| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the Minister for her careful reply, which made a number of important points. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the points that I made, particularly to my noble friend Lady Perry and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am a little disappointed at the tenor of the debate. I suspect that we are all feeling a shade dyspeptic at this time, and I am a little bewildered at the work of the usual channels in arranging that the lunchtime debate, which is to follow, will take place shortly after 2 p.m., rather than after 1 p.m., which might have been to the convenience of noble Lords. A number of noble Lords who have a close interest in the university world were prominent on various Benches until 12.30 or 12.45, but their absence has become somewhat marked.
I have other disappointments. Having heard a most relevant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, earlier, I thought that I was addressing a matter of principle, and I was highly disappointed that he did not address the principle that I was addressing, although he had a technical question to which it was interesting to hear the answer. I have great respect for the comments of the right reverend Prelate. He is right that when you introduce a threshold, you do come kicking up against it. This is true of all thresholds, and it would certainly be the case with this one. I will refer to that again in a moment. If we are dealing with family income, it always seemed a little unjust that one
13 May 2004 : Column 432
family that may have £500 a year income more than another is saddled with the burdens in this case of student loans, which would not be the case for those under the £15,000 threshold to which I was referring. I agree with the right reverend Prelate, and with my noble friend Lady Seccombe. If we are going to have a threshold, that is the price that you pay.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe asked me a number of questions. It would be my hope that the principle, if applied, would apply in Wales. I did not dare to venture into Scotland, or Northern Ireland, but it should apply also in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I see my noble friend Lady Carnegy looking a shade suspiciously at me, so I will say no more about that, except that I wish that we had a situation in the United Kingdom where we could think of these things in higher education in aggregate. In reply to my noble friend Lady Seccombe, I intend that this provision would apply to courses of longer duration, such as medicine or veterinary science.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me a pertinent question. I am not sure if it is possible to frame the amendment in such a way, as one might wish to do, to see the fee waiver accruing to students of United Kingdom origin. The noble Baroness has a valid point. I remind her, and I remind the Government, that there are many of us who wonder whether that is a chicken that will come home to roost with the Government's arrangements.
I look forward very much to hearing about the recovery schemes which the Government will implement for students of European Union nationality, but not British nationality. I do not know what government agency will operate in Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia or Slovakia, and I will be very interested to hear about that. Although I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has an important point, it is a point that cuts not only into my amendment, but into the Government in general.
I was puzzled by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I have great enthusiasm for the University of Sheffield Hallam, and wish him well in his distinguished role. The intention—which I think I made very clear in my speech—was that these funds would come from the Government. I am not in a position to give a precise figure, but it will be a substantial figure. I could go away and do the calculation, and perhaps I should have done, but we are talking of £100 million from the Treasury to make that possible. The figure will be substantial. The noble Baroness could probably pluck the figure accurately from the air. But the funds would be from the Government; they would not be from the University of Sheffield Hallam. So I was puzzled by the noble Lord's intervention.
The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and those made in a most sympathetic manner by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, really go to the heart of the matter. The question is, what is going to work? I agree with the equitability. I agree that if you look at the situation across the board, it is entirely reasonable that all students of whatever background
13 May 2004 : Column 433
will not be saddled with parental income. We are talking about an ideal world where students are not saddled by where they have come from, nor saddled by the parental background. I agree also with the points about education from 16 to 18. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. If she claims to be speaking for British universities, I am sure that she is. It is not my role to question that, but it is my role to question the wisdom of the position being taken.
If the Government seriously wish to attract students into higher education from the group which I identified very specifically, then they will have to do more than they are now. I agree with the ideal world which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, described. I entirely agree with the equitability. But if you look at those universities—and I am in one—which have been trying consistently for many years to attract students from lower income cohorts in terms of familial income, it is not working. There is nothing which the Director of Fair Access can do other than what he will do, which is, roughly speaking, oblige universities—including the University of Sheffield Hallam if it charges a top-up fee—to make available the bursaries which I have been proposing from their own budgets.
Lord Winston: I hope, as I was named, that the Committee will forgive me for briefly interrupting. We are considering two amendments and it is not clear from the wording that that impost might eventually land on the universities' finances. That will be a disaster for so many universities and that is the real problem with these amendments.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I hope I had dealt with that point and so had the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We foresaw that problem. I take the logic of the point made, but I hope that I have made my own position on the matter very clear. Perhaps at the risk of repetition—I realise that we all would like some lunch soon—I will try to conclude. I have made it crystal clear that my amendment would not be an impost on universities. I am sorry that the amendments have been paired. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose amendment has found support, was able to distinguish his amendment from mine on that matter, so I am sorry that that point may have caused difficulty.
I must come to my conclusion, which is that, despite the ideal world with the principle of equitability, as described by the noble Lord and with which I agree, it will not work. The proof that it will not work is that it has not worked. Until 1998, students had state studentships and their state scholarship component for the maintenance. It did not work in encouraging more applications from low-income families, it is not working now, and it will not work. So I am sorry that the Bill will not succeed in its objectives and I am very disappointed that there have not been more voices on this matter. There are not many people on the Benches opposite, so perhaps not many voices could be expected to be raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, indicates the Conservative Benches. I have had two very stirring speeches of support, although it is true that I could
13 May 2004 : Column 434
have wished to have been more comprehensively supported by my own Front Bench. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Rix—if the pairing can be dissolved—to leave his amendment in position: I will not go into technicalities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House be resumed and in moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before five minutes past three.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Lord Lester of Herne Hill rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to accept the first Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so as to enable individual complaints about breaches of the covenant by the United Kingdom to be considered by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in this brief, but I hope influential, debate. It seeks to discover whether the Government will at long last accept the first Optional Protocol to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That would enable British citizens, like the other citizens of Europe and of the democratic Commonwealth, to complain to the UN Human Rights Committee of breaches of the covenant.
