recommendations of the Robins Committee for increases in fees all round. Of course, it was not at all in support of the recommendations of the Robbins Committee which, arguing that a greater proportion of university income should be made up from fees, said in paragraph 655: We do not suggest that a higher fee be charged to overseas than to other students,". In other words, it was quite contrary to the Robbins recommendations. The Robbins Committee went on: We should greatly regret a dwindling in the number of overseas students in Britain's universities and colleges,". The Committee went on to say that the hidden subsidy to overseas students was well justified as it was foreign aid which had a definite objective and yielded a tangible return in benefit to the recipients and in general good will.

The first point that I would like to make is that, contrary to the general impression given to the public, this decision is absolutely against the recommendations of the Robbins Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said in another place in the course of a debate there initiated by my noble Friend, Lord Gladwyn, that the reason for this decision was a financial one. This was clear. It was not a question of wanting to reduce the number of overseas students but of eventually saving £5 million a year.

Since the decision was announced, and thanks partly to the considerable protest with which it was met by hon. Members of all parties, another announcement was made—again in a Written Answer—that a fund would be set up to assist those overseas students in real financial difficulty. If that is to happen, presumably the fund will reduce the original estimate of a £5 million saving. By how much is it estimated to reduce the saving and what will be the administrative costs of the fund, which will also reduce the saving? I should like the Minister to answer this.

However, even if we accepted that the saving would eventually be £3 million or £4 million, it is a dangerous saving, giving rise to an entirely new principle for charging fees in our institutions of higher learning—a principle of discrimination. Overseas students will be paying about 3½ times as much in fees as British students. Does this mean that each college and university will have to issue a prospectus with two scales of fees—one for overseas students and one for home students?

This policy is contrary to that of most other countries. For example, the number of British students studying at European institutions is more than double the number of European students in British institutions, and many of them are studying at a highly subsidised rate, in terms of accommodation, meals or fees.

The Government may argue that some of the overseas students will automatically receive higher grants when the fees go up. This is true of some, but 59 per cent. are privately financed.

This decision will have some curious effects. For example, the British Council gives five scholarships to South African students who are approved by the South African Government and can therefore be taken to approve of that Government's policies of apartheid. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of that now, but it is a fact. They will not be affected personally by the increase in fees, because presumably the British Council will increase the amounts of the scholarships to meet the increase in fees.

But the United Nations Training Programme for South Africa, which also finances South African students—generally those who have had to leave South Africa and do not support its apartheid policies—will have difficulties in meeting the increased cost. This Government, unlike Governments of other countries, pay no contribution to the programme. Therefore, on the one hand we seem to be encouraging students to come here who are financed by the Government of other countries—whether we approve or disapprove of them—and bringing into our scheme a kind of discouragement for those introduced here by private means.

There are various private means. There are the scholarships of the International Student Conference. In the late 50's, following the Hungarian Revolution, many Hungarian students came over here, paid for by fellow students at British universities. This was certainly the case in Edinburgh: they were financed by voluntary collections among their fellows.

Another interesting case which came to my notice only yesterday was that of a German lady who is now married to a British national and is a student at a university. Clearly, she will not be financed by her home Government because she has no intention of returning there and they are no longer interested in her from an educational point of view. She has settled in this country, but she will have to meet the extra fees from her own or her husband's resources.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development said that one aspect of this new policy would be that students would be encouraged to go to their own universities first. This may be an acceptable argument in some ways, but some students have nowhere to go. There are, for example, 334 students here from Mauritius. They cannot go anywhere else for higher education, and the effect of this policy will be to encourage other countries to attract students, particularly from the underdeveloped countries. I can well remember from my visits to universities behind the Iron Curtain that they will now appear to have attractions proportionately greater than those of our own, and all because of this decision.

Sir John Cockcroft, Master of Churchill College, Cambridge, in a letter of 20th January, says that this decision …is bound to cause a great deal of hardship for students from developing countries. In this College alone we have 30 such students, very few of them supported by British Council grants". Sir John adds, I had a discussion with the High Commissioner for India about this yesterday and he was of the opinion that the result of this would be to divert a high proportion of the Indian students to the United States, who provide very good grants for their students. We have benefited a very great deal in the past by having students from India, Pakistan, and developing countries. I am sure it has been a great source of our political and commercial strength. I was in Ghana recently and was impressed by the fact that the elite in Ghana who run the country, the Civil Servants, the University people, had all been educated in our universities". One does not need to quote only a Liberal academic on this subject. Professor P. M. S. Blackett, the Government's adviser on technology, said last week at the annual luncheon of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, that this decision was of great concern to scientists. He said that if fewer students flowed into our postgraduate schools, the growth of British science and technology would be impaired.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned postgraduate students, but would he agree that one important aspect is the student who takes advantage of postgraduate facilities in this country and then helps to build up an African, for example, teaching centre on his return?

