§ 11.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)I am glad of this opportunity to raise the question of fees paid by overseas students. I am particularly glad to have the opportunity now, because of the rising alarm in informed circles about what the Government's intentions may be. There is what appears to be reliable information in the newspapers that they intend to raise the fees to be paid by overseas students by no less than five times, meaning that the students will pay up to £2,000 a year.
Already we discriminate against overseas students to a certain degree. We require that they should pay £416 a year compared with the £182 for which our own people are asked. Of the nations of Europe, only Austria and the Republic of Ireland share this tendency to discriminate against them.
1093 It is my opinion, shared by many wiser than I in these matters, that if we raise the fees we shall gain no short-term benefit, and we shall do long-term harm economically and to the moral standing of our country.
I deal first with the short-term aspects of the matter. We are informed that there are 95,000 overseas students in this country. Only 30,000 have no sponsorship from their own countries or elsewhere. I shall speak mainly about those students, although the overseas Governments, particularly those of the poorer countries, have reservations about paying more grants for their students over here whom they to some extent support. The former Minister of State in another place said that the costs of maintaining overseas students was £170 million a year, against which was to be set about £60 million in receipts from them. Let us say, therefore, that the total net cost is about £100 million. How the former Minister of State in the other place calculated was not made clear. The only matter that he mentioned was that of resource costs. I believe that this was an unreasonable argument for him to put forward in that fashion, because no one suggests—at least, I have heard no one suggest—that buildings have been erected especially for the accommodation of overseas students, in regard to the academic accommodation. As far as the expenditure on teachers may go, a good many teachers would actually be dismissed if the overseas students were not to be with us, because they would be no classes for them to teach.
The former Minister of State said that the offset was £60 million. He gave no details of that figure, but I should like to give him some headings, at least, if he should be minded to look at his sums again. In presenting these headings to the Minister, I should like to say that I have had the advantage of consultation with the British Council, of which I am a Vice-Chairman, and with the United Kingdom Committee on Overseas Students, although, of course, I do not speak for either of those bodies as such.
The receipts which are likely to be received from overseas students can be divided into about four categories, I suppose. First, there is the pre-study period, and the attendance at British fee-charging schools in preparation for the courses 1094 which the students are to undergo, from which the estimated revenue is £40 million a year. Secondly, there is attendance on private tutors, about which we have obviously no figures but which is extensive. Thirdly, there is attendance at commercial language schools, which is very often necessary. Again, we have no exact figures about that, but everyone knows that it is considerable. Fourthly, we have correspondence colleges, which are especially popular with African students. Then we have examination fees paid by the students.
During the period in which these students are actually here doing their main studies we have a certain revenue from them. We have their living expenses, which are calculated at £1,500 a year each. We have the payments in respect of their dependants, because many of these students nowadays are married and sometimes are with children here. That figure is calculated at about £7½ million. We have the fares which they pay to and from the United Kingdom in British carriers. Normally they use British aircraft or ships.
Furthermore, as Lord Sherfield, pointed out in a debate in another place last month, if one set of parents—fairly well off, presumably—visit their child even once for a week or so during his time here, they would spend far more than would be necessary to support the child from public funds here.
Then we have the expenditure on books and other equipment to enable the students to do their academic study, which is estimated by the Department, I understand, at £200 a year for each student.
There is also the position of British students abroad. There are two British students abroad for every five overseas students here. Almost invariably, British students abroad are very largely supported by the country to which they go, so that they have little expenditure in that regard.
These expenditures must all be calculated and taken into consideration of what the country has to bear.
After the overseas students have done their courses, there are the post-study revenues which we can expect to have from them. They continue to buy books and equipment, academic and commercial, of various sorts. It is perhaps relevant to notice that the balance of 1095 trade in books with Australia is no less than £27 million a year in our favour. That is a very formidable figure indeed, and it can doubtless be duplicated, although perhaps not quite to that extent, in relation to many other countries.