Almost 30 years ago, when I was special adviser to Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, the Foreign Secretary, Tony Crosland, proposed that the UK should ratify the covenant. Whitehall officials were distinctly unenthusiastic, but Tony Crosland, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey and other internationally minded heavyweights in Harold Wilson's Cabinet were sympathetic. A detailed list of reservations was agreed to meet any legitimate concerns of the various home departments, and in May 1976, the covenant was duly ratified.
Most of the covenant's rights and freedoms are also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. To that extent, the covenant adds nothing since victims of breaches have effective remedies in British courts and in the European Court of Human Rights.
But in several important respects, the covenant is wider. For example, under the covenant, the guarantee of equality before the law and non-discrimination is free-standing. The rights of detained persons to humane and dignified treatment is stronger. The rights
13 May 2004 : Column 435
of political participation in the conduct of public affairs and public service are broader than in the European convention.
The Human Rights Committee is the guardian of the covenant. It is a body of high calibre, consisting of 18 eminent jurists. British members have included Dame Rosalyn Higgins, now the British judge on the International Court of Justice, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The current British member is Sir Nigel Rodley. Others include the former Chief Justices of India and Mauritius—Bhagwati and Lallah, as well as one of President Bush's senior legal advisers, Professor Ruth Wedgwood. I think I can say that all the British serving and former members of the committee would support the acceptance of the Optional Protocol. I know that at least two have written to the Government to say so.
The committee may deal with a complaint only after all effective domestic and international remedies have been exhausted. It does not sit in public. It ensures that member states have the fullest opportunity to state their case before making findings and recommendations. Its recommendations are not binding in the way that judgments at the European Court of Human Rights must be complied with. It relies on voluntary compliance. Its opinions are not radical or overly intrusive; they strike a fair balance between individual rights and the general interest. They provide an important source of guidance on civil and political rights and obligations.
Acceptance of the competence of the UN Human Rights Committee is optional. Every member state of the European Union except the United Kingdom has accepted that option, as have the democracies of the rest of the Commonwealth, including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa. Thirty-nine of the 45 countries of the Council of Europe have also done so. The remaining six are Moldova, which is not a member of the United Nations, Andorra, Albania, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Many countries that have accepted the protocol, including those in central and eastern Europe, have incorporated the covenant rights directly into their constitutions or ordinary legislation, but acceptance would not require the United Kingdom to take that step.
The keynote address made by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on 4 July 1997—I emphasise the date—explained that, given the Government's support of human rights, they would not wish limitations on their international commitments to remain unless they were strictly necessary. Seven years ago the noble and learned Lord went on to refer to a review which would include whether to accept the right of individual petition under the covenant and under UN human rights treaties.
When I had the privilege of chairing the United Nations Association 50th Anniversary Committee in 1998, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
13 May 2004 : Column 436
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it placed particular importance on this matter in relation to the Optional Protocol.
In December 2001 the UN Human Rights Committee itself stated that the UK,
again, I emphasise the words "matter of priority"—
"how persons subject to its jurisdiction may be guaranteed effective and consistent protection to the full range of Covenant rights. It should consider, as a priority, accession to the first Optional Protocol".
On 7 March 2002 the Government at last announced a review of the UK's position. That review was meant to report in the spring of last year. In a Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on 21 October 2002, the noble Baroness explained to me that the review was on schedule to report to Ministers by the spring of 2003:
"I would expect to be able to report the outcome shortly thereafter".—[Official Report, 21/10/02; col. WA 75.]
The Written Answer given by her on 6 May 2003 was that,
The Written Answer given on 18 July 2003 by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—who I am glad to see is to reply to this debate, even though I have a certain sympathy for the position in which he finds himself—stated:
"We will report the outcome of the review as soon as reasonably possible".—[Official Report, 18/7/03; col. WA 195.]
We are still awaiting the outcome of that review.
On 8 December 2003, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, I pointed to the fact that we are in unsplendid isolation compared with the rest of Europe and the democratic Commonwealth. The noble and learned Lord undertook to consider the matter. I also wrote to him and to the Foreign Secretary in January of this year, but I have not even received the courtesy of a formal reply. I cannot think of any cogent reason for refusing to take this step, and I would be glad to be told—not in generalities but in the particular—of any legitimate objection which any government department has come up with.
I await the Minister's reply with keen interest in the hope that he will be able to inform the House today that the Government have at last decided to give British citizens the same right of petition to the Human Rights Committee as is enjoyed by the other citizens of Europe and the democratic Commonwealth. That would greatly enhance the credibility of the Government, here and across the world, in supporting the protection of human rights.
I want to make two further points before I finish. The first is that I am delighted to see that our proceedings are enriched by the presence of the former Lord Chancellor, to whom I have just referred. He hinted at this move as long ago as 4 July 1997 in his speech at University College, London, which I commend to the House. Secondly, I have already
13 May 2004 : Column 437
indicated informally to the Minister that I would be perfectly willing to meet all the officials in Whitehall who can think of any possible reason not to take this step, to listen to their objections and seek to reply to them in front of any Minister the noble Lord cares to nominate who can adjudicate on the matter because, with the utmost moderation, I have to say that the present situation is wholly unacceptable.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |