House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Jun 1997 (pt 28)

Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely the Leader of the House has come to the heart of the matter now. I have not recently been an investment banker, but we know that many people are prepared to give up large salaries in order to serve their country as Members of Parliament. I do not think that one should single out the legal profession above all others.

Mrs. Taylor: Nor do I, but when we have an independent recommendation and the person appointed is, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, well qualified to do the job, that person should be paid the rate independently recommended for that job by theSSRB. I feel strongly that, when the SSRB makes recommendations about the salaries of Members of Parliament and of individual Ministers, we should as a general principle act upon them. Otherwise, we would be saying that we as Members of the House should determine those salaries. I think that that would be dangerous.

Sir Patrick Cormack indicated assent.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman agrees on that matter of principle. I assure him that those of us who have been here for several years know that interfering with the principle can only cause hon. Members on both sides of the House many difficulties.

The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who spoke for the Liberals, was uncharacteristically churlish--I must agree with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that that is the appropriate word.

24 Jun 1997 : Column 752

I speak as someone quite well versed in Scottish history, not only because I was born in Scotland but because my father was intent on ensuring that we all knew a good deal of Scottish history. None the less, I would not compare my knowledge of 1745 with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall not go down the route that he suggested and debate whether the office of Solicitor-General is inferior to that of the Lord Advocate. However, I know that he accepts the principle that the SSRB makes recommendations that the House should accept.

It is on the basis of that principle that I recommend the order--not because the salary is one which I have plucked out of the air, or one which I think appropriate for the Solicitor-General, but because it is a matter of principle. The SSRB laid down a comparison, and I think it appropriate that we should stick to it as closely as possible.

I do not want to comment on the personality of the Solicitor-General. My earlier remarks were not personal, and the salary is being suggested because of the position, not because of the personality. None the less, I welcome the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, another Queen's counsel, who tells us that my noble Friend is so well qualified for the position.

Finally, I shall put Opposition Members in the picture on the increase before us. In one sense, it is an increase, but the salary of the Solicitor-General in the Conservative Administration was £82,189 on 1 April 1997, and on 2 May, the last day of the previous Government, it was £96,138. So although there is a technical increase for the present Solicitor-General because he is in another place, the actual sum paid is significantly lower than that paid to the previous Solicitor-General.

Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Lady will, of course, wish to clarify the fact that the previous Solicitor-General, Sir Derek Spencer, was also a Member of Parliament, so part of the figure she mentioned included his salary as such.

Mrs. Taylor: That is exactly the point, and that is why we had to introduce the order. The totality of the pay of the former Solicitor-General was significantly higher than the totality of the pay of the present Solicitor-General, because my noble Friend is in a different House. People who complain as if we were suddenly increasing the salary do not quite understand the situation, that the order arose directly out of the fact that the Solicitor-General is a member of another House, and directly out of the recommendation of the SSRB. I urge the House to accept it.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved,

That the draft Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

24 Jun 1997 : Column 753

Plymouth Ocean Projects Ltd.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Mudie.]

8.56 pm

Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): I wish to bring to the attention of the House a sad and disturbing story of a fine company based in my constituency, responsible for many jobs both locally and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which has been dealt a devastating financial blow through no fault of its own, because of bureaucratic bungling and intransigence of the worst kind.

I shall begin with a summary. The company in question, Plymouth Ocean Projects Ltd., which trades as Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre, is owned by a constituent of mine, David Welsh. It entered into various arrangements in August 1996 with two colleges of further education to train students in diving. All was well until confusion arose between the Further Education Funding Council and the two colleges over whether such courses should be funded. By this time, the training was well in progress and the company carried on the training.

As a result of the confusion, which remains today, the company, although it has incurred all the overheads involved and has continued to train young people for their future careers, has not been paid since November 1996 and is threatened with insolvency. Job losses have already occurred through no fault of the company, and further job losses will occur unless the matter is resolved. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) in his place and I welcome him to his position. My argument tonight is that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene to direct the funding council to confirm that the courses should be funded. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will urge the Minister so to intervene.

It might be helpful if I flesh out the sequence of events in slightly more detail so that the House is aware of the full horror of the circumstances. Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre is the largest diving school in Europe. It has been established for 27 years and has a worldwide reputation for quality. It uses many subcontractors to carry out its training work and, in all, about 300 jobs are directly related to the existence of the company.

Last August, the company entered into a contractual arrangement with South Devon college, based in Torbay, and the Mid-Kent college, based in Chatham, to carry out a series of 10-week courses. The arrangement with South Devon college amounted to 50,000 units of training, and with the Kent college to 100,000 units of training--a substantial investment by the diving centre.

The courses began in August and all went well. Overheads were incurred, staff were paid and students were trained. In November and December 1996, problems began. In correspondence between the Further Education Funding Council and the two colleges, the council intimated that the courses might not be appropriate for funding and that funding might not be forthcoming.

The funding council's attitude was that it was for the principals of the colleges to decide whether to continue the courses. The colleges understandably took the view that they could not possibly pay for the courses unless

24 Jun 1997 : Column 754

they were reimbursed by the funding council, and they were not able to obtain funding from outside the funding council route. Therefore, a stalemate arose and it largely remains today.

The funding council relied on a circular from early 1996 in which, it said, it made it clear that such courses could no longer be funded. The colleges--in my view, rightly--said that the circular made nothing clear and that the situation was extremely confused. The confusion continued from November 1996. From that date, no more payments to the company were made, although it rightly continued to train young students and to honour its contracts. It continued to train to the same high standard. It is now owed the staggering sum of £562,000 as a result of the confusion and the lack of funding by the funding council. It is clear that the company is in a severe financial position.

My constituent began to lobby his then Member of Parliament and the then Government to intervene to break the logjam so that the company could continue to train students and be paid for it. He saw the then Minister in April 1997 and a great deal of correspondence took place. Legal advice was sought and much paperwork generated, but action came there none.

Since the general election, I have been in contact with the Department for Education and Employment, which was waiting for legal advice. I can tell the Minister that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 seems to give him the power to intervene. Section 57(3) states:

"If the Secretary of State is satisfied, either upon complaint by any person interested or otherwise, that--