NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATION)

HC Deb 20 June 1978 vol 952 cc413-27

1.34 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter)

I beg to move, That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved. This draft order makes several amendments to the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which is the main legislation relating to education in Northern Ireland, and amends the Ulster College Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1973. Since many of the proposals are minor I intend to draw attention to only a number of the more significant provisions.

Article 5 proposes some revision and simplification of the development scheme procedure, which is the statutory mechanism for publicising proposals for new schools and for giving formal approval to such proposals. The procedure laid down in Article 5 is basically similar to that followed at present and, in particular, the same statutory safeguards would continue to apply to give any interested party a full opportunity to comment on proposals before final decisions are taken. The opportunity has, however, been taken to effect some clarification and simplification of the existing procedures, and to remove some provisions which have become redundant.

Article 6 deals with scholarships, and provides for more administrative flexibility. In particular, it gives specific authority to enable changes in scholarships regulations to be made with retrospective effect. This is necessary because policy normally follows that for Great Britain but has to be adapted to Northern Ireland circumstances and legislation. This takes time, and has given rise to difficulty in the past. The new provision will enable the Department of Education to ensure that individuals do not suffer financial loss through no fault of their own if there is unavoidable delay in making regulations which increase rates of grants.

Article 10 would enable education and library boards to acquire, compulsorily, land which is needed for the purposes of maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools. Boards already have power to vest land which they need for their own purposes and this article simply applies the same arrangements to land that is needed for voluntary, schools. The voluntary school sector in Northern Ireland is a very important one, and it is obviously undesirable that a voluntary school's legitimate requirements can be frustrated by an inability to acquire land. It is not expected that this power will need to be exercised very frequently, but nevertheless it is necesssary that it should be available.

It is normal in the case of vesting powers for there to be safeguards to prevent abuse and to protect the rights of current users of land. In this case, hon. Members will note that both the board and the Department of Education will have to be satisfied that the land is needed. The usual procedures would also have to be followed in the event of any dispute over the proposed compulsory purchase. Notice of an application must be published at least twice in the locality and in addition it must be served on all persons who appear to have an interest in the land. There is then a period of one month from the date of the last publication of the notice during which it is open to any interested party to submit to the Department objections to the making of a vesting order.

If the objections made related solely to compensation, a vesting order would be made and any dispute as to the amount would be referred to the Lands Tribunal. But if the objections related to other matters and it were not possible to meet representations, a local inquiry would be held by an independent person. Thus owners of land are given every opportunity for their objections to be heard.

Hon. Members will also see that the article refers specifically to the possibility of land ceasing to be needed by voluntary schools. In such a situation the intention is that land should revert to the board, which would be responsible for deciding what further use should be made of it. As the board has the responsibility for the initial acquisition of land, it is only right that it should also control its eventual use and, if appropriate, its disposal.

Should land not be required for another purpose, the original owner would be given the opportunity to buy it back at its current market value. Again this is the normal arrangement where compulsory powers are used.

Article 11 deals with building grants for voluntary schools. It is perhaps one of the more complicated provisions of the draft order so it may be helpful if I take a little time to explain the background and the general scope of the article. It is a long-standing principle that when public funds help to pay for a school, the grant which is paid to the voluntary school authorities must be repaid if the premises cease to be kept in use as a school. The logic of this provision is self-evident, and it has always been accepted that it is entirely equitable that public funds should be protected in this way.

The 1972 order and the regulations made under it therefore already give the Department of Education the power to recover capital grants which have been paid if a school closes. However, these powers are related strictly to the amount of the grant that was originally paid. In the past this was entirely satisfactory, for the market value of any redundant school premises was not likely to be significantly higher than their original cost. But in more recent times, with inflation having its effects, it can very easily happen that the historic cost of school premises can be much lower than their current market value.

We thus have a new situation to take into account, and one which the existing powers do not cover. This is why further provision is necessary. The basic principle in Article 11 of the draft order is that of partnership between the voluntary authorities and the public purse. The article recognises that both voluntary and public funds are combining to pay for school premises, and that both therefore are equally deserving of a share in the eventual disposal of the premises, if and when they are no longer needed as a school. In order to be equitable both to the voluntary authorities and to the public purse, the article proposes that each should share the proceeds in proportion to the share which they contributed to the cost of the school.

