§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about awards to overseas students.
On 16 December last, the House of Lords ruled on the meaning of "ordinary residence" in relation to the entitlement of students from overseas to mandatory awards. The main effect is that students who were in this country during the three years before their period of higher education essentially for the purpose of taking a lower-level course of education may have been eligible for a mandatory award, subject to a means test on their parents' income. They were not so eligible under the "real home" test which formed the basis of the previous advice to local authorities by this and the previous Administration.
The cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers of this ruling could be substantial. Much of the benefit will go to students from overseas who have come here with no expectation of receiving support from British public funds. The Government's policy is to support selected students and countries under the aid programme and the programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 8 February. Other overseas students are welcome but are expected to pay their own way.
There will be no retrospective legislation, but the Government have decided to restore the position on mandatory awards to that which successive Governments thought and intended it to be. I have today laid before Parliament amendments to the 1982 awards regulations, which will come into force tomorrow. Their effect will be that local authorities in England and Wales will not be obliged to make new awards after today to overseas students who have been resident here wholly or mainly for the purposes of education. I am also today issuing guidance to local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is making similar arrangements.
Our intention on fees for overseas students for 1983–84 onwards is to retain the differential arrangements which have in fact existed for many years. I shall make a further announcement as soon as possible as to how this should be done.
Local authorities in England and Wales receive 90 per cent. Exchequer grant on their expenditure on mandatory awards, which in Scotland are paid direct by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Universities and other institutions in Great Britain directly funded by the Exchequer will be compensated for any unavoidable loss of fee income.
§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty)It is unfortunate that in a commendable effort at brevity the Secretary of State might have achieved a little obscurity. Therefore, it is necessary to pry, especially as the House is rising within the next day or so, into the precise meaning of this important statement. I recall the deathless words of the present Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) in January 1970, when, in response to questions about the Tory party's new policy on full cost fees, he said:
We shan't make the savings that we plan if we start mucking about.346 Mucking about has brought us to the present pass.Does the Secretary of State recall or acknowledge that the full cost fees po licy turned discomfort and inconvenience into crisis for many who were trying to meet the cost of high education out of their own pockets? Does the Secretary of State also recall that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in early 1980 asked the then Secretary of State for Education and Science—the present Secretary of State's predecessor—to define the term "ordinary residence" and that his reply was that the courts should decide?
Is it not a matter of general knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) then warned that it might take two or three years for such a decision to come from the courts and that he was right? As a consequence of the Government's refusal to give a definition, has not great confusion been caused in local education authorities and in higher educational institutions in addition to the confusion and hardship caused to many of the students involved? Why is it that, after such a long time, there is further delay, especially when the Under-Secretary of State gave an undertaking to the House on 25 January that we could expect a statement on this matter shortly? Why is it necessary, as it appears, that the House should have a separate statement on awards today with yet another one to come later concerning the much more costly question of the implications for higher education fees of the Scarman judgment of 16 December last?
Will the provision in paragraph 4 of the Secretary of State's statement that there will be no retrospective legislation apply as much to fees as it does to awards? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] As the two are closely analogous, and as arrangements have run in tandem, that is a legitimate question to ask to enable the House to have a clear idea about exactly what the Government's intentions are in respect of fees that could have huge cost implications. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I explained my reasons earlier for having to go in detail into this statement. If the statement had not been produced at the back end of this part of the Session, and if the education press had not gone to bed in anticipation of Easter, hon. Members might have had a full debate, but that is not possible. That is why my questioning must be detailed.
Would it not be sensible now to recognise that the Scarman judgment is a shock to the system and that it provides an opportunity for a fresh start? Is it not that fresh start that the Secretary of State is proposing to make in that part of his statement in which he said:
local authorities … will not be obliged to make new awards after today to overseas students who have been resident here wholly or mainly for the purposes of education.If students of immigrant families are here for their education and for perpetual residence, will they enjoy the full benefits of being students regardless of when they came here?Would it be a case—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] I recognise that exposing the utter failure of the Conservative party is bound to provoke a reaction. Will a student returning with his family to this country as a consequence of unsuccessful emigration now qualify for full awards, as he should in the belief of the Labour party? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider adopting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—the Labour party's policy for the proper treatment of overseas students on the basis of their poverty or the poverty of the country from which they came, and of their direct and legitimate 347 entitlement to awards if they are in this country for purposes other than those of education; indeed, for purposes of permanent residence.
