Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987

HL Deb 03 February 1987 vol 484 cc170-8

5.5 p.m.

Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January 1987, be approved.

The main purpose of the draft order is to implement the Government's decision to transfer responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Education.

This decision arose from a consultative exercise undertaken jointly by the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. I stress that views were sought from a wide spectrum of statutory and voluntary bodies in both the health and personal social services and education sectors, as well as from trade unions, political parties, parents' groups and individuals who had shown an interest in the subject. The document was also referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly for consideration. Having given careful consideration to the responses, the Government concluded that the most appropriate way of meeting the education needs of these children was to bring them within the statutory education system.

The transfer of responsibility will take effect from 1st April 1987. From that date mentally handicapped children will no longer be determined to be unsuitable for education at school. The transfer of responsibility will also bring the law on special education in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Responsibility for the provision of health and social services for the mentally handicapped will of course remain the responsibility of health and social services boards.

I will now deal with the provisions of the draft order dealing with the transfer of responsibility. Article 3 removes the duty on education and library boards to determine those children who are presently considered to be unsuitable for education at school, and removes the powers of a health and social services board to provide the supervision and training of children who require special care. It also removes the restrictions on the application of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (the principal order) to certain persons suffering from mental disorder.

Schedule 1 contains transitional provisions relating to the children and to the transfer of staff and property. Paragraph 2 of the schedule provides that children who have been determined as unsuitable for education at school will be regarded as having special education needs. In response to representations made following the publication of the proposal, a change has been made to Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3). This change, which is incorporated in the draft order before your Lordships, increases from 12 months to two years the period within which the education and library boards will be required to make and maintain statements of children's special education needs.

Paragraph 3 of the schedule provides for the transfer of certain staff who are employed by health and social services boards on the training of children requiring special care to the employment of education and library boards. The staff involved include teachers, child care and ancillary staff, and they will transfer on terms and conditions of employment no less favourable than those which they enjoyed prior to the transfer. In the unlikely event that someone should be worse off after the transfer, provision is made so that compensation can be paid.

Paragraph 4 of the schedule provides for the transfer of property, including school buildings and equipment, to the ownership of education and library boards. Paragraph 5 enables the existing special care schools to be recognised on 1st April 1987 as controlled special schools, without education and library boards having to fulfil the requirements of Article 14 of the principal order.

Additional finance is to be made available to the education service to enable it to assume this responsibility. Expenditure plans for the next three years include provision for additional recurrent expenditure approaching £3 million over and above the sums which will be transferred from the Department of Health and Social Services budget. Provision has also been made for a capital programme to enable education and library boards to make a start on replacing or improving the existing buildings.

Turning now to the remaining provisions of this order, these make a number of miscellaneous changes to the principal order. Article 4 provides that once a proposal as to primary and secondary education has been approved by the department, the education and library board or other person making the proposal must implement the approved proposal. The department may modify the approved proposal if the board or other person making the proposal requests it to do so. Articles 5, 6 and 8 clarify the department's regulation-making powers in relation to schools and teachers and Article 9 enables the department to make regulations governing the eligibility of and terms and conditions for certain non-teaching staff.

Article 11 enables an education and library board to permit other persons to use the board's spare computer capacity on agreed terms and follows similar provision recently made for district councils in Northern Ireland. Articles 4 to 9 and Article 12 are in line with corresponding education law in Great Britain. If there are any points which noble Lords wish to raise, I shall do my best to reply. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved—(Lord Lyell.)

5.15 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, this order in effect seeks to apply the principles of the Education Act 1981 to Northern Ireland in order to achieve the integration of pupils with special needs into mainstream schools. We wholeheartedly support the principle of education, because all the evidence suggests that the aims of education of children with disabilities are the same as for all other children. We therefore welcome the draft order.

We also welcome very much the announcement by the Minister that £3 million will be made available to the education and library boards to enable the principle embodied in the order to be put into practice. Whether £3 million is the right figure is a matter upon which one will have to take advice.

But on the question of additional resources, can the Minister confirm that where modifications to buildings, or the provision of new buildings or equipment, by 1st April next are reasonably required, these have been put in hand? Also looking to the future, we shall be interested to know whether additional staff will be recruited over the next 12 months and what new capital works, if any, will be carried out during the next 12 months.

