HL Deb 09 March 1978 vol 389 cc1012-29

7.31 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 15th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order, the first in a new cycle of orders appropriating funds for services administered by Northern Ireland Departments, serves two purposes. First, it covers the Spring and Further Spring Supplementary Estimates for the coming year. Copies of the Supplementary Estimates volumes are available in the Library, and provide details of the services for which additional funds are now sought. The total additional provision required is some £64.2 million; this brings the total Estimates for this financial year to £1,318 million, which is some £170.3 million more than the total voted for 1976–77.

It might be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly mention the most significant items in the Estimates. First, £7 million is required for capital grants for industrial development, because of the cancellation of the three-month deferment of payments of grant, and to provide for an increase in the number of claims. £10.6 million is required for the Roads Service; £7.3 million of this is to cover price increases; the meat industry employment schemes will require an additional £5.5 million. The additional £12 million for schools and higher education is due mainly to increased costs of supplies and services, and to increased awards.

The additional £14.6 million for Health and Personal Social Services is mainly accounted for by increased costs. The special payment of £10 to pensioners at Christmas requires the allocation of a further £3.4 million. The second purpose of the order is to appropriate the sums required on Account for 1978–79, to provide Northern Ireland departments with funds until the Main Estimates are approved. My Lords, I have briefly outlined the main contents of the order, and I shall, of course, do my best to answer any questions which noble Lords may wish to raise. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 15th February, be approved. —(Lord Melchett).

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, the final appropriations for this year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred in the first half of his remarks on this order, and the sums granted on account for next year, include selective assistance to industry and shipbuilding. I am very concerned as to whether the Government intend to impose sanctions against firms against which the Secretary of State for Employment or, I imagine, it is the Department of Employment in Northern Ireland, decides to take action for breaching the pay guidelines by refusing to allocate Government grants. May I make it perfectly clear that Northern Ireland industry, certainly as represented by the Northern Ireland CBI, supports pay moderation and recognises that pay guidelines will be reflected in Government contracts—indeed, they have been in Government contracts since 1975. However, of course, if contractors are to be held responsible for pay settlements of sub-contractors, just to mention one difficulty which the Government are trying to write into clauses with Government contractors, there will be chaos.

This issue has been raised more than once in recent weeks in your Lordships' House, so I shall not go into the details. However, I must press the Government about the extraordinary discretion which is given to the Secretary of State in this matter. The dispensation which was given to Ford's when it breached the pay guidelines, was explained to the House on the 28th February last, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in answer to a Parliamentary Question put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I refer noble Lords to the Official Report of 28th February, column 365, where the noble and learned Lord said: but Ministers in this instance," — he was referring to the instance of Ford's— as in all instances, have to take into account not just the overriding priority of combating inflation but also other factors, including employment, particularly in areas which are hard-hit by unemployment. I assume that the noble and learned Lord was referring in particular to unemployment levels in South Wales. Nowhere is unemployment a greater scourge in the whole of the United Kingdom than in Northern Ireland.

There is a further difficulty. If one considers Belfast, there is the disastrous problem of trying to attract skilled labour in competition with a great nationalised firm, Harland and Wolff, which is now wholly nationalised and paying rates which other firms must compete with if they are to obtain skilled men. I have not discussed this matter with the company concerned, but I have little doubt that that problem caused the pay settlement at Mackie's which, for some reason best known to themselves, Government Ministers condemned while being prepared to take a benevolent view of the Ford settlement. I hope that that puts the problem in the Northern Ireland context. I am bound to add that the action of the Secretary of State against Mackie's will make Northern Ireland firms particularly wary of the blank cheque which industry, throughout the United Kingdom, is being required to sign, namely, the requirement to conform with any guidelines expressed in any future White Paper. I must say to the Government Front Bench quite roundly that if the Government wish to carry industry and commerce with them in this matter that is certainly not the way to go about it.

However, my reason for raising this question on this order is that industry in Northern Ireland is dependent on the system of capital and recurrent grants which particularly relate to the Province, in order to attract new industry and to combat unemployment. In return, I think that it would be common ground between both sides of the House to say that the response has been remarkable. The rate of days lost due to strikes in Northern Ireland is below that in Great Britain. The export record there is marvellous when one considers all the problems and a variety of products manufactured in Northern Ireland are bought by public authorities. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree that one could not wish to have a more deserving cause for the receipt of Government assistance. If that is the case, let me remind the noble Lord that in defending the grant of assistance to Ford's new engine factory in South Wales the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, also said on 28th February: The grant of assistance in relation to the Welsh project is one thing; pay policy is another. If that argument is not to be applied to Northern Ireland I should like to know why. Therefore, I ask: do the Government intend to withhold grants in connection with guideline pay settlements? I hope that the noble Lord will give me an assurance that that will not occur; if not, it will be a blow to confidence in Northern Ireland.

In connection with direct Government finance in this order, I should like to ask a question about the Andersonstown project called Strathearn Audio which was mentioned in an article in last Monday's Financial Times. That project is a subsidiary of the Northern Ireland Development Agency and, as reported in the Financial Times, the project has not taken up anything like the 1,500 or so jobs in West Belfast, as was hoped. Moveover, when it was passed from the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation to the Agency it had already lost some £8 million. What that figure is now, I simply do not know. Should there not be a Government inquiry into a loss-making project of this scale? In saying that I am not necessarily criticising the Agency, but it must be of public concern as to why such large sums have been lost and as to why the policy pursued in supporting this project has foundered. If we do not look these problems squarely in the face, similar problems will recur.

Finally on this order, I should like to turn to the subject of education. The order also appropriates funds for expenditure on schools. In this connection, I should like to ask what is the latest estimate by the Northern Ireland Department of Education for reorganising secondary schools. If I may say so, I thought that the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on 15th June last year in respect of the capital costs of reorganisation was perfectly fair. In that statement the noble Lord said that it would be wrong to determine a fixed resource allocation and then produce proposals to match it. But, by now, I think that we should have some idea of the financial realities.

I understand from this week's Northern Ireland Press that the noble Lord has just issued a statement about the observations which have been received about the Cowan Report over the last year and a half. I understand that the noble Lord is reported to have said that there was a good deal of support for 11–18 comprehensive schools in the observations received, and for separate provision at the age of 16-plus—which presumably means sixth-form colleges—but some concern expressed with regard to the latter form of reorganisation at the loss of senior pupils and advanced work for secondary schools.

The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that such a statement does not advance the educational debate very far. But I should have thought that these two different forms of provision—the all-through comprehensive school and the sixth-form college—must have very different financial implications. I should like to know how far consideration of those implications has now proceeded. I should also like to know the weight of objections to the policy of reorganisation. No consultations will command respect unless the Government openly admit who is opposed to the proposals which are under consideration.

Lastly, I should like to ask the noble Lord to give an assurance that the new alternative transfer arrangements by which pupils are this year being transferred from their primary to their secondary schools have the full approval of the Government. The preparation and administration of these transfer arrangements must have demanded a great deal of work on the part of many people, not least the teaching profession. I think that it is important to have that assurance from the Government this evening.

7.43 p.m.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

My Lords, the hour is late and this House has already stood a considerable period of discussion about Northern Ireland matters. Therefore, I am slightly hesitant about speaking for any length of time, but this is a very important order for Northern Ireland and there are many subjects which ought to be raised. The state of Northern Ireland requires that this appropriation order should, in fact, he examined in very great detail. I should have liked to raise many subjects and to have asked the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the marina at Bangor which is a matter of great personal concern to me; I should have liked to see that brought forward. I should have liked to discuss the future of the meat, pig and poultry industries, all of which are matters of very great importance. I do not feel very optimistic about the unemployment position of the two agricultural industries. It would have been great if we had had the time and the support to be able to go into these matters in detail.

We in Northern Ireland have always been determined, as part of the United Kingdom, to accept the burdens of austerity and the benefits of prosperity equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Belstead has explained with his usual clarity the problems which are raising their heads as a result of the use by the Government of the anti-inflation clauses and the way in which this affects Northern Ireland, especially in relation to grants. I gave the noble Lord's Office fair warning that I would be raising this subject. It is the most serious problem among some very serious problems which are affecting us.

The problem that we, in Northern Ireland, face is that although we accept that we should bear equal burdens to those in the United Kingdom, they must, when they are applied, bite equally. In my opinion, they do not in this case because the base from which they start is so much more vulnerable. I should like to give a few—specially selected, I agree—unemployment figures which are really horrific and which, if they existed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, would be a cause of an absolute outcry.

The total unemployment in Northern Ireland is 11.5 per cent. but I should like to take male unemployment in just three places. In Enniskillen, near my own home, there is 18.1 per cent. male unemployment; in Strabane, there is 35.9 per cent.—nearly 40 per cent. male unemployment and in Newry the figure is 27.3 per cent. Those figures were given to me by the Manpower Services Commission this afternoon as being those relevant at the end of February. I fully understand that no one is more aware of the horrors of unemployment than the present Secretary of State and his team. I do not suggest for one single moment that they are not fully aware of them and fully determined to do what they can to put matters right.

However, the facts of the situation are that Northern Ireland is in a far worse position than even those figures show. I do not know how many jobs or positions relate to, or how many people are employed directly or indirectly in, security work, but the number must run into thousands. I also do not know exactly how much money is pumped into the economy as a result of the fact that 14,000 troops are stationed in the country, as a result of which a proportion of the money for feeding them and the whole of their spending power goes into the Northern Ireland economy.

When I was chairman of Fermanagh County Council, I know that we looked into the question of the police training depot at Einniskillen. It was the equivalent of a jolly good factory. Therefore, we must look at the situation and realise that the very fact that this money is in the economy and that these jobs are involved is an extremely dangerous situation and means that there must be substantial capital injections in order to redress the position and to create a permanent base for employment in Northern Ireland.

In 1971 new jobs—I find "jobs" a difficult word—or positions for employ— ment created totalled 7,000. Last year they totalled only 2,000. That illustrates the run-down as a result of violence and certainly is not the result of a lack of effort from anybody. With Northern Ireland isolated as it is and such a small part of the United Kingdom, this is not, in my view, the moment to deter investment for the creation of jobs. From the moment a company decides to expand and to create new jobs to the time when that creation becomes a position and someone is employed, is a very long time.

Today we have the anti-inflationary measures of the Government stopping investment. Not only do they stop it but they prevent further thought being given to it by many companies. So its effect is not only felt today but goes much further back. I should like to quote two cases which illustrate the problem. Although I join with everyone in congratulating the Secretary of State on having attracted an industry called AVX to Northern Ireland, it will take some time before the jobs created there reach more than a very small number. But it is still worthy of congratulation; it is a wonderful thing to have done. However, it is only from existing industry that the main progress can be made. It is from large industries and small industries; we shall obtain any major breakthrough from the hundreds of industries that employ the "tens".

The first example that I should like to quote is that of an existing industry which, after much thought, decided to expand. It negotiated with the Ministry of Commerce for grants which looked as though they would total about £150,000. I cannot say exactly how many jobs that was either going to preserve or create, but it still was a decision to expand. When, at the end of all these negotiations, a letter of offer was formally sent to the firm setting out the conditions of the offer and the other conditions, I have to say that it was to the astonishment of people in the company that it included the new clauses in the anti-inflationary measures.

They have, in practice, refused the grant to that company unless that company can impose on sub-contractors the conditions as laid down in the anti-inflationary measures. I want to ask the noble Lord to imagine the situation that that company accepts those conditions, has decided to expand, and decided to accept a Government grant of about £150,000. In the middle of it one of the sub-contractors drops a "clanger" and makes a wage agreement, so that the grant is then removed, and not only the grant but work in progress. Everything is removed from that company.

The company in the first place decided to expand. It realised that it had not sufficient resources to expand without a Government grant, and in the middle of expanding the Government remove the grant and say, "You are on your own, mate ". What is going to happen? You will not only lose the jobs created by expansion, but you are going to have that company close down. I am not in a position to say whether that is true, but I know of a lot of companies where expansion has only taken place, and can only take place, because there is a Government grant. I think that that is an outrageous way to give Government grants in the present conditions in Northern Ireland.

The second case is a very much smaller one, but there are many excellent companies in Northern Ireland which exist on a very small scale, and the fact that they are small makes them just as important. This company was considering expanding its product. They have large contracts with Government Departments, or agencies, and if they were to use that increased capacity for their product it became necessary, because the trade was so structured, for them to employ sub-contractors to fix the product they were producing.

They were considering it, and they were very close to making a decision. They made it clear to me that the moment these conditions came along they decided they were too small a company to take the risk. Those are just two examples. The implementation of this policy in an economy such as Northern Ireland is a very difficult operation. I believe that the Government, and the noble Lord opposite, are fully aware of it, but we must press the noble Lord to make sure that it is known publicly, and that full knowledge of this operation exists, because it is killing expansion in Northern Ireland.

The next question I must ask the noble Lord is this. Can he tell the House, maybe not now but at a later date, whether the offer of grant to AVX contains the same anti-inflationary clauses? I should be very interested to know that, because AVX were given a letter of offer of grant the same as the other firms. If the Government want to establish the type of country which has been portrayed in George Orwell's 1984, then we are right on target, and we certainly will not be behind that by 1984. I welcome this appropriation.

7.55 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their welcome for the order. However, I confess to being a little disturbed at the extent to which they have painted rather a dire picture of the effects of the Government's attack on inflation policy. As the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have made clear, Government Departments in Northern Ireland are including in their contracts the same arrangements as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether I detected from the noble Viscount the wish that these similar arrangements should not apply throughout the United Kingdom, and that Northern Ireland should be placed in a special position. I think that that is a quite fundamental point which ought to be clear.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? My noble friend quoted from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on the operation of the Ford issue, and when unemployment considerations were going to take place. We are trying to probe to see whether the Northern Ireland situation is in fact going to have probably a rather more generous interpretation of those conditions.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, with respect, the noble Viscount did not answer the question I asked him. It is quite clear that if the same policy is applied throughout the United Kingdom the same discretion is available to Ministers throughout the United Kingdom, but nevertheless Government Departments throughout the United Kingdom will include the same clauses in the contracts which they offer, and that is in fact what is happening.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Lord is habitually helpful to the Opposition, and I do not want unduly to prolong this debate. I think that the noble Lord would be unintentionally misleading the House if he were to suggest that the pay guidelines had been imposed in the same way, for instance, on Mackies and on Fords. I am quite ready to be told that I have got this wrong, in which case I will immediately withdraw. My impression is that in one case you had a firm in Northern Ireland which was penalised, whereas in the case of a large firm in South Wales in a very similar position, in an area of high unemployment, the pay settlement, which breached the guidelines, was allowed to go through, and indeed to go through with Government assistance.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I do not think, with respect, that I said anything which could be construed as misleading the House, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I did not say that all cases were treated in exactly the same way under the impact of the anti-inflation policy. It is clear from what the noble Lord quoted from Hansard of previous discussions in this House that a particular case in South Wales was not treated in the same way, and other considerations were felt to be important. What I said was that the policy is being applied throughout the United Kingdom, and that the same discretion—and this was something to which, as I understand it, the noble Lord was objecting in his own remarks—applies to Ministers throughout the United Kingdom in implementing the policy.

The important point for people in Northern Ireland to understand is that the attack on inflation is as vital, if not more so, for Northern Ireland as it is for the rest of the United Kingdom. There can be no question—and I hope neither the noble Viscount nor the noble Lord opposite would suggest this—that those in Northern Ireland should benefit from the sacrifices which the whole country has had to make to reduce the rate of inflation, and reduce it very considerably for the great benefit of industry throughout the United Kingdom, and in particular in Northern Ireland, without having to take part in the fight themselves and having to take sometimes the disappointing and not too pleasant consequences of that fight against inflation. The fact is that public sector and private sector salaries and wages have had to be controlled in Northern Ireland as they have in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that anyone has suggested that that should not be done. That is true of the other measures which the Government have taken, and are taking, to control inflation.

The noble Viscount said that Northern Ireland starts from a worse base in this respect. It is certainly true that the level of unemployment throughout Northern Ireland generally is far too high, and in some areas—and the noble Viscount quoted some—is absolutely appalling. No Minister in the Northern Ireland Office has ever suggested otherwise. As noble Lords know, we have bent all our efforts to reducing it. But the worst thing that any Minister in Northern Ireland could possibly do is to suggest that we should let inflation rip there to the exclusion of the rest of the United Kingdom, and that that in some way is going to do Northern Ireland some good, or be of some benefit to local industrialists.

I hope that the noble Viscount will at least consider telling those firms that are worried about these clauses in contracts that they have a responsibility, as do all industrialists and the whole of the community in the United Kingdom, to fight inflation and to continue the very good rate of reduction which we now have in the rate of inflation. If Northern Ireland wants to attract outside investment and new investment, and if the United Kingdom as a whole wants to do so, then that is one of the most important points on which we must continue to concentrate.

