§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual cost to public funds of Ruskin College, Oxford.
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, a total of £674,100 has been allocated to the college for capital and recurrent expenditure during the 1986–87 academic year. Costs of £365.000 are likely to be incurred on adult education state awards for students studying at Ruskin during the same period.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether she can add to it by indicating whether the Government are satisfied that this is a proper expenditure in the light of recent revelations about the denial of academic freedom in this institution?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, the facts surrounding the issue are in dispute, and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State has sought further clarification of some aspects of the matter. He met representatives of the college on Monday and has also offered Mr. Selbourne the opportunity, to comment on these issues.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships' House to know that we are talking about Mr. David Selbourne. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the contract of employment for academic staff at Ruskin College, in contrast to many other academic institutions, guarantees the freedom of expression of points of view by academic staff? Is it not the case that the college has imposed no disciplinary action of any kind on Mr. Selbourne? Is it not also the case that any attempt at collective action by students to boycott Mr. Selbourne's lectures has been opposed forcefully by the college authorities? In those circumstances, does the noble Baroness consider that there is any strength at all in the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, the Government are always disturbed by any allegations of interference in academic freedom or in freedom of speech. We are committed to supporting freedom of speech, whether for invited speakers or the academic staff who are going about their proper business. However, I understand that Mr. Selbourne has instructed his solicitors to undertake legal proceedings against 1180 Ruskin College. In that case, I do not wish to comment on detailed aspects of the situation, since to do so could be prejudicial to the outcome of any court action.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, public pronouncements have been made by members of the staff of Ruskin College that trade union solidarity and trade union principles must rank as more important than other aspects of freedom? If that turns out to be the case, is it not proper that the trade union movement, rather than the public purse, should support this no doubt very valuable and important institution?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, we are of course aware of the public comment that has been made. We recognise that while the college clearly has strong links with the trade union movement, its aim is to provide courses for liberal adult education which are open to all applicants, and primarily for people from economically and socially disadvantaged areas. That is why the Government have supported the college.
§ Lord MulleyMy Lords, in considering the amount of public money devoted to this college, rather than take an isolated incident should not the noble Baroness and her colleagues reflect on the distinguished history of the college in giving higher education opportunities to many who would not otherwise have had it? The college has produced many distinguished leaders of the nation, including former Members of this noble House.
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, successive governments have recognised that the provision of long-term residential education for adults by such colleges as Ruskin College is a valid and valuable contribution to the range of educational opportunities available for adults in the United Kingdom.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether, particularly in the light of the last supplementary question, any expression of regret for the recent incident has been made by the principal or by the college?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, I understand that the meeting with my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State on Monday constituted a full and frank discussion, but I am not at present able to inform the House of the details.
§ Lord Taylor of GryfeMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the present difficulty will prejudice the Government's support for this distinguished college which has contributed so much, particularly in the important field of industrial relations, to preparing people for responsibilities in that field?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, as I have said, the situation is rather difficult, particularly as we understand that legal proceedings might be about to commence. Perhaps the less said at this stage which might prejudice the outcome of those proceedings, the better.