| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his opening comments. I will indeed convey those congratulations. Indeed, I hope that he will have an opportunity to do that himself when he is present with others at the launch of the application.
On his further points, he will know that it was decided that there should be a Treasury take of 12 per cent on the National Lottery under his government, in 1994. It was intended to be revenue neutral—to compensate the Exchequer for the loss of revenue from other taxable activities from which lottery money had been diverted.
On the point about the start of the specific Olympic lottery, he will know that the International Olympic Committee does not permit a lottery of this kind for the benefit of the bid to be started before a candidate has been chosen.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister assure us on behalf of the Government that the whole of Whitehall—indeed, the whole of the London government structure—is fully co-ordinated and involved in preparing for this bid? Furthermore, will he assure us that he will study the process as it proceeds so that we can build a model for future cross-government and local government co-operation that could be used for any future bids for games or cultural events? That would ensure that we would have another substantial gain from the process of bidding for the Olympics.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give the assurance that there has been a cross-Whitehall group to provide advice and assistance to London 2012.
However, I can go further—there have been a series of meetings between senior representatives of the Government, the Mayor of London, the British Olympic Association and London 2012. This has been an example of good co-operation. Developing a model for the future is certainly an interesting idea. However, it is our intention to win this application and not to have to enter another Olympic application for several years after 2012.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I return to the Answer that the Minister kindly gave me, and ask him to reconsider both answers. First, with a hypothecated game, which requires separate primary legislation, as the legislation is going through another place and will come to this House, would he not agree that it is perfectly possible to ensure that the tax take goes directly to the games? Indeed, our Benches would support that if an amendment to the Bill were tabled. We believe that it is essential, and that the public who bought tickets would wish that to be the case.
Secondly, we will be calling for a game to be launched this summer, at the time of the Athens games, under the legislation that the Government are bringing to Parliament. Does the Minister accept that, as long as the game is not exclusively for the purposes of the London 2012 bid but is for Olympic sports and disabled sporting organisations, it can be launched at the time of the Athens Olympics this summer with the full backing of the IOC?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am tempted to give the same answers to the same questions. On the issue of the Treasury take, it ought to be said that it would be a difficult precedent to sustain if we were to say that one section of the good causes that benefit from the lottery should be affected by the 12 per cent Treasury take and other parts should not. There would be a good deal of indignation on that score.
The same answer applies to the noble Lord's second question. I believe that he is saying that we might start to collect money for Olympic-related purposes, and I agree with him that the International Olympic Committee would probably accept that interpretation. However, what would happen if we did not win, for example? What would be the reaction of those who expect to benefit from the other good causes, which have a good deal of support in this House and in the country?
Medical Schools: Professorial Vacancies
11.21 a.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the University of Wales College of Medicine.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many professorial appointments are currently vacant in United Kingdom medical schools.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government do not collect the information that the noble Lord has requested. However, we are aware that the Council of Heads of Medical Schools is undertaking a UK-wide survey of the number of posts and vacancies, which will be published soon.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will know the outcome of that survey, which shows 84 vacancies among professorships in medical schools in the UK. He will also be aware of the recent report in the Times that medical schools are short of some 80 professors. That is the equivalent of one in 10 of the professorships in the 24 British medical schools. The percentage of vacancies among senior lecturers and so on is even higher. What is the explanation for that? How do the Government account for those vacancies, and what will be the effect on the training of medical students who have increased by substantial numbers since 1998?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have officially the information that the noble Lord has cited. The council carrying out the survey is an independent body, and it is for the council to put the information in the public arena. I understand that the figure that he has cited has some familiarity to me, but it is not the formal figure that the council has put in the public arena.
It is worth reminding the noble Lord that, as he said, the medical school student intake has risen from just over 5,000 in 1997–98 to more than 6,700 in 2002–03. The money for that has come from the Higher Education Funding Council. When institutions have bid for that money to increase their student intake, they have all given assurances that they can recruit the staff necessary to carry out their obligations.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, is not the problem a reflection of the fact that clinical academic medicine is no longer such an attractive proposition, and that for many it is becoming very unattractive? Is it not also the case that the report from the Academy of Medical Sciences, of which I happen to be vice-president, will go some way to remedying some of those problems, if the proposals are taken up?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There have been some long-standing problems with regard to clinical medicine but, under this Government, the National Clinician Scientist Award Scheme was introduced in response to the Saville report to tackle disincentives in this area. Sixty-five awards have been made on a five-year personal basis to stimulate recruitment in this area.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, how will the new fee arrangements proposed by the Government affect medical students? Given that clinical medicine is no longer such an attractive profession and that the
report in the Times indicated that the problem arises because clinical academics are moving into work for the NHS, surely the problem will be exacerbated if students have accumulated a very large debt over the many years that they have to train.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government's position on the future of higher education is set out in the White Paper and will be pursued through the Higher Education Bill. Department of Health Ministers have made it clear that they will, if necessary, take measures to ensure that any increase in the level of tuition fees will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students undertaking medical training.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the Government gave an assurance that they would ensure parity between clinical academics and NHS consultant posts. How far have they got with that?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand that there is parity. It is worth bearing in mind that the BMA announced, on 12 January, that an overall majority of clinical academics voted for the new contract for consultants.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how much a professor of medicine gets paid? Could he tell us how much the Government supply to individuals to bring them up and to make them take the appointment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, those are matters for individual universities. I shall make some inquiries about the average figure and write to the noble Lord.
Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
11.27 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a professional interest as co-counsel acting pro bono for 175 Members of both our Houses in an amicus role before the American Supreme Court.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what position they intend to adopt in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of the United States by British citizens detained in Guantanamo Bay to protect their basic civil rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the pending proceedings in the United States Supreme Court concern the jurisdiction of the United States civil courts in relation to Guantanamo detainees, not their rights to a fair trial. The question of their civil rights that arises relates to their right to be heard before an American civil court. The Government do not wish to
prejudice discussions between ourselves and the United States in relation to the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay. We are keeping the matter under review.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |