---

Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Scheme

It is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Luce, who is much admired in this House and in the Commonwealth. I wholly adopt the various points that he made, particularly in respect of a government contribution to the proposed endowment scheme. Although I adopt all that he has said, that would never stop anyone adding a few additional reflections. The first of them is: what does the decision in March tell one about this country’s commitment to the Commonwealth generally? When I joined the Diplomatic Service in 1960, there was a separate Commonwealth Relations Office. Indeed, a close friend with whom I shared a flat enjoyed said that he was the last PPS of the PUS of the CRO, which confused many people at the time. Since then, due to many other factors, the weight of the Commonwealth in our foreign policy formulation has diminished, and there are a number of pointers that the Commonwealth is today perhaps considered as an afterthought, not as a substantial resource for us and an important tool in our international relations. I know of no other precedent for separating the Commonwealth in this way. I have served on the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for a large number of years. It would be quite inconceivable for the CPA or any other Commonwealth institution to separate the Commonwealth in this way. Relatively small sums were saved; it breached a principle; and the roll call of the alumni, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, is most impressive, hence the welcome increase in DfID funding which followed the upsurge of concern about the decision. My second reflection is: what does the decision tell us about this joined-up Government? We know that the first decision in March was that the scholarships should be abandoned for the developed countries. The second decision, taken in September, was a partial restoration of the scholarships, due to the initiative of another department. Surely, that better solution could have evolved from interdepartmental discussion and debate before the first decision. Was no civil servant or Minister prepared to think creatively before that decision and consult on a co-funding basis with universities, which, as is clear from their response, value the scheme? My third and final reflection is this: it is clear that there is a case for learning lessons, looking at a longer-term funding solution and in the round at scholarship schemes. I know that my noble friend Lord Montgomery was ready to make a contribution about the Chevening scholarships in Latin America, but I make it on his behalf as he is not able to be here now. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, there is a clear need for a fresh commitment from the Government to the international scholarship scheme, a need to look at the range of scholarships and to look at the departmental responsibility for the scholarships in the round, because this exercise shows, if nothing else, the way in which several government departments have been involved. Let there be much greater integration within Whitehall in this most important field. I congratulate yet again the noble Lord.