§ 2.59 p.m.
§ LORD BALOGHMy 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 who authorised the financing and publication in Economic Trends of a study on "the economic return on investment in higher education" which gives a grossly distorted, if not completely false, view of the social value of education and is bound to exacerbate the cost inflationary tendency by inciting organised professional bodies to press for increases in salaries and fees.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)My Lords, this study was put in hand within the Department of Education and Science in 1967 under the previous Administration. As the pre-fatory note to the article in Economic Trends indicates, the study drew on material provided by a survey which the Department commissioned from the Genera] Register Office. The article was accepted by the editorial board of Economic Trends and its publication in that journal was authorised by the Department of Education and Science.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask whether he realises, first, that the calculations were based on an unrepresentative small sample, as is shown by the excessive fluctuation of the income figures; secondly, that present income, if it reflects anything at all, reflects past patterns in costs and not the present pattern in costs of education; and thirdly, that differences in income in this country reflect factors other than education? Indeed, one might think that the reverse is the truth—that education is according to income and not income according to education.
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, the Department started from the 1966 Census, and through the good offices of the General Register 586 Office sent out letters to a sample survey of 15,000 people who were qualified in higher education in the 1966 Census, and another 5,000 letters to people who had not received higher educational qualifications but were in occupations where there was a balance of the two sorts of people. That was the sample. I would accept what the noble Lord implies in his second supplementary question. To the noble Lord's third supplementary, about differences in income, I think it might be fair to point out to the House that the preparatory note that is in the article on page xx offered the article
as a contribution to current discussions ".And then at the end of the article, on page xxviii, it said:These purely economic aspects of education arc not necessarily the most important.I am sure that the noble Lord would wish to be fair to the article, and that this balance should be put to the House.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord, may I ask whether he does not agree (I am the last person who would want to stand between an author and publishing an article of a scientific character) that these articles should be published in a scientific journal and not in a Government publication, even if these precautionary tales are told, because obviously wrong conclusions were drawn by The Times and by various other papers from the publication? As to the size of the sample, would the noble Lord think that, for instance, a sample of 5 doctorates of 65 and over is a typical sample of the British population—even of the doctorates?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's three further supplementary questions, it is perfectly true that this article was published in a Government publication. It is also true, as I have already said in answer to the noble Lord's first set of supplementary questions, that the authors asked for informed comment. No one would be better informed than the noble Lord who is asking the questions to-day. I think that everybody, and not least the Department, would welcome it if the noble Lord would care to put his own thoughts into scientific journals so that there could he informed discussion.
587 Secondly, the noble Lord referred to wrong conclusions in general terms. The noble Lord's original Question referred to
the cost inflationary tendency by inciting organised professional bodies to press for increases in salaries and fees.Any noble Lord who looks at the article will see that although it has treated earnings as related to productivity in a general way, it recognised that this relationship is associated with a competitive market and is not valid for single buyer and single seller conditions. It was for this very reason that soldiers, doctors and teachers, for instance, were excluded from the analysis. I would submit to the noble Lord that therefore it precisely does not incite professional bodies to force up salaries and fees for their members. As regards the noble Lord's third supplementary question, on the size of the sample, I have tacitly agreed that the noble Lord has a point here.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, if the noble Lord were asked if the article had any significance, would he not answer: "Scarcely"?
§ LORD BELSTEADNo, my Lords; I should not. The Department's own planning paper, which was published some two and a half to three months ago, referred to the need for informed discussion, which of course the Government very much welcome from noble Lords with special expertise, like the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and I think referred to three limbs on which there might be discussion: the private demand discussion, which of course emanates from Lord Robbins's Report; the return of education expense, which is dealt with in this paper; and manpower planning. Those are three limbs, and I should have thought three important limbs, when looking to the future of higher education.
§ LORD ROBBINSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that some of us who share some, although not all, of the noble Lord's scepticism as regards the conclusions of this paper, nevertheless welcome the appearance in an official publication like Economic Trends of a paper which evokes an exchange of views similar to those which we have had this afternoon?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, is not this survey an example of the way in which the previous Administration wasted the taxpayers' money?
§ LORD BELSTEADNo, my Lords. I am bound to say that as result of my answer to the second lot of supplementary questions I cannot agree with my noble friend.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, since the noble Lord seems to be anxious to engage in discussion—not that I object to long answers, any more than I object to long questions—can he define what is meant by "higher education"? Does it mean that it concerns only people who have been educated at Eton, Harrow or Haileybury, and that all others, including many Members of your Lordships' House, are excluded?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, this was defined in the Department's higher education planning paper, to which I referred earlier, published two and a half months ago, and I should like to refer the noble Lord to the definition in that paper.
VISCOUNT MONCKMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that, in order that these questions should at least end on an uncontroversial note, we should take the opportunity of wishing my noble friend Lord Aberdare many happy returns of the day?