University of Ulster

HC Deb 26 June 1984 vol 62 cc945-57 12.57 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

I beg to move, That the draft University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved. Following publication of the Government statement of 23 March 1982, in response to the final report of the higher education review group, the New University of Ulster and the Ulster polytechnic entered into discussions about the creation of a new style of higher education provision to be formed by their merger. After detailed consideration and the occasional hiccup the two institutions agreed to the merger and have since taken the necessary procedural steps to bring it about.

In November 1983, the NUU and the Ulster polytechnic jointly petitioned Her Majesty for a charter for the new university institution, to be known as the University of Ulster. The NUU also sought that, if Her Majesty were graciously pleased to assent to this petition she would, at the same time, revoke the charter of the NUU.

A copy of the petition, with the draft charter and statutes, was tabled in the House on 16 January this year. The charter contains many of the measures needed to bring about the merger and, although the charter is a matter for my noble Friend, the Lord President, there are a number of aspects to which I should like to refer briefly.

As hon. Members will be aware, this is the first merger in the United Kingdom of a university and a polytechnic and as such it has attracted a good deal of interest on this side of the Irish sea as well as in Northern Ireland. I want to re-emphasise what I have said on many previous occasions. In no sense is this merger a test bed for higher education in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is and was designed to be the answer to the special problems facing higher education in Northern Ireland. If others can learn from it, so much the better.

A unique feature of the charter is the requirement that no less often than every seven years an external review be carried out to assess how effectively the university is fulfilling the objectives laid down in its charter, and is using the resources available to it. This is of particular importance because of the wide-ranging and challenging nature of those objectives, encompassing as they do work at all levels of higher education, including research, degree and non-degree work.

The draft charter and statutes were prepared jointly by NUU and the Ulster polytechnic and at every stage in the drafting there has been wide consultation including consultation with staff and students. It is planned that the University of Ulster will be inaugurated on 1 October 1984.

If, then, Her Majesty is pleased to grant the charter to the petitioners, certain legislation is required to deal with those aspects which could not be included in the charter and to amend or repeal existing legislation affected by the murder—sorry, the merger. This short order contains these measures.

Article 3 transfers all the assets and liabilities of the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic to the University of Ulster. Hon. Members will note that the article also provides for proceedings in connection with anything so transferred to be continued in the name of the University of Ulster. I draw particular attention to the provision for Magee university college, Londonderry to be maintained as an integral part of the university of Ulster. Magee college is a higher educational establishment originally founded by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in 1865 for the training of its clergymen. Its courses and entrants were broadened over the years and, with the establishment of the New University of Ulster in 1968, it became a part of that university under the terms of the Magee University College, Londonderry (Northern Ireland) Act 1970. Finally, the article also transfers any bequests, gifts, trusts or endowments originally made in favour of the New University of Ulster or the Ulster polytechnic to the University of Ulster.

Article 5 dissolves the statutory corporate body known as the Governors of the Ulster Polytechnic, which will not be required following the merger as its work will be subsumed in the council of the university. I am glad that some members of the present governing body will continue to serve on the university council. I was particularly pleased to note that the work of Mr. McNeill, who has been chairman of the governors of the polytechnic since it was established in 1969, is to be recognised by the conferment of an honorary degree by the New University of Ulster at its last series of graduation ceremonies in the near future. That gesture is a sign of the spirit of cooperation that has developed between the university and the polytechnic in planning the merged institution. During the 15 years of its existence, the polytechnic has gained a fine academic reputation and the admiration not only of the community in Northern Ireland but much more widely. Much of the credit for those achievements can be attributed to the leadership and influence of its governors during this period.

Article 5 makes provision for regulations to be made by the Department of Education, which would allow present employees of the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic to claim compensation in certain prescribed circumstances. I shall not go into those circumstances in detail today, but essentially the article provides a means of redress should any members of staff feel that he employment offered to them does not meet the criteria envisaged by the statute.