Hon. Members will note that these new provisions apply only to future cases, that is, to buildings on which grants are paid after the passage of this order. Any existing cases, on which grant has already been paid, will continue to be subject to the current regulations.

Article 11 also amends the existing provisions which govern the payment of grant on replacement premises. Under the existing provisions of the 1972 order, the arrangement is that when the old premises are sold the Department and the voluntary school authorities each take back the amount which they contributed to the old premises, that is to say, the Department would take back its grant and the voluntary authorities would take back their original contribution. Any balance remaining, in other words the profit from the sale of the premises, goes towards reducing the grant on the new premises.

These existing provisions unfortunately have two defects. First, they are fully effective only if the old premises are sold before the new premises are built. This is not common. If a school is acquiring new premises, it still has to function in its old premises while the new premises are being built. Normally, therefore, the old premises are not sold until after the new premises are built, and the existing formula does not properly cover this situation. The second defect is that they apply only when the old premises were grant-aided. If it should happen that no grant has been paid on the old premises, under the existing provision no account is taken of them.

The proposals in Article 11 would remedy these defects. Article 11 in effect proposes that the sum on which grant is payable in cases of replacement should be the net cost to the school authorities of providing the new premises. The net cost is, of course, the difference between the cost of the new premises and whatever proceeds may be derived from the sale of the old premises. Grant would be paid at the normal rate on the net cost of the new premises. In other words, the Department and the voluntary school authorities would share the net cost of replacing the premises in the same way as they would share the cost of building an entirely new school.

The object is to give the normal level of grant aid on the additional expenditure which is involved in the move to new premises, and this additional expenditure is the same, whether or not the old premises were grant-aided. These provisions of Article 11 apply to future grants on new premises, and they are therefore not affected by whatever previous grants may have been paid.

I have taken a little time to explain these provisions fully, because I felt that it was important to make their intention clear. What we have been striving to achieve in these provisions is an equitable formula which gives proper protection to the public purse while at the same time recognising fully the rights of the voluntary school authorities to assistance, a formula that would be fair to both sides. I believe that we have achieved this.

Having given that general background to the provisions of the Order I shall do my best to deal with any points which hon. Members wish to raise. I commend the order to the House.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

The House will be grateful to the Minister for the thoroughness with which he has explained this and earlier orders. At this hour I shall confine myself to two questions concerning Articles 3 and 17. I understand that Article 3 enables education and library boards to appoint committees without all of the members of those committees being members of the board. I am not clear what purpose these committees are intended to serve or from what sections of society they would be recruited. I would be grateful for an explanation.

Article 17 concerns the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. The accounts of the Council show considerable subventions to the Gaelic Athletics Association. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that Gaelic sports deserve our encouragement. I ask the Minister whether any of success has been achieved in removing the antiquated and unjust exclusion from membership of the GAA of those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and the RUC. Sacrifice and service are much in our minds at this time.

1.46 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

The Minister spent some time explaining Article 10, particularly the manner in which land no longer required for the original vesting purpose would be dealt with when it reverted to the board. The full procedure to which he referred he might have been understood as implying to be contained in Article 10. Of course all that Article 10 does is to provide for the re-vesting of the land in the board. What happens after that, namely the offering of it—if it is not required for another public purpose—to the original owner and the rest, does not appear in that article. This is our old friend of 25 years' standing, the Crichel Down rules.

I believe that I am right in saying that the Crichel Down rules, that is, the part of procedure that follows the re-vesting in the board, does not have a statutory basis but rests upon practice embalmed in certain statements of Ministers. I may even be correct in recollecting that in Northern Ireland it depends upon statements publicly made by former Ministers of the Government of Northern Ireland. It would be useful if the Minister would confirm whether I am right in that understanding, because both the letter which was issued by his noble Friend and the manner in which he expounded Article 10 might otherwise lead to the conclusion that, somehow, at any rate in respect of education land, the Crichel Down rules were being made statutory, which I think is not the case.

