|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that total crime, not violent crime, had begun to drop before the present Home Secretary began the disastrous regime which has recently been denounced by five former Conservative Home Office Ministers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would claim personal credit for the fall in crime. However, the fall in crime happily coincides with his term of office. I believe that the Home Secretary takes very seriously the prevention of crime and dealing in a more effective way with criminals. He has placed at the front of his policy-making the protection of the community.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that I also agree that unemployment is not an excuse for crime? I was not in the least raising that issue. I was reflecting on the fact that the Home Office had a good research unit and was asking what research was taking place into the relationship between unemployment and crime. It involved no feeling one way or the other. I have not had an answer as to whether or not research is going on.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I appreciate the seriousness of the point that the noble Baroness makes. The personal comments I made were no reflection on the noble Baroness. I am not able to give a sufficient answer because I am not aware of any scientific research that has been done in that respect. However, I believe that the more we go on looking for a correlation between unemployment and crime will we continue to create the perception that somehow or other, because people are unemployed, they have a licence to commit crime or it is easier to commit crime. We do not subscribe to that view.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what is the clear-up rate in terms of theft of motor cars and property from motor cars? That seems relevant in the light of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not as good as it should be, and more work is being done on that. I believe that it is about 15 per cent. It is different from the theft of cars where the figure is rather lower. The police are targeting more and more on reducing
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we sought to reflect a broad balance of interests in higher education while keeping the committee to a manageable size. Members have been drawn from a range of institutions which provide higher education across the United Kingdom and also from those who benefit from higher education, whether as students, employers of graduates or users or research.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a prime consideration should have been that the committee had the confidence of the whole university community? Is he aware that, alas, the selection does not come up to that criterion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept what my noble friend has said. We have seen relatively little criticism. I accept that there have been a couple of letters in The Times commenting on the appointments, but I believe that the committee and its composition have been broadly welcomed. I say to those who object to the appointment of some of those on the committee that it was open to them to put forward their own suggestions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the vast size and importance of the faculties of arts and social sciences and humanities in the universities, and given indeed the inherent importance of the humanities in our national cultural life, which appears to be recognised in the terms of reference of Dearing, would not the Minister agree that the excellent credentials of those who will be speaking for industry and science on the Dearing Committee might be matched by equal excellence on the part of those speaking for the humanities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no plans to appoint any further members to the committee. I should remind the House that there are several members with backgrounds in the humanities and social sciences. It is also open to the committee itself to take evidence from individuals or representatives of certain sectors. It will also be open to the committee, should it so wish, to co-opt members on to the committee or on to sub-committees.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should remind the noble Lord that the review is not into further education but into higher education. It is therefore that sector, the representatives of that sector and those who will be making use of that sector who we believe should be represented.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever else they have done the criteria have created a committee with powerful expertise in financial planning, and that university funding is now a matter of the utmost urgency? Does he further agree that the Robbins Committee took three years to report upon a much smaller and simpler constituency, and that the Dearing Committee must not be rushed if its report is to have comparable authority and weight? If he does, would it not be wiser now to defer cuts in capital expenditure until after the general election, and ask the Dearing Committee, as a matter of urgency, for an interim report on funding in the summer of 1997, and a full report thereafter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. Perhaps I may remind him that we spend well over £7 billion on higher education throughout the UK. Over 20 per cent. of the budget is spent on education throughout the country. That is a significant amount of money. It is also a large amount of money considering all the priorities that exist in the educational world. We also believe that it will be possible for Sir Ron and his committee, if they pursue the appropriate methods, to report by next summer. That is what we hope they will do, and what I believe that we on this side and the noble Lord and his party would welcome.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, given that the Dearing Committee can trigger major new expenditure in higher education, in which case it needs, above all, the confidence of the Government, or invite the whole community of higher education to engage in a process of reform, in which case it needs credibility within that community, and given the criterion for which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked, which was to place more emphasis on confidence in government than on credibility within higher education, may we assume that there will be a massive increase in the resources made available as a result of the Dearing Committee report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret to say that I think that the noble Lord's logic is somewhat tortured. It may be that Sir Ron and his committee will make recommendations that require extra new expenditure, but I have to remind the noble Lord that it will be the Government of the day--I believe that that will be a Conservative Government--who will make the
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Beloff, is it not more important that Dearing 3, as I believe it is known, should command the confidence of the whole country rather than, if necessary, the confidence of the university sector, especially for those of us who are beginning to wonder whether there is any system of quality control at all in higher education?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the dangers of the committee being seen to be a mere cosy collection of academics. That is why we wanted to ensure that the committee represented not just higher education but, as I said, those who benefit from higher education--the students, those who will later employ students and users of the research from the universities.