I shall not weary the House with other minor amendments included in the order. However, I should like to pay tribute to the work and reputation of both the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic. Both were established in the late 1960s in response to the recommendations of the Lockwood Committee's Report on Higher Education in Northern Ireland. The University of Ulster has determined to carry on and build upon the very best traditions of both institutions. A recent leading article in The Times Higher Education Supplement made the following comment on the qualities of the ideal university of the future: A comprehensive university with large stakes in non-degree courses and continuing education as well as conventional degrees and research … looks very much like the kind of higher education animal that would thrive in the 1990s; an isolated university with a narrow range of courses … does not". I firmly believe that the University of Ulster is the blueprint, perhaps even the prototype, for just such a university.

I commend the order to the House.

1.2 am

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

The Opposition do not oppose the merger—indeed, we welcome it—but we have one or two anxieties and cautions about it. Perhaps we can test the Minister a little on his commitment. I was a little troubled by his slip of the tongue when he said "murder" instead of "merger". I hope that it was not a Freudian slip, in view of the Government's intentions towards public expenditure on education.

It is true that the matter has been discussed with considerable care in Northern Ireland and here. In the 1981–82 Session of Parliament, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts examined it in some depth and made certain recommendations. I should like to draw two points to the attention of the House. First, the Committee drew attention, as the Minister did, to the importance of Magee college being given an enhanced role. There was a feeling that there had been some slippage in the availability of higher education within the city of Londonderry, which is to be regretted. I hope that the new merger will not allow that to continue and that we shall go forward in a stronger and more positive way.

Secondly, the Select Committee said in its final recommendation—I refer to the short list of recommendations in House of Commons Paper No. 557—that it intended to monitor the progress of the merger. There is considerable anxiety about whether the Government will provide sufficient funds to make the merger a success.

It is difficult and unusual to produce a successful merger. There is always the well-founded suspicion, which has been established by the Government's history, that the Government are seeking to cut public expenditure by the back door. The Northern Ireland Office, which is almost a Government in exile, tries to protect public expenditure to a limited extent—it would not normally get away with it because of the Prime Minister's philosophy—and is slightly more successful than others in so doing. Nevertheless, it is clear that the university would face problems if it had to meet all the bills that could be laid at is door as a result of the merger.

The Northern Ireland Assembly expressed anxiety about three area: the compensation that may have to be paid to lecturers or others who are not included in the New University; the transfer of polytechnic staff to the university salary scale; and superannuation. These three factors will increase expenditure, as will other problems that may result from the merger. If the university is told that it must fund them from the existing budget, it will cut back in another area.

The Government are doing what they have done in many other areas with which I have been associated—for example, the Alcohol education centre. Groups have been merged on the bizarre principle of adding their budgets together, usually as they were some years previously, and making the total the budget for the new organisation. It is never sufficient, because it does not take into account the inflation of the intervening period.

The new university may have to finance its development and carry a public expenditure burden, which is completely unplanned for. The problem involves both increased expenditure and planning for it. It is invariably difficult for a large organisation, which cannot plan its budget effectively from year to year, suddenly to meet a bill of £500,000. It could easily be that sum or even more. The Northern Ireland Assembly quoted that figure. In those circumstances, the university would be in trouble.

Will the Minister give a clear commitment that the university will not have to meet additional payments, which may arise from the merger, such as payments of compensation, payments for the transfer of staff from polytechnic to university salary scales and for superannuation? Then we would be more confident that the Government were not making back-door public expenditure cuts.

Unless a change was made recently, the merger does not include plans for a students union. If that is still so, are the students to be left without one for the foreseeable future, will the New University have to fund one within the next few years, or are the Government prepared to consider meeting special needs payments of that sort from the reserve fund?

The lack of a union will affect the quality of the university. One of the problems was of students going to Britain or to the Republic of Ireland. If we do not provide the university with good facilities, and if it is not respected, that will continue and perhaps increase. We should be aiming for a high standard. I have always taken the view that we should not impose upon Northern Ireland lower standards than we would impose upon people in Great Britain. That is another point that the Minister should answer if only to give the students some idea of what their future will be.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the Select Committee went to Northern Ireland less than two years ago—the Minister remembers this well—to study this merger. The merger, which cannot be mentioned in the Order in Council, came about of necessity. The thriving polytechnic was almost bursting at the seams and doing wonderful work under splendid leadership. The new Ulster university could not compete. It could not help that because it did not have the number of students. We passionately want the merger to be a success, and therefore it needs money. The Labour Members of the Select Committee believe that the valuable byproduct which arose from merging a polytechnic with a university means that the ethos of the polytechnic will move towards the university. We believe profoundly that that should occur over here in the future. We believe that Northern Ireland has set the example. We want the merger to be a great success, and, for it to be so, as my hon. Friend said, it needs money.

