HC Deb 15 November 1982 vol 32 cc122-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

11.3 pm

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

The headline, "The FO: soft soap but no hard sell" appeared above a powerful article by Lord Beloff in The Times on 25 October on the projection of Britain abroad. The article began: It is by now common knowledge that the Academic Council of Wilton Park, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussion centre, is at odds with the FCO about the effect of the economies imposed on it in the latest round of cuts. It is the view of the council that the scale and nature of these cuts makes it impossible to underwrite the quality of an institution which has won respect and admiration throughout the western world and beyond.

On 29 October a letter supporting this view from the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University of Surrey also appeared in The Times. The letter concluded that it is particularly serious that the economies proposed by the FCO for Wilton Park represent a serious threat to that institution's standards. Wilton Park has succeeded in combining objectivity with academic excellence to a high degree, and it is this mix which has created its unique reputation and which has served the country so well over the years. The FCO should think again before it is too late.

This letter was followed by another on 3 November from Sir Peter Tennant, acting chairman, Wilton Park academic council, one on 8 November from Professor Hugh Seton-Watson and one on 9 November from Professor Agnes Headlan-Morley.

Therefore, I have chosen Wilton Park for my fifteenth Adjournment debate to give the House a chance to hear the Minister's reply to these fears raised by five distinguished academics and their many supporters. Wilton Park is near Steyning in West Sussex. It has been used for international conferences since 1951. The conferences are a British contribution to the promotion of greater understanding between the world's democratic societies.

Since 1957 more than 6,000 participants have attended from 25 countries. Among speakers and participants have been Helmut Schmidt, Bruno Kreisky and Leo Tindemans.

Mr. Chris Patten (Bath)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, but it should be emphasised, that at the summit in Bonn in 1981, Helmut Schmidt and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister specifically, and properly, commended the work done at Wilton Park.

Mr. Townsend

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the academic council.

Our EEC partners were promised that the merger of the European discussion centre with Wilton Park earlier in the year would not diminish our commitment to the Community.

Much of the success of Wilton Park has been due to the knowledge of the participants that, although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides the overwhelming share of the budget, Wilton Park is run on the basis of academic freedom. Wilton Park has not been seen as the mouthpiece of the British Government of the day. This independence has made an essential contribution in attracting for more than 30 years men and women for whom official inspired discussions would have little or no appeal. I regret to inform the House that this self-denying ordinance by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has become less obvious in recent months. It cannot be right that an old and tried British tradition should give way to what has become a form of direct rule. Civil servants, however capable they may be, should not become the managers of Wilton Park—that is the task of the director and his staff.

The academic council, which is composed of eminent representatives from the British political scene, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), managerial, trade union and academic worlds, agreed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office earlier this year on an inspection and review of the centre. Wisely, such inspections are undertaken from time to time to ensure the efficiency of the management and the containment of costs. The annual cost of the centre is just under £500,000 or 0.1 per cent. of the Foreign Office budget.

The Foreign Office, no doubt under instructions from the Treasury, sought massive cuts. The advisory council warned that this might seriously endanger the whole operation. The inspector, who by all accounts had behaved questionably throughout, then recommended a lower percentage. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office agreed with the centre that this was throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office then countered with a compromise of 30 per cent., which is being implemented. The majority of the council is of the considered opinion that this will undermine the centres academic freedom and condemn it to a slow but sure decline. Two particular and highly damaging decisions have been made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. First, it decided, wrongly, to downgrade the post of the director. Ministers concluded that the job belonged rather more in grade four than in grade three. As the post is a contract post, the director has reduced pension rights, and he is not provided with accommodation. Secondly, it has reduced the academic staff from five to four at a time when, in the view of those directly concerned, the burden of work is being increased.

I shall keep my remarks short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow time for others to take part in the debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) who has Wilton Park in his constituency.

The Times today published a letter from Lord Belstead. Naturally, the academic council would agree with most of the sentiments expressed. However, it is surprised by the presentation of figures. The Foreign Office suggested that it was achieving a saving of 30 per cent. Now that has been halved to 15 per cent. The council agreed to the merger of the European discussion centre with Wilton Park at a saving of 6.66 per cent., and a saving of 7.95 per cent. from fees for outside conferences. The council disagreed with the downgrading of the director's post at a saving of a miserable 0.43 per cent. and a reduction of the academic staff from five to four at a saving of 4.3 per cent. Those last two decisions appear to me and many others to be a downgrading of the centre itself.

What is the point of assuring the centre of its future with a seven-year lease if its reputation is to be undermined in that clumsy way? The sum of money involved is an unbelievable £23,000. I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to reply to the debate. Why has he allowed this crazy row to simmer for so many months for such a paltry sum? The row has been of sufficient importance for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, to carry out an investigation.

I hope that our brief debate at this late hour will help towards a settlement of the dispute that is satisfactory to all parties. I hope that the Foreign Office and the Treasury will see it as a marker for when they consider the future financing of the centre.

The Government are proud of Britain's increased international importance, especially on East-West issues. I recall their success in settling the Rhodesian issue that was a sore for so long. Why, then, do they allow so much effective international work done by Britain to be undermined by shortsighted and penny-pinching attitudes to overseas students fees, overseas aid, external broadcasting, the British Council and information offices overseas. I shall do my best to keep Wilton Park off the blacklist. It represents what this country does so well and it helps to explain why Britain's influence is still so great.

11.12 pm
Mr. Richard Luce (Shoreham)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on his good fortune in obtaining this debate on the future of Wilton Park. He has recently become a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and shows a great interest in this important subject. I warmly welcome that.

Wilton Park is in the heart of my constituency. It has made a distinctive contribution to the greater international understanding of the United Kingdom and international relations as a whole since the war. As the House knows, Wilton Park was at first an Anglo-German conference centre. The late Sir Heinz Koeppler was its distinguished founder and its first warden, until only five or six years ago. He has been succeeded by another able director, Mr. Tim Slack. The centre is supported by a distinguished council.

Today, Wilton Park is broadened to incorporate the members of the OECD. It considers a wide range of international problems, especially focusing on the United Kingdom. It has a high reputation—as anyone who has travelled abroad will bear witness. It is difficult to quantify these matters, but Wilton Park is irreplaceable. Now, more than ever, there is an international requirement for a dialogue and a cross-fertilisation of views across the international spectrum. The support for the centre is strong not only abroad, but at home. The number of my hon. Friends present here tonight is a clear sign of that.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given his renewed assurance that the Foreign Office and the Government would like to see Wilton Park continue. They have demonstrated this by renewing the lease for seven years. That is a renewed sign of confidence and gives some assurance for the long term. However, my hon. Friend has put his finger on two aspects of the cost-cutting exercise that should be taken seriously. If they are pursued, I believe that they will seriously damage the prospects of Wilton Park making, and continuing to make, a distinguished contribution. As for the grading of the director, I have always believed that the graded director should be decoupled from the Foreign Office system. There is no point in having him graded with ambassadors. It is a distinctive post and it should be treated as such. It is the council's view that the Government's proposals will damage Wilton Park, and we must take its views seriously. There is everything to be said for examining closely the longer term methods of finance and whether there might be alternatives. In the meantime, Wilton Park is a priceless asset, and a compromise must be found to ensure that it is preserved. I hope that my hon. Friends will be able to find a way through this final stage.

11.17 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

First, I have no constituency interest and, secondly, I am not a member of the Academic Council of Wilton Park. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) knows, I have had some doubts about the direction of Wilton Park. I have also had doubts about the value by themselves of international conferences. However, Wilton park, in my experience, is one of the most important facilities for international dialogue in the United Kingdom. The need for such centres is greater than ever before, Wilton Park was important when it started as the Anglo-German centre. Since then it has developed and is now of greater and wider importance. I appreciate the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Foreign Office, and I understand the problems that confront the Government, but I support my hon. Friends in urging a reconsideration of the decision that has been taken.

11.18 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Each year I go to the United States to speak to numerous audiences whose members are engaged in politics, business, industry and academia. I find that Wilton Park is admired and appreciated everywhere. The Foreign Office and the academic council are separated by the equivalent of the salary of one assistant secretary in the Foreign Office. That is perhaps £23,000 a year.

I tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that that sum can be raised, and would be raised, from the private sector and from our friends in the United States and Germany if only the Foreign Office would allow the academic council time to bring it about. The academic independence and the international stature of Wilton Park would be the greater if it were not wholly dependent upon the State and if it were a beneficiary of funds from the private sector and its admirers in Europe and the United States.

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is now studying this matter and it will arrive at a conclusion. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give enough time for the Committee to arrive at a conclusion and to give the trustees of Wilton Park enough time to see whether they can put forward a convincing programme to match the money from private and international sources.

11.19 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and to my other hon. Friends who have spoken on this subject. Their presence in the Chamber shows their concern for the future of Wilton Park. I am pleased to be able to use this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's faith in Wilton Park and to set the record straight in the light of some alarmist letters to the press, some of which were quoted by my hon. Friend.

The Government recognise the great value of the Wilton Park conferences, which are a British contribution to the creation of informed international public opinion. They help to promote an understanding of British and overseas institutions and attitudes. No other Government operate such a conference centre. Our purpose has been to provide Wilton Park with an assured future on a cost-effective basis. We believe that our recent decisions will ensure its continued success.

The Government's policy is that all public expenditure must be continually reviewed, both to cut out waste and to secure value for money. The House and its officers have taken an interest in the funding of the centre.

In his report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accounts for 1980–81, published last January, the Comptroller and Auditor General asked whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was satisfied that the benefits of the centre were commensurate with the substantial net cost of nearly £500,000. The Public Accounts Committee, in addition, has asked whether there is scope for staff reductions. Moreover, the lease of the premises at Wiston House expires next March. Before renewing it, we naturally wanted to be satisfied that all ways of lowering costs and improving efficiency had been thoroughly explored.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers therefore commissioned a comprehensive review of the Wiston House operations. That was carried out by a senior Diplomatic Service officer with the assistance of a qualified chartered accountant and a firm of management consultants. The review concluded that the Wilton Park conferences were a unique and successful information activity and that any move from Wiston House would risk damaging their effectiveness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) mentioned, as a demonstration of our confidence we have decided to renew the lease for a further seven years, as compared with the previous lease of five years.

The review also recommended that we should use Wiston House more fully and seek increased revenue from 16 weeks of outside conferences per year in addition to a pattern of 14 one-week Wilton Park conferences and 12 weeks of Foreign and Commonwealth Office training department courses. The reviewer also proposed that a new post of assistant bursar be created to strengthen the administration and that about £55,000 be spent on improving bedroom facilities and office equipment. That is being done.

We have accepted most, but not all, of the reviews proposals for economies. We took account of several helpful amendments suggested by the director of Wiston House and by the Wilton Park academic council. Perhaps the most important point that I can mention is that the original recommendation to abolish the post of deputy director was not accepted by the Government.

Therefore, a number of suggestions have either been amended or accepted after consultation. After much discussion, the academic council has agreed with most of our proposals. Those can be summarised as a net reduction of four in the previous staff of 36 and an expected overall saving of nearly 30 per cent. of the total running costs. I shall explain what that means in practice.

The council would have preferred the saving to be a total of 25 per cent. However, the Government concluded that it should be 30 per cent. However, the net reduction in current resources is only 15 per cent. as 7 per cent. of the saving has already been achieved by the merger of Wilton Park and the European discussion centre last January. A further 8 per cent. should come from additional revenue from the extra outside conferences.

I hope that my hon. Friends will agree with this. It is fair to say that there remain no more than two real points of substance that separate the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from the academic council of Wilton Park. The first is whether five or four "academic staff" are needed to organise the 14 weeks of Wilton Park conferences, totalling 75 nights a year. The council would like the staff to participate also in some of the outside conferences but in the view of the Government and the Department their work should be confined to Wilton Park conferences only.

The second difference concerns our proposal that the director's grade should revert to that held by Wilton Park's distinguished founder, Sir Heinz Koeppler, until 1973. We have thought about that very carefully against the background of Government policy on Civil Service manpower. We have invited the director to continue when his present five-year contract ends next May and have made special arrangements to ensure that his existing salary level should continue on a mark-time basis.

If it is being suggested by the academic council that the downgrading of the director's post is unreasonable and an intrusion into the opportunities for the centre, one is entitled to put two points. The first is the point that I have emphasised, that Sir Heinz Koeppler had a lower grading until 1973.