Lastly, we have the general influence of British-oriented leaders in their own countries, after they return home and when they become men of prominence in their own countries. I do not need to expand on that. We know that that exists to a large extent. The sums that I have mentioned are difficult to quantify, but there can be no doubt that they amount to more—perhaps far more—than the £60 million which the Minister of State mentioned in the other place.
I concede that some of these expenses fall on the Department, on local authorities, on university and scholastic authorities generally and on technical colleges, whereas the benefits accrue generally to the community as a whole. The remedy for that position is to put all the expenditure and revenues in one place so that we can properly compare what they are and so that one pocket does not pay what the other pocket receives. The obvious place for that is the ODM. I feel that this is the place where, in the Government machine, these things can most properly be done. It is financed by the taxpayer who is getting revenue from the student in the various ways that I have described, and it is consonant with the work that the ODM does.
In the long-term, the matter is extremely important. First, there is the effect that would be produced upon our universities and institutions of learning if these students were discouraged or their numbers largely diminished. If they were to go, some courses would have to be closed entirely, and I believe that the whole atmosphere would be less academically attractive. The Joint Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the UGC said in paragraph 27 of its interim report:
A substantial increase in discrimination in fees (or perhaps even any further increase in the level of overseas student fees) could be very damaging to the universities.I have heard it said that there is some bitterness in universities against overseas students, on the ground that they are keeping Britons out, and some photo- 1096 graphs have been published in the papers showing classes of mainly overseas students in some universities and technical colleges. I have never met anybody who has complained that he has been kept out of university because of overseas students. Indeed, even Lord Bowden, who I gather is against overseas students, only argues that he cannot get enough British students to come to his own course and says that we should not teach overseas students because they may take our secrets away. That is an extraordinary obscurantist and chauvinist attitude for an educator to take, and I prefer the opinion of Lord Robbins who, speaking in the debate to which I referred, said that if overseas students went we would suffer spiritually a great deal.I am distressed at the small-mindedness of some of the objections to overseas students. There was a letter in The Times from somebody who has some kind of authority in the University of Warwick. He complained that overseas students use the National Health Service and, therefore, cause expense. Perhaps they do, but this is not a matter that comes into the question of university education. It is a matter of our organisation of the National Health Service, and as against those students who now take some kind of treatment from the National Health Service we know that there are many rich people who come here from overseas in their later years and pay for medical attention in a large way.
In the long term, also, I believe that we must fear retaliation against our own people. Already we discriminate against Europeans, but they do not discriminate against us. In France, for example, the payment for students, both overseas and at home, is basically £15 a year. In Germany, there is no payment at all, and it would be against the spirit of academic freedom which has flourished in Europe since mediæval times—the spirit of the wandering scholar, and so on—if we were now to take this large step that is feared in circles that are informed about this matter. Discrimination would be serious from a political and moral point of view in regard to the European countries, but in regard to the poor countries, mostly Commonwealth countries, it would be especially serious. Surely education is one of the most enduring and 1097 best forms of aid that we can possibly give to the developing world.
I am informed that already some countries and some Commissions in London are making plans to shift some of their students to Germany and France during the coming year because of the existing discrimination, and rumours of more. I do not believe that this is a matter which we ought to take lightly. In the past it was very difficult for Commonwealth students to go to any other country except this, or to the United States, which is much more expensive, because of the question of language. But today English is so much a lingua franca that it is possible for a student to go to Germany or France and exist on his knowledge of the English language while he gets himself accommodated. It would be very sad if, because of our discrimination, they were driven away to our trading competitors—our friends nevertheless—but also to different countries from those which have had responsibility up to now.