Mr. Soley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has far more knowledge about these matters than I have. I remember that when we visited the New University some time ago we discussed the point that he has raised. There could be great possibilities along the lines that he mentioned. I do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to be able to make a general statement on the matter, but I take his point and that made by the Select Committee. It is important, and it is one of the reasons why I hope that the Select Committee—as I am sure it will—will continue to monitor the merger. It could provide lessons for elsewhere.

There has been a continual complaint about the lack of effective consultation, and I should welcome the Minister's views about that. People feel that they have not been able to make their voices heard effectively. There is anxiety about the parts of the budget to which I have referred. I should like to hear whether the Minister believes that the consultation has been as effective as it should have been and whether he believes that the merger can be carried out in time for the new session in 1984 without rushing matters to the point of lowering standards. Some anxiety has been expressed about that.

Apart from those points, we welcome the order. We want to see how the merger develops, but, above all, we shall be keeping our eye on whether the Government provide sufficient resources to ensure that it is a success and not something that is allowed to run into the sand because of the Government's bizarre economic policies.

1.13 am

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

The substantive aspects of the order and the merger to which it relates will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and perhaps the other hon. Members, when they come to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

I want to restrict myself to the constitutional aspects which are thrown up by the order, and which have an application that extends beyond Northern Ireland. The House is particularly fortunate that the Leader of the House should be present to hear this as, indeed, he was present during the previous debate.

The previous debate illustrated, in one way, the principle that there is no substitute for legislation by Bill—the only way in which this Parliament makes law for the rest of the United Kingdom. The same principle happens to be illustrated in a curious fashion by the order which the Minister has just moved. If these changes were being made in the law in any other part of the United Kingdom, it would be by a Bill, which would be a hybrid Bill. The fact that certain special interests are differentially affected would result in the procedure dealing with hybrid legislation affording a full opportunity to citizens specially affected to petition the House and avail themselves of what is, in effect, the procedure adopted on private legislation.

This order, as we now know authoritatively on the word of the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place—I shall come in a moment to the circumstances in which that judgment is delivered—is a hybrid order. My hon. Friends and I became aware of this only at a relatively late stage, but I am reassured by the fact that anyone listening to the Leader of the House during Business Questions last week would have concluded that it was only last Thursday afternoon that the fact of the hybridity of the order came to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman—whosoever the fault may have been.

It is worse than that. In a written answer in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland infornied the House that the Queen's university of Belfast (NI) Order 1981 had also been hybrid. We had a long and interesting debate on that order in this House in April 1981 without anyone in any quarter being aware that it was a hybrid order.

It cannot be satisfactory that the rights that citizens would possess if the law were being changed by means of a Bill are not available to them if it is being changed by an affirmative order, or that changes which preclude those rights should be made by affirmative order in one part of the United Kingdom and not in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The position of the House in respect of hybridity of affirmative orders is unsatisfactory. It may perhaps be nearer to being remedied as a result of our experiences in dealing with this order. The House has no procedure for dealing with hybrid orders, unlike another place, which has such a procedure. This is not the fault of the various committees which have reported on the subject. As long ago as 1966 and 1967, the Statutory Instruments Committee drew the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory situation arising from the fact that there is in the House of Commons no procedure for considering private objections to statutory instruments which, like Hybrid Bills, affect a particular private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class. It is 17 or 18 years since it was drawn to the attention of the House that, unlike another place, we are in no position to deal with hybrid orders such as the order now before us.

That was followed by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation which in 1973 also drew attention to the lack of symmetry between the two Houses and tentatively suggested that the two Houses might get together to do the job collectively. It was interesting that, on that occasion, the then Second Clerk Assistant, whom we all remember—Mr. Richard Barlas—argued that although in theory it might be desirable to extend the hybrid procedure to the House of Commons, it would not be practicable, owing to the pressure of business in that House which would take prior claim on the manpower and time available. I do not know who put the Second Clerk Assistant up to urging those arguments on that occasion, but I do not think that either side of the House would take kindly to the suggestion that we have not the time or opportunity to provide the proper opportunities of representations to citizens who might be prejudicially affected by legislation. However, the position at the moment is that only by dint of what is done in another place can a partial remedy be provided when hybrid legislation comes forward in the form of a statutory instrument. In effect, it was on 9 June that the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place announced, with the consequent running of 14 days for petitioning against this order, that it was in his view hybrid.

I do not think that it can possibly be satisfactory that, so soon before this Bill would be taken in this House, its hybridity was thus disclosed. I do not think that an adequate opportunity was given by this procedure to those who might, upon maturer consideration, have wished to petition against the Bill.

I want therefore to put forward, within the hearing of the Leader of the House, three distinct propositions which go further than matters relating only to Northern Ireland. First, that no order which has been found to be hybrid should be placed alongside the other orders of the House without an italicised note to draw the attention of hon. Members to the status of that order. That is a simple matter and I hope that we can have an assurance in due course, when it has been considered, that that modest improvement can be made. My second proposition is that this House ought not to delay any further in providing itself with the means of dealing with hybrid statutory instruments, either co-operatively with the other place or by a separate House of Commons procedure. The third, which is a matter of special grievance and was the turn of the knife in this case, deals with the fact that Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 ironically, just because they deal with substantive legislation, do not go to the Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. I would therefore, thirdly, put forward the proposition that in view of the special importance of these orders, they should be referred to the same Committees of both Houses as deal with other affirmative statutory instruments.

If those propositions can be, as I am sure that they will be, considered by those to whom the responsibility falls, then good will have come from what otherwise would have been merely another illustration of the unsatisfactory manner in which, at present, this House makes the law in Northern Ireland. I say "at present" because I have a certain sense that the time is coming when the penny will have dropped or the stone will have been worn away and the necessity of a uniform system of legislation for all parts of the United Kingdom will be recognised on both sides of the House. Meanwhile let us do something about hybrid statutory instruments.

1.23 am

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

The draft order provides a statutory basis for the merger of the Ulster polytechnic and the New University of Ulster and the dissolution of the Ulster polytechnic. It also provides compensation arrangements for staff.

After hearing representations, as have all political parties in Northern Ireland, I believe that it is important that the Government make the details of the proposed compensation arrangements available as quickly as possible so that staff in the institution have as much time as possible to consider their future employment. Some members of staff may decide, or have already decided, not to accept employment in the new institution because they believe that their new duties are not similar to, or an unreasonable addition to, those carried out prior to the merger.

There will also be funding implications as a result of the formation of the new institution, especially as a result of the new compensation arrangements. It is important for the House to hear the Minister's views on the availability of funds for these compensation payments.

In the early years, the new institution should not be strangled by financial problems. I trust that the Government will consider sympathetically the question of additional funds necessary to meet such claims. The idea of a polyversity is new and exciting. It seems to combine the best aspects of university and polytechnic education. I trust that the new institution envisaged in Northern Ireland will be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Many people in Northern Ireland believe that the merger was born out of expediency. Perhaps that is true. However, what was regarded as a short-term expedient will, I believe, turn out to be an exciting educational development. To this end, I trust that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland will not simply forget about the new institution, but will seek to encourage and monitor its development and to help with the many problems that will no doubt arise from this totally new educational concept.

There will be problems, given that the new institution is on a split site, and it will have no other precedent from which to work. However, all these problems can be overcome with good will and effort. I trust that both will be in evidence in the years to come. I look forward to this development and trust that the order will go through the House as smoothly and as quickly as humanly possible.

1.27 am

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the Minister said, as well as to all the other interventions. I listened with particular interest to the Minister's reference to the two institutions entering into negotiations and finally agreeing to the merger. That was a mild way of describing the methods used to bring the merger about.

If the Minister reads what I said, as reported at column 489 of the Official Report on 7 July last year, he will find that the pressure put on the university to merge was not such that it would lead one to use the language which this evening he used to describe that merger. On that occasion I described it as little more than blackmail. Nothing in the intervening period has caused me to change my view. In that debate I hung a large question mark over the cost of the merger, never mind my misgiving, which I still hold, about the success or otherwise that will flow from it.