1.48 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I do not like this order and I do not like the time at which it is brought forward. There are many things in the order which are dangerous. I am totally opposed to the role of these nominated boards. I am totally opposed to their having the power to set up sectional committees to do whatever jobs they want. The majority on these boards will be appointed by the Minister, with the minority being elected council representatives. Power is to be given to the boards to set up committees for education work. The appointees of the Minister will now have the right to make appointments. I am opposed to that.

It should be made clear that the majority of the schools we are dealing with are Roman Catholic voluntary schools. I have grave suspicions about some of the things being pushed into the order. I am not at all happy with the proposals in Article 11 (a) concerning primary and secondary education. There have been many rumours in Northern Ireland to the effect that if Lord Melchett goes ahead ramming a comprehensive system of education down the throats of the people, there will be more voluntary grammar schools coming into being. Difficulties will then be put in the way of such schools coming into existence.

There are many things in this order about which I am disturbed. I am shrewdly suspicious that the order was stuck at the end of this galaxy of orders because it was thought that Northern Ireland representatives would be tired and weary after a long day of debate, which many of us no doubt are. Perhaps it was also thought that since we have constituency problems to deal with in the morning many of us would not be present. I do not like this order at all.

I do not know why, at this late hour, vesting powers will be given to these voluntary schools. Why is it that we are able to carry on for so long without such powers and then suddenly we are to have powers? In certain areas there would be great opposition to the expansion of certain of these schools. We need to face that fact tonight. There is no use our talking only about voluntary schools. A major religious issue is involved which we, as a House, need to face. I find it very disturbing that this matter has been almost skated over without the real issue being put before the House.

I am opposed to these boards now being permitted to appoint other boards to do their work and being allowed to bring in outsiders. I am not happy about the powers given to them to invest in property. I am not happy about very many things in the order. Of course, I am far from happy about the point already raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) with regard to the GAA and the Sports Council and, in addition, about grants to a body that discriminates against members of Her Majesty's Forces.

This is a very dangerous little order. I am opposed to it. I intend to vote against it and, as an elected representative, to register my disgust about the way in which this matter has been introduced. This is a very serious matter, about which the people of Northern Ireland need to be aware. I protest in the strongest possible manner about the way in which the order has been introduced at the last minute. I do not like its provisions, and I intend to vote against it.

1.52 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

I, too, intend to vote against the order. It deserves being cast out by the House. It is 30 years since the great Northern Ireland Education Act of 1947 was enacted by Stormont. After many years of direct rule we end up debating an education order at 2 o'clock in the morning at the end of a day devoted to Northern Ireland orders. That is a disgrace.

Of course, it is no use complaining, because we have direct rule and while it continues this system will also continue We shall not get much comfort out of this Government. I am not certain whether we shall get it out of the next Government, if they are a Tory Government. I would say to the Tories that if all they have to offer is a top tier of local government they can take it back home again, because that is no use to the people of Ulster. We want the restoration of a Stormont Parliament or Assembly.

Since 1947, all that Northern Ireland has had is the disaster of local government changes which vastly increased bureaucracy and cost and diminished the stature of local education authorities to a level of subservient education boards. Those changes also destroyed the democratic nature of local government. The schools, the teaching profession and efficiency and economy have all suffered as a result.

I share the suspicions expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about this order. I believe that it was put in deliberately at the end of the day's business.

The Minister said that the order contained many matters of a minor nature, and rightly so. I think that the order was composed carefully, so that one or two matters of major importance could slip through this House unnoticed. The order is apparently innocuous, but it proposes major changes which ought to be resisted. There are 18 articles and two schedules and, wrapped up in the centre of this legislative trifle, a provision that could be devastating in the context of the Irish experience.

I refer to Article 10. I doubt whether even the worst of the Chief Secretaries who governed Ireland over the decades and centuries would ever have dreamed of doing what the Government are proposing to do under that article, which provides for the extension of power to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of a maintained school or voluntary grammar school.

At no time since the inception of the national system of education in Ireland in 1832—that is, two generations before compulsory education was introduced in England—have any Government in Ireland agreed to the compulsory acquisition of land for the benefit of a voluntary organisation of any religious persuasion or none. This Government are going back on that deliberately, and they are doing it in this way hoping that it will go through hidden in this draft order.

