Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. I reassure him that the
Higher Education Funding Council is well aware of potential adjustments in provision in higher education and is taking due account of that and providing the resources necessary to ensure that that takes place smoothly. What we seek to achieve is an increase in participation in foreign languages post-16 because it is in the approach to A-level that students prepare themselves for their higher education courses. There is nothing in these proposals which will do anything other than enhance opportunities post-16.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, how is it that schools everywhere in Europe manage to teach children a foreign language from the age of eight or nine? Why is it that Her Majesty's Government are not able to provide that service?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise one obvious fact; namely, that the one foreign language which is universally taught in European schools is English. The status of English on the world stage is such that schools in European countries concentrate on teaching it to pupils at an early age. However, we are learning that lesson. We recognise that if our students are ill prepared in terms of competence in a second language, they cannot play their role within the European Community and grasp opportunities within Europe as well as they might. That is why the noble Lord will recognise the value of our following the example he just indicated of concentrating resources to ensure that our students enjoy the opportunity of foreign language study at an early age in junior schools.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the proposals in the Green Paper go forward, although the learning of a foreign language will not be compulsory in key stage 4, every 14 year-old who wants to continue learning a foreign language will nevertheless have the opportunity to do so?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that very important point. I emphasise the obvious fact that we intend to ensure that all students who show an aptitude for foreign languages and who wish to pursue such studies in school should enjoy those opportunities. We are merely recognising that for some students foreign languages are not their métier. They currently vote with their feet by withdrawing from foreign language classes. We seek to concentrate the curriculum for those aged 14 to 16 on key skills, allied to choice for students. Those who choose foreign languages will of course enjoy full opportunities.
Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the implications of the break-in at Castlereagh police station in Northern Ireland and the theft of classified information; and what steps they are taking to prevent a reoccurrence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this was a most serious incident. The Government are determined that the facts should be established as quickly as possible and that all necessary remedial action is taken. The Secretary of State very promptly established a review of the incident to be conducted by the former Permanent Under-Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office, Sir John Chilcot, and the former Inspector of Constabulary, Mr Colin Smith, who will act as an assessor. This will run in parallel with the criminal investigation conducted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The terms of reference of the review have been placed in the Library.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. When is it expected that Sir John Chilcot will reach his conclusions on the matter? Why are so many papersI have asked questions about this previouslyseemingly so easily purloined time and again in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the blatant theft from one state agency by another makes it extremely difficult to condemn the equally illegal activities of others in Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot say when Sir John will report. It would be improper to speculate. We want a full, in-depth and detailed investigation. The noble Lord said that the documents were easily purloined. That is one of the points that Sir John will have to investigate. We need to wait for his informed conclusions. The noble Lord spoke of theft by one state agency of documents belonging to another state agency. There is no proof or evidence of that. We must see what Sir John's conclusions are before we jump to hasty, sometimes dangerous and very often unfair conclusions.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, many people are concerned about the cost of inquiries in Northern Ireland. For example, the Bloody Sunday inquiry cost an estimated £200 million. While we are discussing this serious matter, I ask why it is necessary to have three inquiries instead of one.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the ombudsman for Northern Ireland is not presently continuing her investigation. I believe that the Secretary of State was absolutely right and that noble Lords would have been most displeased if no immediate inquiry had been ordered. That inquiry is into the general matters that are contained in the terms of reference, which are: how unauthorised access was gained; the extent of any damage to national security; the adequacy of actions subsequently taken to mitigate any damage; how to prevent unauthorised access there and in similar buildings elsewhere in Northern Ireland; and whether there are any wider lessons to be learned. None of those matters would be comprehended properly in a police investigation. Therefore, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is rightly investigating allegations of crime and Sir John is rightly investigating the matters that I have detailed.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House recognise that
the remarks that he has just madethey were to the effect that it is desirable to wait until reports have been received before one leaps to conclusionsbear some resemblance to the arguments that were advanced by the rest of the House yesterday on the Animal Health Bill but which were rejected by the Government? Would he like to explain why on one day it is not desirable to wait until reports are received before rushing into action but on the next day it is necessary to do so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because the two situations are entirely dissimilar.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: And, my Lords, yesterday was yesterday!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thought that it would be helpful if I drew the attention of the House to the change of business on tomorrow's Order Paper. Since we cannot now proceed with the Committee stage of the Animal Health Bill, for reasons known to noble Lords, the Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill has been tabled in its place. Since it has not been possible to give longer notice of the change of business, I have asked that, exceptionally, the speakers' list should be kept open until 10 a.m. in order to give noble Lords the greatest possible chance of putting their name down to speak. The House will, of course, sit at 11 a.m. tomorrow.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I protest at the Government's shamefulI use that word with a heavy heartdecision late last night to bring forward the Second Reading debate on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill to tomorrow. This morning I went to see the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I have to saywith equal regretthat it was not a pleasant meeting. Indeed, it was almost like having an interview without coffee.
The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, when implemented, will bring about wide-ranging changes to the Province's criminal justice system. It is a Bill of 92 clauses and 13 schedules. However, when it was debated in another place, the Government failed to provide for discussion on more than 30 clauses. That is why the debate in your Lordships' House is so important. It is also why we should have been given longer than the mere 24 hours that we now have to prepare for the Second Reading debate.
As a result of a longstanding commitment, I am unable to be present tomorrow; so, too, are almost all of my Northern Ireland colleagues. I hope that the
Government will reflect on their handling of this episode and, most importantly, ensure that it does not happen again.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Bill will have far-reaching consequences for all of the people in Northern Ireland? It will change the whole legal system that has been there since 1922. During its passage through the other place, some very controversial issues were raised. There will be bitter resentment throughout Northern IrelandI express it on behalf of those whom I seek to representat this blatant attempt by the House to prevent discussion on this most important of Bills, which arose from the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I am an Ulster Unionist Member who did not vote against the Government yesterday. I understand that the Chief Whip has decided that the Bill will now be rushed through tomorrow because some Ulster Unionist Members did vote against the Government.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page