§ 11.24 a.m.
§ Lord BeloffMy 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 what further steps they are taking to carry out paragraph 84 419 (on student mobility) of the Communiqué of the Melbourne Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers; and what is the composition and mandate of the inter-departmental committee advising the Government on this subject.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I must apologise for the length of this Answer, the reasons for which will become apparent.
We have welcomed the Commonwealth Secretary-General's initiative in taking steps to set up the Standing Committee on Student Mobility and we look forward to co-operating with it. The interdepartmental committee advising the Government on this subject within its general remit to monitor the consequences of the decision to withdraw the subsidy from overseas students' fees consists of officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration, the Department of Education and Science, the Treasury, the Department of Trade, the Department of Industry, the Home Office and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that useful and informative Answer, may I ask him whether he does not consider that recent events have shown the importance to this country of close connection with countries of the Commonwealth? May I further ask him whether or not he is aware that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade have stressed the importance that they attach to a flow of students from Commonwealth countries to these shores? In conclusion, may I ask him whether or not it might be thought that a more sensible way of limiting any excess supply could be found than the blanket and, on the whole, offensive method of discriminatory fees which the Treasury has forced upon the other departments concerned?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I would agree with my noble friend on his first point that, as recent experience has shown, a close connection with the Commonwealth has proved valuable. However, I do not share his criticism of the Treasury. The Treasury is far from being an ogre. They have a difficult job to do in difficult economic circumstances. Recent statistics have shown that we, led by them, are winning the battle against inflation. It has become almost my theme song over the last few weeks that when our economic fortunes have improved sufficiently we shall review with sympathy reductions in budget estimates which we have made since coming into office.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, would not the Government agree that some very influential Commonwealth Governments whose interests have been adversely affected by the recent huge rises in the fees payable by their students here are particularly keen on the initiative which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? And, in any case, is it not highly desirable that at a moment when these Governments are giving us such spendid assistance in connection with the Argentine aggression we should lean over backwards in order to give them as much satisfaction as we possibly can?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, in answering my noble friend's first point, I did say that I agree that close connection with Commonwealth countries is necessary and desirable and has proved its value over the last few months. However, I would stick by the second part of my answer to his supplementary, that all this is dependent upon economic circumstances—as, indeed, is borne out when I tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that we have increased the funds available for awards made under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan to £5 million in 1981–82 compared with £3.8 million in 1980–81. We do have the interests of the student at heart.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that if he agrees—as we all agree with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, then he should at least be prepared to examine the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Those of us who have been involved with the British Commonwealth both in this place and for many a decade in the other place know full well that the faceless moguls in the Treasury play an important part. Much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said I can substantiate with evidence, running over at least a decade and a half, which could be provided to the noble Lord. It is about time, I believe, that we gave our full support to the proposition, in honour of the way in which the British Commonwealth has stood by us in times of stress.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, may I tell the noble Lord—and it will be apparent when he reads my Answer in the Official Report—that the Treasury is a very small part of the inter-departmental committee. I do not expect them to have undue influence.
§ Lord RobbinsMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that it is completely unfair to attack civil servants in this House and that the responsibility for Government decisions always rests on Ministers?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleYes, my Lords, which is why, in replying to the particular line of questioning which is being pursued in your Lordships' House at the moment, I am answering for the Government as a whole.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making statements over the past 14 days emphasising the size of the contingency fund and its ability to meet all demands he can foresee being made upon it? Would it not be better, in the circumstances outlined by his noble friend Lord Beloff, to consider some transfer—perhaps only a minor one—from the contingency fund, for this purpose?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I will certainly bring the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend. However, I would point out that the contingency fund is for emergencies, generally speaking, and not for long standing problems.