In the long term we know that a student who has had a good recollection of his time here will wish to trade and work with us, bringing mutual benefits to both our countries. That is something which, as a trading country, we regard as of great importance. But this is not a matter merely of trade and of economics. It is about the English language, the British way of life. It is about what Burke called
our leadership in equality and in training for freedom which is the peculiar and appropriate glory of England",and which still endures though the Empire has passed away. It would be folly and sad if, for the sake of a few miscalculated mean pennies, we were to show that we no longer have pride in our achievements and do not care what happens to our friends.
§ 11.32 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler)There may be only a few of us present tonight, but those of us who are here, I am convinced, are grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) for raising this topic. It has been dear to the hearts of some of us at least for many years.
I shall not comment on many of the things the hon. Gentleman said, and cer- 1098 tainly not on that "reliable" information in the newspapers that consideration was being given to a five-fold increase in fees. Of that I know nothing. Neither shall I comment on the detail of the hon. Gentleman's financial calculation, a highly complex topic.
I followed the hon. Gentleman with great interest when he made out a very good case for showing that we have a net balance in our favour from having overseas students. There is, of course, a case to be made against that. But certainly I shall not follow him in discussing how much the exports of books to Australia stem from having overseas students from Australia in this country, because we would get into very deep water indeed.
On one point I shall comment specifically, and that is the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there might be in some quarters in British universities or other institutions of higher education bitterness about the presence of overseas students. Speaking less as a Minister than as an academic, I very much hope that is not the case. All of us who have been in higher education, whether as students or as teachers, or as politicians responsible for higher education, would greatly regret it. We have all benefited in the past from our contact with overseas students and scholars in this country. I hope we shall preserve in this country universities in the broadest sense—universities of those who are educated and are seeking education whatever their disciplines and irrespective of their country of origin, or indeed of their language. We all, I think, belong to an international community of teachers, learners and scholars.
I suppose that I should try to set the two sides of the argument in perspective. On the one side, the number of overseas students in this country has undoubtedly shown a dramatic increase in recent years. Some colleges are heavily reliant on them in certain subject areas. The total has more than doubled, from 30,000 to over 60,000, within the past 10 years. I gather that the present percentage of overseas university students is 11½ per cent., which is very much higher than in the past. But the economic equation presented by this phenomenon is not at all simple. The cost of an overseas student on a university course, or an advanced course in further education, can be put on average at 1099 about £2,000 in terms of tuition costs, of £2,500 per annum inclusive of notional capital costs. I follow what the hon. Gentleman said about that and I have a great deal of sympathy with him. Those figures compare with a fee of £320 in 1975 and of £416 recommended for 1976.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the student contributes a great deal. But much of his contribution is not quantifiable in cash terms. He can be said to enlarge the horizons of the institution. I hope that he will also take away favourable impressions of our education standards and our attitudes. That is why I said what I did about the hon. Gentleman's point about bitterness. Overseas students, especially those studying for post-graduate qualifications, usually enter careers in government, education or the media when they return to their own countries. In those careers they can influence opinion. If they pursue careers iii commerce and industry they may influence purchasing decisions.
I need hardly remind the House of the distinguished leaders of Commonwealth countries and other countries who received their education in British universities and colleges. The fact that overseas students can come here, and want to come here, to receive a British education is an achievement of which we should all be proud rather than resentful. I accept that the extent of our assistance in this area should be much better known and recognised. There are over 10,000 such students out of a total of 60,000 who are supported at our institutions in whole or in part by the ODM. I think it is reasonable to attempt to quantify the element of subsidy provided by the taxpayer and ratepayer, but I do not think we should deny the principle that providing places for such students is an admirable and worthwhile thing in itself.
The problem is, as the hon. Gentleman said, the number of places we should provide. The hon. Gentleman suggested that on his information, if we are indulging in international comparisons, there are two British students studying abroad for every five overseas students studying here. My information, based on the latest official figures that I can obtain, is that 12,000 British students 1100 were studying abroad in 1971—that is a UNESCO figure—compared with over 60,000 overseas students studying here last year. The two figures are not strictly compatible.