Secondly, the grading that is proposed is exactly the same as that held at present by no fewer than 20 of our ambassadors, and is entirely commensurate with the responsibilities that the director of Wilton Park should normally assume and exercise. There has been no change in the Government's view on the status of Wilton Park.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

It is downgraded.

Mr. Rifkind

I cannot accept that it has been downgraded if by that my hon. Friend means that Wilton Park and its staff will carry out their tasks with less emphasis and success than they have been accustomed to in the past. If the grading is the same as Sir Heinz Koeppler had throughout his tenure of office until 1973, I fail to see how that can be suggested to be an attack on Wilton Park's ability to carry out its task.

Mr. Chris Patten (Bath)

My hon. Friend must accept that, if words mean anything, the Government are downgrading the importance of Wilton Park, the director's position, and so on, for £23,000—a piddling sum of money. The best way in which the Government can show their interest in Wilton Park is by reaching that compromise with the Wilton Park academic council which has been reasonable throughout.

Mr. Rifkind

The Government can claim to have sought to compromise. The original proposals for economies that were put to the Government involved overall reductions in expenditure of substantially greater sums than have been agreed. A number of proposals put to the Government by the review have not been accepted, and I have mentioned the deputy director's post which is perhaps the most significant. The original review recommended that that post should be scrapped and the Government, after careful thought and consultation with Wilton Park, decided that that would not be an appropriate saving to make; and for that reason that advice was not accepted.

The original review recommended savings totalling £203,000. The final decision is for savings of £140,000. Half of that comes from the merger of the European discussion centre and the extra revenue from outside conferences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) is correct to say that the downgrading of the director affects his status, but he is not correct in saying that it downgrades the value of Wilton Park. If the downgrading is to the level held by Sir Heinz Koeppler—it in no way inhibited his ability to manage the affairs of the conference centre in an effective and successful way—it does a disservice to Wilton Park to suggest that that will create somehow significant problems for Wilton Park or its ability to continue with the work it seeks to do.

There has been no change in the Government's view on the status of Wilton Park, to which we continue to attach the highest importance. That status is established in the eyes of the people who come to Wilton Park by the personal quality of the director and his staff and the prestige of the institution. We have no wish to interfere with the director's autonomy in the choice of conference themes, speakers and participants, nor with Wilton Park's renowned academic freedom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath quoted from various letters which implied that the academic freedom of Wilton Park would be somehow inhibited by the changes. I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any substance in that claim.

Mr. Townsend

I learned today that the centre has been told that it cannot produce its twice-yearly journal because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks that that would be wrong. Surely that is just the sort of decision that should be left to the director and his staff?

Mr. Rifkind

I have no doubt that, if the director could show that within the sums available it was possible to continue to produce that journal and make savings elsewhere, that is a matter that should be given careful consideration. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that in order to preserve academic freedom one has to provide resources according to what the conference centre suggests is appropriate, that cannot be the basis on which any Government would act.

The former director, Sir Heinz Koeppler, in his twenty-fifth anniversary speech spoke of the status of Wilton Park: So far as administration and finance are concerned, the warden is just like any other head of a Foreign Office department. On the academic staff side, however, the warden enjoys independence and freedom. That is exactly the Government's approach. Contrary to what is implied in some of the letters in the press and what has been said tonight, nothing that we propose will limit or inhibit the academic freedom of the director or his academic staff to determine the content of courses and other matters relevant to the concept or reality of academic freedom.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

What about time?

Mr. Rifkind

I shall put my hon. Friend's point to the Minister of State who is directly responsible for such matters. I cannot go beyond that. The differences between the Department and the council are small, as my hon. Friends have conceded. They relate to one staff post and the grading of another. It is difficult to argue, whether the Department is right or wrong, that they amount to a massive onslaught on academic freedom or endanger the council's future. Critics of the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that the differences are minor, would involve little extra cost and are so minimal that the Government should give way but that if the Government do not change their proposals Wilton Park's future is in danger. The future of few institutions would depend on the grading of the director and one other member of the academic staff.

We believe that our proposals following the review will put the excellent institution on a sound economic basis for continuing and expanding its remarkable activities in the promotion of international understanding and enlightenment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.