Could I finally ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—what the word "substantial" means, in paragraph 3 of his statement, in reference to the cost to taxpayers and ratepayers? What figure does his Department have to make good the judgment in the terms of the statement that the Secretary of State has made to the House?
In paragraph 5, do the differential arrangements that the Secretary of State proposes to maintain apply to the further introduction of the race relations exemption circular or is there a more complex meaning to that? Lastly—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have said that."] All that noise, Mr. Speaker, is music to my ears, as you will understand.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has there been some change in the long-standing arrangement that Ministers make statements to the House and hon. Members in all parts of the House are given the opportunity to ask questions about them?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has asked a few questions and I believe that he is about to ask another.
§ Mr. KinnockOnce again, absolutely accurate, Mr. Speaker.
Lastly, what is the precise meaning of the final sentence of the statement? If the differential arrangements are to continue in existence and if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to compensate for any unavoidable loss of fee income to universities and other institutions directly funded by the Exchequer, what losses does he expect they will make as a result of the statement's implementation from today?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe Labour Government began the process of raising fees for overseas students. We have continued with the advice that they gave. I do not apologise to the House for the time that it has taken to come forward with a statement, because it was difficult to judge the implications of the judgment of the other place. There will be no retrospection. The Government do not as yet have figures with which to answer the hon. Gentleman's last questions. There was an urgent need to make a statement about mandatory awards, but the need to make a statement about fees is not quite so urgent. However, I shall make such a statement as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman's last questions were not immediately related to the statement.
§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)Will the corresponding arrangements in Northern Ireland be made by administrative procedure and without subordinate legislation?
§ Sir Keith JosephI understand that the position in Northern Ireland is quite different in that its awards regulations already exclude from entitlement to an award someone who is resident wholly or mainly for educational purposes.
§ Sir William van Straubenzee (Wokingham)Are not the Opposition's credentials for getting heated about this issue quite nullified by the fact that it is on record that they 348 established differential fees between home and overseas students? Does my right hon. Friend understand that there will be widespread appreciation of the fact that the decision of the other place is to be observed without retrospection, but that even those—among whom I count myself—who are most enthusiastic about the cause of overseas students will feel that the law before the announcement could not be sustained, in the interests of overseas students themselves?
§ Sir Keith JosephI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We will all agree that it is one thing to seek retrospection and quite another to seek to change the law to what we all thought it was.
§ Mr. BeithHow are college authorities to cope with the fact that they do not know how they are to administer differential fees for this coming academic year? Does the Secretary of State realise that his original announcement did so much damage to British interests overseas that even the Foreign Secretary's new proposals have not undone it all, and that this statement will certainly do nothing to undo it?
§ Sir Keith JosephI recognise that colleges will want to know as soon as possible how the Government intend to carry out their intentions in relation to fees. That is why I promised to make a statement as soon as possible. I need not be apologetic for the Government's continuation of the Labour Government's policy of differential charges for overseas students. It was an indescriminate policy of subsidisation, and I think that we got nearer to getting it right in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
§ Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)Does my right hon. Friend's statement mean that any overseas students have been re-categorised as home students? If so, will not the University Grants Committee have to fix again its targets for home students for 1984–85?
§ Sir Keith JosephI should like to consider that. If my hon. Friend would care to table a question, I shall give him the answer.
§ Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement has not cleared up anything? Will he confirm that the Select Committee unanimously advised his predecessor to legislate three years ago? If he had done that, this problem would not have arisen. Will the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that under a Labour Government there were three categories of student: first, full overseas students; second, students who were denied maintenance grants but who paid home student fees; third, students paying home student fees? Does the right hon. Gentleman now intend to revert to that situation? What will he eventually do about fees, now that he has acted on maintenance grants? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the cost? Will universities and local authorities be reimbursed for something that was not in any way their fault, but wholly the responsibility of the Secretary of State's predecessor, who failed to legislate and who simply relied on the uncertain judgment in Stransky v. Stransky?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. I have, I hope, definitively cleared up the position about awards. A Labour Government gave advice, which this Government continued. I reserve what I have said about fees and about how we shall carry out our intentions. I confirm that universities will be reimbursed for any unavoidable costs. Local authorities, as is already provided, receive 90 per cent. of any mandatory awards that they find it proper to pay.
§ Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that there will be no retrospection, but does he not realise that many of the fees payable by overseas students are astronomical, particularly for courses on medicine and dentistry? Will not the right hon. Gentleman therefore review the situation sympathetically and beyond the level outlined in the statement made by the Foreign Secretary?
§ Sir Keith JosephWe are always ready to reconsider, but we have recently arrived at a proper mixture of, on the one hand, being discriminating in our help towards individual students and countries, and, on the other hand, ending indiscriminate subsidies. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the high cost of fees for overseas students. I accept that they are high, but the judgment brought an unexpected windfall to many students who managed to go through three years of education in this country without any help from the British taxpayer.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement does not in any way affect the £46 million additional money that goes to overseas students principally from Third world countries, as they are in great need of such help? Will he also confirm that the money that is spent from Government funds on overseas students will not adversely affect the position and number of home students?
§ Sir Keith JosephI can confirm both my hon. Friend's queries.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)Since engineering is one of the courses most sought after by overseas students, does it accord with the Secretary of State's sense of morality and justice to pass by on the other side of the road and to allow the UGC to fine Swansea university and Heriot Watt university in my constituency for having too many engineering students?
§ Sir Keith JosephI have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but that question has nothing to do with the statement.
§ Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)Will the Secretary of State confirm that today's statement in no way alters the position of awards to refugees, particularly those who have been granted asylum in the United Kingdom?
§ Sir Keith JosephI understand that refugees are treated as home students, and are therefore not affected. I should like to confirm that for the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Tom McNally (Stockport, South)Does the Secretary of State recall that on 9 June the Foreign Secretary promised the House that the definition of home and overseas students would be re-examined? Is the Secretary of State's announcement today the end of that re-examination? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who asked whether the children of immigrants, such as east African Asians, who are in Britain now would have any grant prejudiced by this ruling?
§ Sir Keith JosephNo, this statement is a response to a House of Lords ruling. Both sides of the House expect the Government to react in this way. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the position of those immigrants is not affected by the statement, and is still under consideration.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)Does not the Government's penny-pinching attitude towards overseas students contrast markedly with their lavish attitude towards Argentina? They have been prepared to back massive loans to prop up that country's economy to enable it to purchase military materials for possible use against us. When the Secretary of State says, for example, that he will issue guidance notes to local authorities, what status will those guidance notes have, will they be legally enforceable, and will he place a copy in the Library?
§ Sir Keith JosephThe letter to authorities which will be sent out today will be placed in the Library. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) appears to be in favour of indiscriminate subsidy from the bulk of the people in this country to people overseas, whatever the wealth of their families or of their countries.
Finally, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Government's policy is responsible for the problem. The previous Government started the process by raising overseas students' fees.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Is it not fair to say that today we have witnessed a Secretary of State for Education and Science, a Tory theologian, who is guilty of fudging and mudging. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] That is one of the phrases that Dr. Death uses from time to time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is probably busy on a big job. Would not the Secretary of State have more room for maneouvre had not his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy come to the House earlier this week to announce a £1.5 million mandatory award to a deep mining student?
§ Sir Keith JosephAs the original importer of the said mining student, I take some pride in the success that he appears to have had.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have received notice of two applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall take them in the order in which I received them.