The hon. Gentleman's two to five ratio may be a slight over-estimate. It must be remembered that in coming to this country overseas students make a not inconsiderable contribution. At this stage I take up the £60 million which has been mentioned in another place. I should explain that that figure is in terms of foreign exchange, and expresses expenditure through overseas students using our transport services and maintaining themselves while they are here. I use the expression "maintaining themselves" in its strict sense. In no way does that figure conflict with the general argument that the hon. Gentleman presented.
Another point that should be mentioned is that post-graduates in science and technology probably—and certainly post-graduates in medicine—make a substantial contribution in terms of money saved because they provide relatively cheap labour in areas where we are short of personnel. We should not forget that.
The other side of the coin is that these students cost the country a lot of money. We are calculating education costs, and the hon. Gentleman was right in talking about the different purses paying and receiving. Education costs in 1975 were of the order of £110 million net. That is not far short of the figure of £2,000 a student which has been mentioned.
We should remember when we quote that high average cost that a substantial proportion of the overseas student population are post-graduates and that the overseas student population is weighted towards science, technology and medicine, where costs are high in any event. That is at least a partial explanation of the high average cost.
It is questionable whether each overseas student in Britain represents or can be regarded as costing a full cost place in higher education. Patently, many students could be said to occupy marginal rather than full cost places on courses which are very well supported by home students. On the other hand, it is equally true that many courses would not be viable if it were not for overseas 1101 student recruitment. In these cases it may be more reasonable to quote a full cost figure.
But the cost equation is even more difficult than that. Some courses which might not even be viable at all without overseas students nevertheless utilise staff and facilities which would be provided in any event for other teaching and research. So the total equation is almost impossible to solve. I agree that if we get into arguments about how much benefit there is and what the cost is, we should never get agreement.
As for special arrangements to compensate for hardship, it would not be practicable to create special funds to compensate for price increases which certain categories will be expected to pay. That includes overseas students in this academic year. It would surely be invidious to have special arrangements for overseas students alone. Once we went along that road, we should be in great difficulty, because we should find it hard to restrict the provision to that category. I hope that where cases of genuine hardship arise because of the increase in fees which has already been announced—I am not talking about any future policy—both local education authorities and universities will exercise some discretion. I put it no more strongly.
It is argued that other European countries admit a higher proportion of overseas students than we do, yet do not charge discriminatory fees. Comparable facts and figures are hard to come by. There is no consistency of practice, and the overall educational arrangements of different countries vary widely. I know this from my personal experience of studying in Germany.
We all know the American practice of working one's way through college, which differs sharply from our own practice in higher education. We have perhaps the most intensive form of higher education in the world, providing good results with very short courses. 1102 France and Germany admit a large number of overseas students, and charge fees which are the same for home and overseas students, but they vary a great deal from institution to institution. We have to deal with the situation which exists at the moment in this country. We have had differential fees for many years. A change in the practice would immediately increase the burden on public expenditure and thus on the taxpayer and ratepayer.
It is also fair to add, in the context of the United States, which takes a far greater number of overseas students than any other country, that fees there are very often far higher than any in the United Kingdom.
I note the view that the cost of overseas students should be removed from the local education authorities or from the Department of Education and Science and transferred to the Exchequer or the Ministry for Overseas Development. Insofar as that would involve a transfer from local education authorities, not specifically from the DES—because we must not make the mistake of thinking the DES bears all the cost—to the Government, it would involve the Government in a new financial liability without being able to control the extent of that liability unless they also controlled admissions, which they do not. It would also require distinguishing between the element of full cost and marginal cost in the various college places occupied by overseas students.
In short, this is a highly complex issue, and we cannot settle it tonight. All I can do is to assure the hon. Gentleman that the point he has raised and many other equally complex and debatable points are in the mind of the Government and that we shall seek to reach a solution which is equitable both to the interests of this country and to the interests of overseas students here.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.