It has taken five years for the Northern Ireland Office to follow the precedent estalished by the Education Act 1981, but there is evidence that, notwithstanding this long delay, the consultation with organisations representing interested parties in Northern Ireland may, unfortunately, have been rushed. The Minister referred to the consultations among the department, the unions and the boards, but as I understand it the proposal for this draft order was not circulated until about seven months ago and I have heard complaints that too short a time was allowed for consultation. Having said that, I must acknowledge that the fact that answers have by now been found for all, or almost all, of the foreseen problems and obstacles is evidence of the considerable goodwill which exists among the unions, the boards and the department.

My noble friend Lord Blease, who regrets that he is unable to be present in the House owing to a family bereavement, reminded me when I discussed the order with him—it is an order with a great deal of interest for him—that longer consultations might have anticipated or indentified hidden problems which may not yet have emerged and which are therefore unanswered.

The Minister has referred us to the schedule which contains detailed regulations governing the transfer of staff to the employment of the education and library boards as from next April. Clearly the aim is to ensure that the staff who will be transferred will not have less favourable terms and conditions of service. But it is possible—indeed it is foreseeable—that the terms and conditions of service for some members of the staff will be less favourable, and that will be the position if the new duties are not reasonably comparable with the officers' pre-transfer duties. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House who will adjudicate on the question of comparability if it is in issue.

There is concern that some teachers could lose five years increments in their salaries. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the staff who will suffer the loss of increments and also the number involved. Am I correct in believing that they are the staff who obtained their initial training qualifications from the Muckamore College and who will not be in service on 1st April next because they are part-time or relief staff, or for any other good reason?

It would also be helpful if the Minister could tell the House what will be the status and the terms and conditions of employment of those teachers who are currently employed in adult centres and who cater for both young people and adults but who will not be transferred to the education and library boards in April. What will be their status and how will their salary compare with the salary of the staff who will have been transferred to the education and library boards? Again how many such staff are involved? I ask those questions because I understand that their position is the cause of some concern.

I am told that there is considerable confusion or uncertainty in some quarters about the status of the diploma in the education of the mentally handicapped granted by the former Ulster Polytechnic. Unfortunately, the effect of correspondence with the Department of Education seems to be to question the standing of this diploma. We shall be interested to know what the Minister has to say about the status of this diploma as perceived by the department.

I thought that it would be interesting to compare the articles of this order with the relevant Great Britain provisions to be found in the earlier legislation and in particular in the 1981 Act. I found that there are one or two interesting differences—or at least apparent differences. I found that the Northern Ireland Department has not reserved to itself in this order the right to make provision for leave of absence. Is that power available to the department under any other legislation?

A more significant difference is the power which will be vested in the department by virtue of this order to prohibit the use in schools of: and book or other teaching material of which the Department does not approve". That is a sweeping power. Is it a novel power? Unless the schools have a right to appeal against the exercise of this power if they consider that it has been exercised unreasonably, it would amount to a spectacular and unlimited power, appropriate possibly to the constitution of a colony. Does the noble Lord agree that there should be a right of appeal where a school considers that the power has been exercised unreasonably? Perhaps the Minister can tell me that the right of appeal exists elsewhere.

I also notice that in the original proposal, which was issued seven months ago and which was the basis of the consultation with the unions, the library and health authorities, this power was limited to the prohibition of books. But as we see in the draft order, the power has been widened so that it applies to any other teaching material of which the department does not approve. Am I correct in assuming that there has been no consultation whatsoever with the unions, with the library boards or with any organisation as regards the extension of this power from books to any other teaching material?

The order is for the benefit of the disabled children of Northern Ireland. We should be grateful if the Minister could explain to the House how the parents of handicapped children, who may be dissatisfied with the way that the arrangements are working out in relation to their own children, can lodge a complaint. Who will investigate the merits or otherwise of their complaints?

I now come to Article 11, which is the last article on which I have a few comments to make and one or two questions to ask. It deals with the computer. At first glance the provision in Article 11 allowing the board to enter into a contractual arrangement with a third party for the use of the board's computer is an attractive temptation. After all, if the computer has spare capacity why should that not be used by a third party? But can the Minister tell the House how the education boards will ensure that there is no unauthorised access to the information stored in the computer, which should be confidential and which should remain confidential? Will there be new safeguards or additional safeguards against unauthorised access to such information?

Can the Minister also tell the House whether other public institutions, such as the health boards, will have a prior claim over private institutions for the use of spare computer capacity, assuming that it is available? If so, does the department intend to invite the board to give priority to applications from other public bodies?

With those few observations and questions, we give the order our approval. As I said before, we are in full sympathy with the order and we trust that the new arrangements will work effectively for the benefit of the mentally handicapped children of Northern Ireland.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this order. It is accepted that we shall not oppose it. However, there are a number of queries that I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to. Some of those queries have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies.

