| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, more human rights monitors are needed in both Rwanda and Burundi. I took the opportunity of discussing this matter with Judge Goldstone who was much involved in these matters during the Christmas holiday. A number of us are looking at ways in which such measures could be more speedily and more effectively implemented. There is also a need to train people in Rwanda and Burundi to become human rights monitors so that there is that capacity within those nations which then do not always have to look outside for help with such matters.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Minister refers to non-governmental organisations helping in eastern Zaire; but is there not some urgency in ensuring that there is protection afforded to non-governmental organisations and churches that are operating from other countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that currently there is a problem in Rwanda unless there is information that has not yet come to my notice. The government of Rwanda, while suspicious of the actions of a few, are very supportive of the actions of the majority of non-governmental organisations. There are bandits still about in these places. They do not have the civilised discipline that we enjoy in our society. There will always be risks, but they are quite limited compared to some that NGOs take, very bravely, in many other parts of the world, including Angola, to which I referred a few moments ago.
Student Maintenance: "Top-up" Fees
3.20 p.m.
Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they intend to introduce a loan scheme for student maintenance in order to cover the "top-up" fees which some institutions propose to charge in the 1998-99 academic year.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no current plans to extend the student loans scheme to cover top-up fees. We believe that top-up fees are neither necessary nor desirable, particularly in the light of the 1996 Budget
settlement; and we regret that those higher education institutions which are considering such fees may be prejudging the outcome of the Dearing inquiry.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the amount of concern felt by students, academics and others about reports of activities in the university sector? I refer to statements by the LSE about the introduction of top-up fees and statements about a premier division of universities and colleges. I suggest that all of these reflect a drift in the Government's policy. Assurances need to be given, particularly to young people who plan to go into university education, that they will not take on new unbearable fees. The Minister's action of kicking everything into the long grass of Dearing is not good enough.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's point. I have made it clear, as have other Ministers, on a number of occasions that I see no need for top-up fees, particularly in the present funding context. I am grateful that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has also offered its advice to universities. It has said quite clearly that they ought to defer decisions about any such fees for full-time home undergraduates and to keep open all funding options while the Dearing inquiry is under way. I believe that it would be wrong, as I put it earlier in my original Answer, to prejudge that inquiry.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not the case that two institutions, the London School of Economics and the University of Birmingham, have gone some way towards introducing a scheme for the academic year 1998-99? Can the Minister inform the House how advanced these proposals are and what discussions those institutions have had with his department?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is for the institutions to make these decisions. It is open to them to make such decisions. The noble Lord is right to refer to those two particular institutions. We have made it clear that, particularly in the light of the current funding arrangements and the extra money that we have been able to secure in the recent Budget settlement, we see absolutely no need for such fees. As I said in answer to the first supplementary, I believe that it would be wrong to go down that route in advance of Dearing. We believe that they are trying to prejudge that inquiry.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Government advise the House what legal authority universities have for charging top-up fees? Does that legal authority extend to schools charging top-up fees for education in high schools, possibly after the age of 16?
Lord Henley: My Lords, schools are another matter, but I do not believe that they would have such authority. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter if I am wrong. The universities have such authority because they are private institutions and can make such decisions as they wish.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I declare an interest as a staff member of the London School of
Economics. Does the Minister accept that the most important element in deferring decisions until Dearing comes along is the fact that the Dearing Committee will not report until after the election, and that, sadly, both the Government and the main Opposition party wish to kick the matter into touch? Does the Minister accept that any government are unlikely to find extra funds for universities of the kind that we need to maintain the highest quality higher education?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we make very large amounts of public money available to higher education in this country. The figure made available to higher education is some £7 billion, which represents about 20 per cent. of all the money that is made available by the taxpayer for education. I believe that that is a very significant amount of money. I do not accept that we have kicked higher education into the long grass, as the noble Lord puts it. Over the past few years we have seen dramatic changes to higher education. Higher education has expanded and numbers have doubled and doubled again. We thought it right that some 20 or 30 years after the previous report into higher education there should be another independent inquiry into the whole shape, size, future and structure of that sector. Obviously, one of the matters that Sir Ron will have to address is funding. Following his report, the Government will look very carefully at the recommendations that he makes.
Cyprus
3.25 p.m.
Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their latest assessment of the prospects for a settlement in Cyprus leading to a unification of the island and the withdrawal of Turkish troops.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, 1997 presents an opportunity for a solution to the Cyprus problem on the basis of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. A comprehensive settlement must take account of the genuine security concerns of both communities.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable for a sovereign state, the Republic of Cyprus, to be threatened militarily by Turkey on the basis of the planned purchase of surface-to-air missiles purely for defensive purposes, particularly at a time when Turkey has an overwhelming military superiority both in Northern Cyprus and even more so 40 miles away on the mainland? Further, does the Minister agree that this threat will prejudice the possibility of a settlement of this very difficult issue? Do the Government have any further initiatives in mind to deal with this latest threat to the settlement process in Cyprus?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that when the United Nations Security Council expressed its unanimous concern on 23rd December about the excessive level of military forces and
armaments in Cyprus, including the introduction of sophisticated weaponry, it spoke for everyone. The concern about the build-up of weaponry and forces applies to both sides. The decision by the Government of Cyprus to buy Russian-built SAM 10 missiles was very unwelcome. That increases the risks in an already tense region. That risk has also been increased by the Turkish build-up in the north. But none of this must deter us from our efforts to promote a settlement. Indeed, it underlines for all of us why those efforts are so important. Both sides must calm the situation. We are taking as much action as we can to ensure that that is so. Today, the Foreign Secretary has written to Prime Minister Clerides. We will continue to urge the Turkish Government to resist the impulse to make the bellicose statements that they have made in the past and to respond to all of the recent developments with restraint. That must be the only way to get a dialogue going.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, in these times of extreme tension between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots, would it not be better for the Greek Cypriots' application to the European Union to be postponed until such time as the picture is clearer and they cease to rearm in the alarming way that they have?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a most difficult matter. The prospect of the accession of Cyprus to the European Union is a new opportunity to make progress towards a settlement. We want to see the whole island join on the basis of bi-zonal, bi-communal federation because accession will benefit both communities. We cannot make a political settlement a precondition for accession because that would give one party an effective veto over the other. On the other hand, I do not believe that accession without a comprehensive political settlement in place will come about. But we must ensure the success of the accession negotiations and work on a settlement for Cyprus at the same time.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page