I have, over the months since then, considered the matter carefully, and in March this year, I put down a number of written questions, some of which were answered on 7 March. I shall quote those answers to explain to the House why I believe that much of what is being said is not as clear-cut and forthcoming as one would like in regard to the details that should be made public. On 6 March, there is a question about the New University of Ulster, in which I inquired of the Minister whether he would give the number of non-teaching administrative posts now designated and filled, and those to be filled in the institution to be created at certain grades and the individual designations applied to each of those posts, including posts such as dean, pro-vice chancellor, and provost which may be held on academic contracts but which are exclusively, or almost exclusively, administrative".—[Official Report, 7 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 572.] The Minister replied by saying that 11 such posts were designated, and that two more were following. In addition, there is the vice-chancellor, who is the chief academic and administrative officer.

At first sight, the posts of pro-vice chancellor, provost and dean are all academic posts. In truth, they are nothing of the sort. They are almost purely administrative posts in the new set-up. In a follow-up letter on 19 March, the Minister pointed out that he would insert a note that the posts that I mentioned were academic posts with significant administrative responsibility.

Because of the pressure of other things, I did not follow up that reply until recently, but I had answers to further questions yesterday, when I tried to get the Minister to separate and explain the balance between the teaching and administrative sectors of the posts designated. I was told that the information was not kept in the form in which I had requested it. If the Minister is not clear as to what the balance is, I ask him to go back to the university and the polytechnic and to make detailed inquiries to satisfy himself that these posts have a small academic input and are almost purely administrative.

The plain truth is that I have found it rather difficult to get, in clear, straightforward terms, the information that should be made public about this proposed measure and the administration and other costs that go with it. I alleged a year ago that the costs of the merger would be high. I said that the extra money that was needed to meet the increased superannuation payments could be between £8 million and £13 million, and probably about £10 million. The latest information that I have shows that the sum will work out at about £15 million. This sum appears nowhere in all the figures that I have sought regarding the costs of the merger.

It is alleged that the Government will pick up the tab for those increased superannuation payments. If that is se, it is still public money and will come out of something. It will not grow on trees, and we deserve an answer to know what the cost of the superannuation will be and where all this will come from.

The answers to the written questions that I put down for answer yesterday implied that certain other costs were rising. Those sums are not as accurate as one would wish. Perhaps the Minister has precisely answered my question, but I believe that there is a case for further information.

For example, the Minister, in a written answer today, has told me that the University of Ulster employs 722 full-time staff, of whom 35 are in administrative grades, and that 28 members of staff, of whom 11 are in specified administrative grades, are seeking premature retirement during the period 1 June to 30 September 1984. The total cost to the 'Department is expected to be about 860,000, of which £225,000 relates to the administrative group.

The problem is that those involved in the merger have until the end of September 1985 to apply for premature retirement. Once the merger takes place, all those who will be upgraded from polytechnic to university status can apply for the handsome sums under the excellent scheme laid down. We can expect a considerable number to apply. Therefore, I expect the sum quoted to double. Perhaps the Minister could make further inquiries and give me rather more information than has hitherto been given.

All the teaching staff will have university salaries. The remaining administrative staff have all been upgraded. A considerable number of them are either retiring or moving elsewhere. It is a fruitful area for the Minister's research. No doubt he will make inquiries and try to find out how many of the remaining administrative staff have been upgraded and how much is the cost in additional salaries. No doubt he can tell us in great detail the forecast for the salaries of the teaching staff during the next 12 months.

About half the senior administrative staff are either leaving or have already left. Those who have retired or are about to retire include all the accountants employed by the university. Through good housekeeping, the university has built up reserves of £1.5 million, so we are concerned that the continuity that the accountants would have provided has now disappeared.

Magee college is an institution in which I have a great deal of interest as I have represented the city of Londonderry for nine years in the House. The protocouncil organisation has overseen the merger. It does not, as far as I am aware, have either money or power. Yet I am informed—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that that organisation has already briefed architects to provide plans to develop Magee, I presume on the basis of a newspaper report; and the sum of £4 million for new build has been mentioned. I want to know, who had the authority to engage the architects; are they still engaged; who is paying them; and have they been paid to date? Has the university grants committee been involved in this matter at any level? Where is the academic plan for Magee college, which I understand has not yet appeared? What cost limits have been applied, either by the Government or the UGC, to any building work that is to be done at Magee in the city of Londonderry? From where is the £4 million to come?