Having said that, I accept that there are particular worries about the clauses that have been included in contracts; but it is important that this should be looked at in a United Kingdom context. It is a matter which the CBI nationally has raised with Ministers, as well as the CBI raising it with the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland; and those points will no doubt be considered very carefully by Ministers, but in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole and in the context of the overriding importance of reducing the rate of inflation and continuing to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said it would be a blow to industry in Northern Ireland if I could not give a more positive answer than I suspect he will feel I have; but I can only tell him that it would be a far worse blow to industry in Northern Ireland were we to let up on the attack on inflation which the Government have undertaken so successfully so far.

I was glad the noble Viscount mentioned the new investment which has been announced in Northern Ireland this week, although I was a little sorry to hear him, as it seemed to me, reduce the good news by saying it would take some time for the jobs to build up. That may be so, but we are talking of an investment which may lead to 2,000 jobs. That for Northern Ireland, coming at a particularly tragic time for Northern Ireland, is a marvellous thing to have happened and I am delighted with it. I will certainly look into the point the noble Viscount asked about the letter that was sent to the company and write to him when I have the information, so long as it is not of a confidential nature. Nevertheless, nobody should underestimate the importance of this investment, not only because of its size and the number of jobs involved but because, coming at the time when it did, it is a tremendous demonstration of confidence in Northern Ireland and, I would say, in the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole, and, incidentally, in the ability of Ministers in the United Kingdom to continue to control inflation.

Neither noble Lord opposite mentioned the other extremely important announcement we have had in Northern Ireland this week, of about 2,500 new jobs in the public sector—important jobs in schools and hospitals and so on—which will be welcomed by the community and which will help particularly in the sort of areas the noble Viscount mentioned, where it is unfortunately still very difficult to attract investment. I would add to his list large sections of Belfast—Central, North and West Belfast—which, as he knows, I take a particular interest in. We shall be concentrating these new public sector jobs, particularly in those areas while we have to accept that private investment is likely not to be so easily attracted to them.

Before I leave, as it were, industrial and economic matters, perhaps I could take up the question which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked about Strathearn Audio. Certainly the company has faced very serious problems and has not developed as was originally hoped. But it would be naive to suppose that any firm could break into the very high technology market, which Strathearn Audio was attempting to do, without considerable expenditure. I would also say that the Strathearn Audio operation must be looked at in the context of which I have just been speaking; namely, that it is based, as both noble Lords know, in an area of Belfast where unemployment is certainly as high as anywhere else in Northern Ireland and where the numbers of unemployed are far higher even than in areas like Strabane, which tend to be the ones of which people speak and which hit the headlines. It does, therefore, represent an important part of the Government's effort to improve conditions in those areas.

Nevertheless, it is clear that we must get the company back on the rails and on the right lines. There have been some changes and the company is now concentrating its efforts on a much narrower front and, I think and hope, now has the opportunity to show that it can produce viable products and secure the employment which the considerable public investment has given it the chance to do. The noble Lord can be assured that we are keeping an extremely close eye on developments in the company, and my right honourable friend Mr. Don Concannon has had a considerable amount of discussion with both the work-force and the directors and management of the company

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, the noble Lord has given a considerable amount of information and we are grateful for that, but I am afraid he has not answered the question which both my noble friend and I asked, namely whether sanctions will be taken against firms which may not themselves have broken the Government's pay guidelines but whose sub-contractors may have done so with regard to Government assistance and grants.

While on my feet, perhaps I may repeat that, certainly as represented by the CBI in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland industry entirely goes along with the pay objectives which the noble Lord has put across the Dispatch Box tonight. There is no question about that. But, as he himself was generous enough to say, there are problems about the way in which these sanctions are being imposed, and these are indeed now being looked at by Ministers after talking to the Director of the CBI in London.

As my noble friend asked specifically about the firm AVX, we should be grateful, if the Minister does not have an answer, if he would say so and write to us, or write to my noble friend and send a copy to me. This is a specific question that is being asked. The chaos which will result, if, in the middle of an investment programme, Government assistance is suddenly withdrawn because a sub-contractor has reneged on the pay guidelines, will cause great difficulty to many firms.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

And unease, my Lords.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I apologise if I did not make clear that I was attempting to answer that question by saying that this sort of problem is being looked at in a United Kingdom context and that whatever is decided for the United Kingdom will apply in Northern Ireland. I made clear that the matter is being reviewed by Ministers following representations both from the CBI in Northern Ireland to my right honourable friend—and those representations have of course been passed on—and from the CBI nationally. Certainly, when I receive any more information—though I doubt whether I will receive it in advance of noble Lords through the news media—I undertake to write to both noble Lords and let them know anything more that I can.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, regretted that we did not have time to discuss the marina at Bangor or the meat, pig and poultry industries in Northern Ireland. I heaved a sigh of relief that this is the first Appropriation debate I have answered in which we have not discussed the meat and pig industries. However, the marina at Bangor intrigues me and I should be interested to hear from the noble Viscount at some other time exactly what the problems are.