The new paragraph 17A(1) on page 3 appears to be rather highhanded in some of its provisions, and especially in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e). Subparagraph (d) allows a curriculum and timetable to be decided centrally by the department in a way which is not practised in England and Wales. Subparagraph (e), as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned, enables the department to prohibit the use of any book or other teaching material of which the department does not approve. So long as we have a reasonably enlightened government in office, the danger that this power will he abused is not too great. However, suppose a more extreme government took office. Surely a greater say in these matters should be allowed to local opinion. Can the Minister comment on this matter? I appreciate that the position in the Province is somewhat different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

New paragraph 70 on page 4 refers to regulations as to employment of teachers. The department is to be given powers with reference to determining the eligibility of people employed as teachers, their qualifications, the probationary periods necessary and so on, which seems sensible. What worries us is subparagraph (3): The terms and conditions upon which a teacher (other than a temporary or part-time teacher) is employed shall be set out in an agreement entered into between the teacher and the employer and the agreement shall be in such a form as may be approved by the Department". This is clearly a very contentious subject in England and Wales. Can the Minister confirm that there will be satisfactory agreement, as stated, between teacher and employer and no more interference by the department than is strictly necessary?

I listened with interest to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as regards computers. I too shall be glad to hear from the Minister confirmation of the measures that will prevent that use being abused.

My final question refers to Article 12, which abolishes the annual report by the department. The obvious question is: why? I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify what the purpose of the report was and tell us why it is no longer considered necessary.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, once again we are grateful for the attention paid to this rather complex order by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton. I hope that I shall manage to answer most if not all of the questions which they have put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked a series of questions. I hope that I took them all down, as I endeavoured to do. If I have missed any, I am sure that he will forgive me and I shall be in touch with him in writing.

The noble Lord indicated to me that he was a little worried about additional resources. He also spoke about appeals. Additional resources will be made available to the education boards to enable them to implement the principle of integration, but integration into the normal school system does not arise from the order before us this afternoon. We expect, at least initially, that any mentally handicapped children covered by the order will continue to be educated in separate schools. The noble Lord will be aware that the principle of integration refers to children with special education needs being educated in ordinary schools and resources have always been available for this. Integration in the region of 40 per cent. had been achieved in Northern Ireland even before the principle was written into law.

The noble Lord raised three of four points with me about appeals. Disputes on comparability of duties will be referred to an industrial tribunal. The noble Lord will find that in Schedule 1(3)(6). There will not be formal procedures for parents who are dissatisfied about the way these arrangements are working to bring forward their complaints, but parents will have access, as they always have had, to education and library boards, as well as to the Department of Education, if they wish to make any representations about the new arrangements.

The noble Lord also asked about adjudicating on whether the department was prohibiting unreasonably the use of a book or equipment. We do not see that there will be a necessity for an appeals procedure because the power to prohibit the use of a book or of equipment in schools would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. Any decision to prohibit would be taken only where the content of the book was of, say, a seditious nature or where it could offend against the accepted moral ethos of the broad community in Northern Ireland. That parameter is valid for all of us in England, Scotland, Wales or wherever. I stress to the noble Lord that it is some considerable time since the existing power was last used. So far as we are aware, the existing power has not been exercised in the past 10 years.

The noble Lord also asked about the staff who he thinks may suffer the loss of five years' increments on their salaries as a result of the order. This showed the close attention that the noble Lord had paid to the order. I am given to understand that nobody will suffer any reduction of salary as a result of the order before us this evening.

The noble Lord also raised in passing the question of the Muckamore special care teachers' certificate. Some teachers who were accepted as qualified to teach in ordinary schools by virtue of the Muckamore special care teachers' certificate, as well as five years' teaching experience in special care schools, lost incremented credit for the five years when they voluntarily took posts in ordinary schools. They took these posts of their own accord. They will not be compensated because they did this of their own free will and before the order came before us. I am not able to go into the details of the salaries that they are obtaining now or indeed would have done—that is betting on a hypothesis—but the main thrust of my reply is that nobody will suffer any reduction of salary as a result of this order. The teachers who are now transferring by virtue of the order are being forced to do so by a government decision and they have been promised that no reduction will be made in their salaries.