May we be told what effect that spending, if it takes place, will have on Jordanstown and Coleraine, where there has been little spending, particularly in Coleraine, in recent years? What development is to take place in Coleraine? If there are cost limits for each of the three campuses, perhaps the university authorities and the general public, as well as the House, could be given the figures, so that we may have some idea where we are going. Without that information, we are in the dark as to where this whole institution is proceeding.

One of the great benefits of Coleraine university lies in the fact that, for the first time in Northern Ireland, we had a secular teacher training organisation to which Roman Catholic trainee teachers went. It was a tremendous step forward, it was most welcome and it was no mean achievement. Have we a guarantee from the church authorities that they will allow this teacher training facility to be used in future by their young men and women in the new institution? If not, that in itself will cause the most severe problems for the educational facility in the Coleraine campus.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who said that the Labour party wanted these measures. When the polytech was set up in Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same can be said of the rest of the United Kingdom—such institutions were not seen as university bodies. They were seen as bodies to underpin the university structure. If that concept has now been forsaken, not only by this Government but by the Labour party, we should be told that in plain terms, so that higher education in this country may know that the polytechs as originally set up do not have a future, that the long-term prospects of their existing as separate bodies are nil and that it is the intention to merge them all into sort of polytech-university bodies.

Mr. Flannery

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that the Labour side of the Select Committee, faced with this necessity, wanted this to be a success and thought that it could be a pointer to the future over here. That is different from saying that the Labour party laid that down. It has not.

Mr. Ross

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting him. The House will have noted from his comments the direction in which he would like things to go.

The New University of Ulster, despite what the hon. Member for Hillsborough appears to think, was up to target. The plans for the development of that university had been met, and any shortcomings that occurred arose from the shortfall in funding from which the university suffered. The numbers were going up and have continued to rise and there is at present a healthy situation on that campus.

We are now talking about a new body which will exist on three different campuses. We hear stories about a major development at Magee. One begins to wonder where higher education in Northern Ireland is going if we are to wind up with Queen's university the major university, in Belfast, and another university spread over three campuses, each, no doubt, with its own specified, strictly controlled courses, which will amount to three small universities. We cannot have a cohesive unit that is spread from Londonderry to Jordanstown to Coleraine.

I have never been happy with the merger. I have accepted it with ill grace because it was forced on us. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that the order provides for a review after seven years. I was giving this set-up a maximum of 10 years before we had to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps we shall be back to the drawing board in seven years, when something sensible might be done with the Coleraine, Londonderry and Jordanstown campuses.

1.45 am

Mr. Scott

I shall deal first with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the hybridity of this order and his general points about the way in which the House does not deal with hybrid orders. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was present throughout his remarks. He has said that he will study Hansard and give a considered view of the various proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not for me to enter into that matter, except to say that within the existing rules the Government did their best to ensure that those who needed to be alerted to the problem of hybridity were notified by the normal procedures of publishing notices in the press and sending out circulars to those who had raised points about the order. We did our best within the existing rules to deal with that matter, but I accept that that does not meet the right hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Were there notices in the Northern Ireland press, which would be the relevant place for them to appear? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the case, as I believe was inadvertently stated by the Secretary of State, that the notice was sent to all who had received copies of the proposals for the order, for they were certainly not received by right hon. and hon. Members who, of course, automatically receive proposals?

Mr. Scott

I am advised that advertisements were placed in the Northern Ireland papers, as well as published in the Belfast Gazette. Notices were sent to the institutions, but I understand that they were not sent to right hon. and hon. Members. There have been only three such orders since 1974, but I underline my right hon. Friend's commitment to look at the matter and give a considered judgment in due course.

I shall make a general point. The Government would not have embarked on the road of setting up a new institution in Northern Ireland unless they were wholeheartedly committed to the concept and wanted to see it as a notable success for the future of higher education in the Province. The merger was not introduced to save money. Its aim was to provide a rational pattern for higher education in Northern Ireland. I believe that we now have the basis for that rational pattern, and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is a success.