Turning briefly to education, the noble Lord asked about the cost of the reorganisation of secondary education, and he was kind enough to say he thought the approach we adopted in the Statement of 15th June was reasonable. I hope he will also accept that it is a little early for us to go much further than that; we cannot go very much further because we have not yet got the local planning to any sort of stage which will enable us to look at the consequences of reorganisation and to know what sort of changes will be made in particular districts and areas and therefore what the financial consequences are likely to be and over what sort of time-scale the changes will need to be carried out.

The other reason why we do not have the information which we need to give a more definite answer about finance is that the working parties which are sitting—certainly the one which, under Dr. Benn, is looking at the financing of voluntary grammar schools in a restructured system—have still to complete their deliberations and report. Their recommendations will clearly have financial consequences for secondary education in Northern Ireland in the future. It is quite possible that the recommendations that some of the other working parties make, particularly the working party looking at matters such as boarding and preparatory departments, will have financial implications. Until their deliberations are completed and the Government have recommendations and can look at them, we are not in a position to say anything more about the financial consequences.

A final point on finance. It is clear that this process will be spread over a period of several years. New building of any sort is bound to take at least five years from planning to completion. There is quite a substantial budget for secondary education capital expenditure in Northern Ireland at the moment. I should like it to be bigger, and perhaps we shall be able to look at increasing it. But it is a substantial budget, and most of the kind of changes that I should think are likely to be necessary ought to be able to be subsumed within the normal year to year expenditure, particularly when we are looking at a process of change which will in itself take several years.

The noble Lord mentioned the question of sixth forms and asked about the Government's plans on that. This is entirely a matter for local planning by the area education and library boards. I would not expect the same solution to be right in all areas of Northern Ireland by any manner of means. There are clearly many schools which ought to remain as 11 to 18 schools. There may be some areas where separate sixth-form provision is desirable, and is liked and is wanted by local schools and local people. That would certainly be likely to have greater financial consequences than 11 to 18 schools. But 11 to 18 schools cannot be provided in all areas of Northern Ireland. There will not be a sufficient number of sixth-form students. Again we need to wait until local planning is under way before coming to any conclusions about this.

The noble Lord asked me about the weight of objections to secondary reorganisation, and who was opposed to it. The resumé which we published on Monday attempted to provide, in a reasonably concise and readable form, the evidence which we received up until the 15th June, during the nine months of consultations on the Cowan Report, as it is known—the consultative document. That resumé makes clear that there were objections to comprehensive education, to non-selective secondary education, particularly from those people representing grammar school interests: parents, teachers and the governing bodies of grammar schools in Northern Ireland. So we have made that perfectly clear in the document which the Government have published.

The document also makes it clear that there was a very strong view that selection at 11-plus should cease to be carried out in Northern Ireland, and that is the decision the Government have taken—to abolish selection at 11-plus. I think we shall be able to evolve a system which will involve all the existing schools in Northern Ireland in a non-selective system, and enable them all to go on playing a part in what is a very excellent system of education.

In the meantime, as the noble Lord pointed out, we have introduced a new selective transfer arrangement to replace the 11-plus, but this is still a selective system, and I could not tell the noble Lord that I was happy with it, or that it had my, or the Government's, full approval, because no system of selection at 11 would. Nevertheless, I believe that it represents a considerable advance on the 11-plus. It transfers some of the burdens from children to the teachers. That is not necessarily something which teachers would welcome, but I think that they generally acknowledge it to be an improvement for an interim period. That is the period for which the new transfer arrangements will be used, the period until we manage to restructure education in Northern Ireland, so that we do not need to divide children at 11 into arbitrary categories of successes and failures, which I think all noble Lords would not wish to see continued, and which I hope will come to be seen in Northern Ireland as a considerable advance on the present system.

On Question, Motion agreed to.