HL Deb 09 March 1967 vol 280 cc1536-7

3.8 p.m.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decision of the Fulbright Commission to reduce the number of scholarships for British graduates at American universities, they will reconsider their intention to increase fees for overseas students in universities and other places of higher education; and whether they will make a statement.]

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I understand that the Fulbright Commission decided to spread the effect of increased fees for overseas students in the United Kingdom over certain categories of their awards, including travel grants to British students. As I informed noble Lords in reply to a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on Tuesday of last week, the effect on the finances of the Commission would have been very much the same if fees had been increased generally. On the last part of the noble Lord's Question I have nothing to add to previous Government statements.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether it is not desirable that there should be an increase rather than a decrease in the two-way exchange of British students to America and American students to Britain? Is it not obvious that this decrease is a result of Government policy and is bound to have adverse effects? Is it not also a fact that this action by the Government is the exact opposite of what the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his Party political broadcast last night about Socialist education policy? Therefore is it not yet another example of the hypocritical and two-faced behaviour of the Government in saying one thing and doing something else?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I do not know what the Secretary of State for Scotland said last night, but I am sure it was very wise and that what I say is in no way in conflict with it. But I must suggest to the noble Lord that it is a pity that, so far as I can recall, he was not in the House for, and did not take part in, the lengthy debate on this subject which we had the other day, when I had the honour of replying for the Government to about 15 speeches. At the end of that day, and after another day in the House of Commons when the Secretary of State made a brilliant speech, I thought that most of these issues had been clarified. I am sorry that the noble Lord began using violent language. I would have ventured to retaliate, but I know that he is physically so much one's superior.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, is the noble Earl quite sure that the Fulbright Commission would have reduced the number of scholarships if the fees had been put up at the same level for everyone and the increase had not been discriminatory?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, that is what is calculated. One cannot be absolutely sure, but I am advised that that is what would have been expected.