Mr. Steel

Yes, indeed. My own recollection of Edinburgh University was just that. It is not only that this is a most valuable thing in terms of foreign aid—that it does not affect our balance of payments as does direct financial assistance.

One of the striking features of my own time at Edinburgh University was the flow of students who were not going to become top civil servants—such as those of whom Sir John Cockcroft wrote—and Ministers in the 'eighties or 'nineties, but in the 'seventies. Some of my own contemporaries hold senior positions in their own countries, and I would say here that Edinburgh has a fine record in producing African graduates who later become statesmen.

If this decision to increase overseas students' fees had been taken by a Conservative Government, it would have been met by strong opposition; but, taken by a Labour Government, it has been met with a sense of outrage as well as opposition, especially in view of the statements of the Labour Party not only when in opposition but when in office. The Prime Minister, in a speech to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of UNESCO, said last October in London: When I was called upon to form a Government two years ago, I showed our concern for those countries by appointing as a full-time member of the Cabinet, a Minister of Overseas Development, charged not only with the duty of administering Britain's aid programmes, Britain's contribution in development whether bilateral or multilateral, but also with the responsibility for the principal specialised agencies of the United Nations concerned with development in all its aspects. UNESCO is, of course, one of those organisations with which the Minister is particularly concerned". The Prime Minister went on to deal with our economic difficulties: We have done our best not to reduce our aid to developing countries and we have expanded wherever possible the assistance which our schools and more particularly universities can give to students from these countries. There are now 11,000 overseas students from developing countries taking university courses in this country…. The great majority of them, when they have completed their education, will be returning to the countries of Africa and Asia to pass on what they have learnt in this country. It is in this way that I believe we are making one of the most important contributions to the growth of literacy and to the spread of scientific and technological information. Six months later, there is no Cabinet Minister responsible for overseas development and we have ceased to "expand the assistance our universities give to students from these countries" by increasing fees for overseas students. Yet it was the Prime Minister who, before the last election, was the man who said, I believe, that the language of socialism was the language of priorities.

Many people in our universities—the united force we have seen both of students and the Principal and Senatus of Edinburgh and of Dundee and leading members of many other universities—will consider it a peculiar kind of priority which lies behind this decision while at the same time the Government publish the Defence White Paper with defence estimates which show that the saving proposed by increasing these fees is .02 per cent. of the defence budget.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science, in his book "The Conservative Enemy", had this to say: We also have a right to expect from the Western peoples a more generous interest in the whole question of foreign aid. Up to now the marked liberalisation of attitudes in Western domestic policies has not been matched by greater altruism in international matters. No doubt, because foreigners provide a convenient scapegoat for personal or internal political difficulties, some element of selfish over-patriotism is always inevitable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision because, if he does not, he will be making these foreigners scapegoats for our internal economic problems in a manner totally unworthy of a Labour Minister.

3.43 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

The speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) fully justifies the decision of my right hon. Friends to put down this subject for debate on Thursday when can have a longer time than we have now. I think that his quotations were very well taken, particularly his quotations from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he said on the subject of the way this was done. The decision was taken in a thoroughly ham-handed fashion without adequate consultation and sufficient transitional arrangements being made for students already on courses here. I was also glad that he nailed the complete untruth about the Government's action being in line with the Robbins recommendations. Anyone who has read the Robbins Report knows how strongly Lord Robbins himself and the rest of his Committee felt on the subject of discrimination of any kind. The calculations in the Report were based specifically on a definite number of overseas students in our universities.

I was also glad that the hon. Gentleman talked about the voluntary collections for students coming from Hungary after 1956. I have known many occasions when students have made voluntary collections for overseas students who were in some personal difficulty. In an intervention, I raised a point about graduates. This is of great importance and a point to which Lord Fulton drew attention in the debate in another place.

I remind the House—and the attendance here shows that we all take this matter seriously—that we should remember that at present only one-third of overseas students are financed from official sources. These students may not be so much affected, but many of the 20,000 or more unsponsored students will clearly suffer severely.

That is all I wish to say at the moment. The hon. Member's speech tonight has fully justified our decision to come back to this matter on Thursday, when we can have more time to debate it. I hope that the Minister of State may be able to tell us a little more precisely the details of what the Government propose. We very much hope that they will rescind this unhappy decision.