Of course, I cannot give commitments about the level of public expenditure which may be available from year to year. The commitment of level funding for the first year of the institution's life in effect means that the new institution has been exempted from many of the pressures imposed in recent years on universities on this side of the water. The institution has got off to a good start. From there on it will obviously have the advice of the Northern Ireland working party on higher education which has been established so that there is some local input into the judgments of the University Grants Committee. On that front, there is a commitment in terms of political will and funding for the institution.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised a point about the student union. Provision is made for the student union in the statutes attached to the charter for the new institution. Financing of the student union will be done in the normal way by the university, as with any other university.

Mr. Soley

The Minister is not giving a clear answer to the questions that I raised on salaries and superannuation. Will the Government pay those or do they expect the new university to fund them out of existing money? A similar question applies to the student union.

Mr. Scott

The existing university and polytechnic have student unions funded in the normal way, and so will the new institution. We have made special provision in that the Department has said that it will provide a further £360,000 towards the extra superannuation costs. That will be a protection. The steering group, which presided over the merging of the two institutions, said that within level funding it could cope with other costs. If compensation costs were to be at a level which put that commitment under strain, I would look sympathetically at any request for extra funding on those fronts. It is too early to make a judgment on that. Indeed, in general compensation terms we have not even established the final shape of any scheme. We shall be publishing a consultation paper shortly. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Then we can see what sort of basis there will be for compensation regulations, in time judge what the burden is likely to be and see whether it is necessary for my sympathy to be exercised towards the new institution. We have responded generously. Taking into account the judgment of the steering group that many other things could be coped with within level funding, we have not been ungenerous in our approach to many problems that undoubtedly are created when facing a merger of this sort.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has never shown particular enthusiasm for the merger. I was not surprised today that he raised a number of points. Many of them were addressed to the wrong person. Many could be matters for the Department of Education and Science on this side of the water, for the University Grants Committee, which will have a major role in funding the institution in future, for the steering group and for the proto-council and proto-senate and the new council and senate of the new institution when it comes into effect. I shall read the points that he made. If I can elaborate on any of my answers I will. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was anxious to give him such answers as I could obtain in time for the debate.

However, many of the points are really no longer for me. The role of the Department and myself was to see that this merger, which is essential for the future of higher education in Northern Ireland, took place. This is not a university that will be controlled by Government. Much of the work in setting it up was done by an independent steering group. It will be launched on 1 October this year. I assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith that there is no problem about meeting that date in good order, when the new institution will be operating under its own steam.

I was slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman asked about consultation. Not only has there been widespread consultation by the Chilver committee which was looking into higher education in Northern Ireland as a whole, but once Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer took over the steering group, he was at pains to travel the Province on a wide basis, to make it known when he was there that his door was open to any representations that had to be be made, and to encourage consultation with staff, students and those in authority in the different institutions, and, indeed, all those who had any interest in the future of higher education. Lack of consultation cannot be laid at the door of the Department and still less at the door of the steering group which was responsible for bringing the new institution to its present stage.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to the many people who have worked so hard to bring about the merger which is being brought about in part by this order today and in part by the petition to the Privy Council. The unique union was guided by a steering group under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, and its immensely complex task with many difficulties along the road was virtually completed within two years. That was a remarkable achievement. Frankly, I do not think that anybody else would have been able to achieve it in the way that Sir Peter did. I should like to record my thanks to him and to all the members of the steering group for a job well done in an exceptionally short time.

The work of knitting the two institutions together will fall to the council and staff of the university and in particular to the vice-chancellor designate, Mr. Derek Birley. One of the most gratifying aspects of the past two years, with all the difficulties that he has faced, has been the way in which the staff from both institutions at all levels have come together to plan the courses and the faculty structures for the University of Ulster. That work has been fostered by Derek Birley, but of course his work and that of the University of Ulster is only just beginning. In the creation of a new university, tuned to the economic, social and commercial needs of Northern Ireland and its young people, I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing Derek Birley and the University of Ulster well as they set their hands to this task.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved. That the draft University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.