Throughout the 145 years of education in Ireland, north and south, the right of compulsory purchase of land has never been extended to any non-State body. Even the universities have no right of compulsory purchase and they were set up by an Act of this Parliament and established by Royal Charter. Yet here we have in Article 10 of this order a provision that introduces into Northern Ireland a pernicious doctrine. Under this objectionable provision the property of a man can be taken from him and handed over to the members or representatives of another religion. I say in the name of the people of Northern Ireland that this is a provision which is not acceptable to them.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kilfedder

I ask the Government to withdraw it before we force the matter to a Division.

Can anyone imagine a measure more likely to cause dissension, animosity and distrust? The underlying principle of prudent administration, North and South throughout decades has been that property is not taken by compulsory purchase in order to hand it over to a religious body. Yet that is what is proposed here by this Government at this hour of the morning.

Perhaps the farmer whose land is affected has strong objections, as I have, to sectarian schools. Despite those sincerely held principles, under this order, put forward by this Government, that farmer can be forced to sell his land to the religious school authorities to which he is opposed. If he refuses to sell, the land will be vested and taken from him despite his objections and protests. A compulsory purchase order will be made against him by the education board or by the Department of Education.

The same applies to a farmer who for years past may have refused to sell his land to a Church school. Possibly he wanted to keep the land because it was good land. Possibly it had been in his family for generations. Yet, under the provisions of this order put forward by this Government, that farmer will have his land filched from him. It is a disgrace, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it, even at this late hour.

Of course, its true purpose is disguised —deliberately, I believe. Certainly the remarks of the Minister at the beginning of this debate could lead me to suppose that. There is a reference to maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools, further to confuse the position.

In Northern Ireland there are two systems of education—the controlled, or State system, run by the education boards, and the private sector, run by the Churches or Church-dominated bodies, generally Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland or Presbyterian, although I understand that the Free Presbyterian Church is soon to run its own schools, so it comes in as a religious body. Perhaps it will set up a school right beside a Roman Catholic farmer, and some day in future may want to expand. What can the farmer do if he objects to that school—a religious school? His land is taken from him with the consent of the Department of Education.

We have had words from the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who opposes Article 10, as I do. Every hon. Member concerned about good reconciliation, peace and contentment in Northern Ireland should reject this miserable Article 10, wrapped up craftily in this education order.

2.2 a.m.

Mr. Carter

The first thing I should like to do is to make it clear to the House that this order has not been sneaked in at the last minute, as has been crudely and maliciously suggested by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). All Northern Ireland legislation, as he well knows, is fully discussed in terms of timetabling before—

Mr. Kilfedder

Not with me.

Mr. Carter

The hon. Member is something of a loner in this place, and it might be difficult to get to him if ever we wanted to, but we always discuss with the Unionists Party the timetabling of legislation, and there has been no attempt by the Government to bring this business at a late hour.

Indeed, the hon. Member for Down, North knew last week when this order was coming on. He had ample time to make objections before then, but he did not want to. He just wanted to make a rather nasty, vicious, little speech this evening, which he has done. It does no credit to him or to the people whom he claims to represent.

Mr. Kilfedder

If my remarks sounded nasty it was because I was speaking about a nasty little article which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. I am not party to any secret or confidential dealings between the Government and the Government Whips and the Unionist parliamentary group in this House. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to have everything said openly on the Floor of the House. That is their right.

Mr. Carter

It was, last Thursday, and that expression of view is adequately put forward by people who are prepared to act in a reasonable way. Most of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Down, North are prepared to accept that the Government always seek to deal with Nortern Ireland legislation in the most reasonable of ways.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Is the Minister saying that it was agreed between the Government party and the official Unionist group that this education order should be brought on last tonight? There are two other hon. Members who sit in this House as United Unionists. I refer to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and myself. We were never told at any time what business would come before this House. The Minister should make that clear, as the people of Northern Ireland would like to know whether an arrangement was made between the Unionist group behind, me, and the Government to bring this in as a last order tonight, because I do not think hon. Gentlemen behind me had any intention of having a debate on education at 2 o'clock.

