HL Deb 24 October 1979 vol 402 cc74-5

2.53 p.m.

Lord HATCH of LUSBY

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 why they have dissolved the Advisory Committee for Development Education.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, the decision progressively to reduce financial support for development education in Britain and to disband the advisory committee was taken after the most careful consideration and in the light of our current review of public expenditure. We wish to record our gratitude to the committee for its unstinting work over the past 2½ years.

Lord HATCH of LUSBY

My Lords, would the Minister agree, first, that he has not answered my Question; and, secondly, that this committee has been composed, unlike the notorious Quangos, of distinguished men and women from all over the educational world and elsewhere who have worked unstintingly and without payment for 2½ years and have produced a report of the utmost value to the educational system, both formal and informal, of this country? In those circumstances, why is this committee to be closed down?

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, if we decide, as we have done, progressively to run down our programme of development education, then the advisory committee on that subject must clearly be reconsidered, too.

Lord HATCH of LUSBY

But surely, my Lords, the committee that has been sitting is not dependent simply on spending money. It has been advising the educational system of this country. Is the Minister aware that Norway and the Netherlands spend 30 times as much per capita on development education as this country, and that Sweden spends 50 times as much per capita? Has the Minister read the Schlackman Report? If he is to close down this committee, what will he put in its place in order to introduce the world concepts which are needed in our educational system now that the committee is no longer allowed to do the work which it still wishes to do?

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord quite understood my original Answer, or per haps the answer to his first supplementary. I said that we had decided progressively to run down our programme of development education. The advisory committee on that subject, of which the noble Lord was, of course, one of the distinguished members, has among its tasks the job of deciding where to direct the funds available to that programme. If these funds are being withdrawn, then clearly a major part of the task of the committee must be reviewed, and that is what we have done.