3.46 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)

The subject which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has raised tonight is to be debated at greater length on Thursday, and for that reason, and because the rules of order preclude my speaking for more than a few minutes, I am sure that he will not expect me to deal exhaustively with the speech which he has just made.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, endeavour to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Thursday so as to make as full a statement as possible. There are, however, one or two points which I might usefully deal with tonight in the short time that is available to me.

There has been a good deal of talk about discrimination, to which the hon. Member has himself unfortunately added his contribution tonight. The fact is that all fees are discriminatory when some students have to pay them while others are excused. If the new fees are discriminatory, it is only in the sense that existing fees are discriminatory, because different fees are payable by overseas students from those payable by home-based students.

The present system is one in which home-based students for the most part have their fees met from public funds. In practice, therefore, overseas students are almost alone in having to pay fees personally. If there is discrimination under the new system, so there was under the old. In neither case does it involve nationality or race. It relates solely to residence.

I am sure the whole House will agree that neither my right hon. Friend nor the Government, as they have shown by their action in the matter of overseas aid by increasing progressively since we have been in office the total amount made available for this high purpose, is in any way animated by the spirit of discrimination in this matter. It has been made clear, both in my right hon. Friend's statement to the House of 21st December, and subsequently, that the Government's decision was taken reluctantly. The need for economies in the financial year 1967–68 was, however, pressing and we could not ignore the rising costs of the concealed subsidy to overseas students involved in maintaining the existing level of fees. That is not to say that there is any intention of reducing this form of aid. The hon. Member talked as though we were stopping it and that no more overseas students would be able to come to Great Britain. That is completely at variance with the facts.

The fact is that the Government believe that this public subsidy must be brought under control. We believe that whatever Government were in power would now be faced with a need to bring this into relation. The estimated level of subsidy in 1967–68, even with the increased fees, will still be as high as it was in 1965–66, and 80 per cent. up on the figure for 1961–62.

The Government recognise that there has been wide concern about possible hardship, particularly in the case of students from developing countries already embarked on courses in this country who have to rely on private sources—their families, their village and their own earnings—to finance their higher education. We share that concern. My right hon. Friend has stated on a number of occasions the possibility that there may be some cases of hardship. This is accepted, and a very close watch has been kept on this aspect of the matter. It was made clear when my right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the National Union of Students and the Scottish Union of Students at a joint meeting on 5th February. We had a long and very frank discussion of the problems as seen by the student bodies and they emphasised in particular their concern at the position of students from developing countries, and those who proceeded from one course to another.

We, for our part, made it plain that the Government are most willing to receive any evidence of hardship likely to arise from their decision as it affects this group, and the students' unions promised to provide this. The hon. Member in his speech tonight quoted a number of cases of hardship, and I can assure him most sincerely that my right hon. Friend will give full consideration to what he has said.

There are two ways in which the Government can and will help. First, in relation to those people who have come to this country planning to undertake a course of study over a number of years, for example "A" Levels followed by an undergraduate course. Our intention is that in such cases the qualification for the transitional increase of £50 a year should be liberally interpreted. My right hon. Friend will no doubt develop this point when he speaks on Thursday—

Mr. Steel

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt him, but before he goes on he has passed beyond the point where I hoped he would have said how much he expects this fund to aid this cost and how much it will reduce—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have a second speech at this stage.

Mr. Roberts

I must ask the hon. Member to allow me to cover as many of the points as I can. There are other points which my right hon. Friend will cover in detail when he speaks on Thursday.

The result of this action is likely to be that the number of cases in which students already in the country will be called upon to pay more than an increase of £50 a year will be small. Secondly, and this is important, as the Secretary of State announced last week, the Government intend to set up a transitional fund to enable grants to be made towards the increase in fees in cases where hardship can reasonably be claimed. This is designed very much with the needs of students from developing countries in mind. I know hon. Members are very anxious to have details of this fund and how it will be administered, but it is impossible for me to provide the details tonight. If I launched upon an examination of these details it would quite unhinge the very short speech time allows me to make.

These measures, taken together with the easement previously announced for students supported by United Kingdom Government grants and for students already on courses supported by the Governments of developing countries, will provide a very substantial cushion against the effects of increased fees on the most needy students. The net result will be to bring this very substantial aid into relation. It will not reduce it below the level of 1965, and it will represent a very substantial increase on 1961. We look forward in the future, as the resources of this country improve, to do better even than we have done in the past.

I do hope the hon. Member will take it from me that there is no discrimination here and that there is every intention to continue with this policy, which successive Governments have adhered to, of welcoming as many as possible of our friends from overseas to come to this country for their higher education.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Four o'clock a.m.