Mr. Carter

It is for the hon. Gentleman to make his arrangements with his colleagues. If he chooses to stand aside from them, obviously he will not be as much in the realm of consultation as will the vast majority. He chooses to stand apart, and has to pay the price for it.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) queried the committees that are to be set up by the education and libraries boards under this legislation. These committees will act only in an advisory capacity and will have no direct responsibilities. It is felt appropriate for those who are not members of those boards to be co-opted if they have professional or technical abilities that might assist the boards.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

On what sort of topics would the committees advise the boards, and will the members receive emoluments of any kind?

Mr. Carter

I very much doubt that. They might be invited to consider sport or recreation on which the boards wanted specialised knowledge.

The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the GAA and asked whether the Government had been able to make any advance with that body on the dropping of restrictions. He will know that the Government deplore these restrictions. We have consistently made our views known, particularly in the recent past, when court cases have questioned the right of the Government to give grants to the GAA. We have taken the opportunity to spell out our abhorrence of the restrictions imposed by the GAA. Unfortunately, we have not been able to persuade the GAA to drop the restrictive clauses in its charter.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked about the vesting procedure and the sale of land. Since it is a technical point, perhaps he will allow me to write to him.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) objected to the appointment of the boards and, indeed, objected in principle to the whole order. We do not see this order as being in any way controversial. I am sure that when he looks more closely at the order he will see that we are doing nothing more than establishing equity between the voluntary and State sectors.

The hon. Member said that I had skated over the issue. I thought that I had gone into some detail on various points in the Bill. As for tabling the order at this hour, I must tell the House that we have been dealing with Northern Ireland business all day. The order could have been taken at another time, but was not thought to be controversial. The draft proposals have existed for some time, there has been no objection, and we saw no reason why there would be objection tonight.

When we go through the lengthy and laborious process of consultation in Northern Ireland we are entitled to ask why the hon. Members concerned could not have approached us at an earlier stage than this. It seems strange that when the order comes before the House all these objections are suddenly discovered. They could have been raised when the draft was originally laid, and at any time since. However, no such word has come either from the hon. Member for Antrim, North or from the hon. Member for Down, North.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Minister said that I have stood aside from these matters. His office consults the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and tells him about the business of the House and it consults the Unionist group, but

my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and I are left out. I am a member of a different party. If the Minister regards me as a second-class Member, that is all right with me, but he should not complain that I do not make representations and carry out a consultative role when I am not consulted.

Mr. Carter

That is a phoney objection. The hon. Gentleman was not consulted on the planning and pollution orders, which he welcomed.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

To be fair to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), he has accused the Government of withholding from him the circulated copies of draft orders, and so on, which individual Members receive and on which we make representations to Ministers months ahead of orders being brought forward for debate. Can the Minister clear this up? Is the hon. Member for Antrim, North being kept in the dark and excluded from the circulation list?

Mr. Carter

All hon. Members in Northern Ireland are treated in exactly the same way. There is no privileged group. If a majority comes to the Government and seeks to have legislation dealt with in a certain way, obviously we shall talk to that majority. That is for the convenience of everyone. If the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Down, North choose to stand aside from those discussions, that is a matter for them. We have to go about our business, and we go about it in the fairest possible way.

I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 0.

Division No. 235]	AYES	[2.11 a.m.
Armstrong, Ernest	English, Michael	Sever, John
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Grocott, Bruce	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Haywood)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Snape, Peter
Bates, Alf	Lamborn, Harry	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Cant, R. B.	Loyden, Eddie	Tinn, James
Carter, Ray	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Woodall, Alec
Coleman, Donald	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Wrigglesworth, Alan
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil	Noble, Mike
Dempsey, James	Parry, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dewar, Donald	Penhaligon, David	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Dormand, J. D.	Radice, Giles	Mr Ted Graham.
Dunnett, Jack	Robinson, Geoffrey

NOES

NIL

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Rev. Ian Paisley and

Mr James Kilfedder.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

It appearing from the result of the Division that fewer than 40 Members were present, I declare that the Question has not been decided and that the business stands over until the next Sitting, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 29.