The noble Lord asked about the staff employed in adult centres who will not be transferred to the employment of the education boards; those staff who are not dealing with children as they are defined in the Act—that is, young persons under the age of 19. Any staff who do not transfer to the education boards will remain in the employment of the health and social services boards at the adult training centres. I am advised that final decisions have not yet been taken on the numbers of staff who will be transferred under the provisions of the order so I cannot say at present how many will be remaining at the existing adult training centres under the Department of Health and Social Services. If the noble Lord requires any further enlightenment, perhaps he will indicate that to me and I shall write to him. I understand that final decisions have not been taken, and we may be able to cover that on another occasion.

The noble Lord also referred to the diploma in education which was granted by the former Ulster Polytechnic. This diploma dealt with the education of mentally handicapped persons. I understand that the full title of the diploma is the Teachers' Diploma in the Education of Retarded Children. This was introduced for teachers in special care schools as part of the teacher training curriculum. This is an acceptable qualification for teaching in all schools in Northern Ireland and that is how the Department of Education treats it. I hope that that will set at rest the noble Lord's fears and possibly the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, who is not able to be with us today.

The noble Lord asked about leave of absence. Leave of absence for all staff employed in schools, including teaching staff, will continue to be a matter for the employing authorities. These will be the education and library boards and in some cases possibly the department. But the staff who are transferring to the education services will be eligible for leave of absence to the same extent as existing staff in the education service.

The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, asked about the use of spare capacity of computers, which is dealt with in Article 12 of the order. They asked quite rightly about confidentiality and the protection of confidential information. The Data Protection Act 1984 places a legal obligation on complete users of apparatus and computers to protect against the misuse of data contained in any part of the computer. A high priority would be given to preventing unauthorised access to computer-based information.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked how the spare capacity might be allocated if indeed it was applied for. All the education and library boards are moving towards what we call in-house computerised administrative systems. I am afraid that we do not yet have that in my own department of agriculture and so it is a little foreign to me, but all education boards are moving in this direction. We hope that they will be able to install the necessary equipment within the next two years. In due course the board may wish to provide spare computer facilities, if it has any, to some of the groups with which it has contacts—for example, the youth clubs and the youth services. The board will want to be assured that that usage will be of benefit to the board and will not prejudice the function of the computer or the board's use of that computer. I think the noble Lord will accept that we should leave it to the boards themselves to establish priorities for the use of spare computer facilities and computer time.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me several questions, one of which related to computer confidentiality, with which I have just dealt. The noble Lord also raised the question of Article 5. I think he said it was Article 17 of the original order.

Before I move to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a question as to consultation from the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in absentia. I understand that as far back as 1982 a consultative document on the education and training of mentally handicapped children was published by the Department of Education and also by the Department of Health and Social Services. That document was given the widest possible distribution. It was also referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly for consideration. I am advised that the majority of those who replied expressed the view that mentally handicapped children should be given a statutory right to education. The Government considered that this view could best be met by bringing the children into the statutory education system. This decision was announced on 17th December 1984, just over two years ago.

The proposal for the draft order which we have before us today was published on 25th June last year. I am advised that it was referred to some 80 bodies for consideration. In the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly my right honourable friend the Secretary of State invited comments from the main Northern Ireland party leaders. All those who replied to the proposal were in agreement with the transfer of responsibility to the education services. I hope that that covers the points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about Article 8 and the existing arrangements for consultation and negotiation on matters which could affect teachers' employment. They will not be altered in any way by Article 8, because the negotiating machinery with the Northern Ireland teachers currently consists of the teachers' salaries negotiating committee and the teachers' conditions of service negotiating committee. Those two committees comprise members drawn from the major teachers' unions, teachers, employers and officials from the department. They are also under independent chairmanship. The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill that your Lordships are currently debating will apply to England and Wales only.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also raised the question under Article 12 of the annual report. I have a note here which says that it is not needed. There may be some further information, but as far as I am aware, this report was published in previous years but there has been a disappointingly poor take-up. The department and the Government felt that it was not cost-effective to publish it. I am advised—indeed I asked the question this morning—that the information will be available and that any interested persons may apply either to the education and library boards or to the Department of Education, from which they will be able to receive the information in an acceptable form. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.

I understand that a standard run of copies of this annual report was prepared in the usual form and placed in the Stationery Office but there was a disappointingly poor take-up. The information is available, however, and the Department of Education would be more than grateful if any parent or anyone else interested in these activities made inquiries. The department will undertake to see that the information is as widely disseminated as necessary. I hope that that has covered most points. If there is anything that I have missed I shall certainly write to the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Prys-Davies. With that, I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.