Sitting of 17 July 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Industrial Investment)
9.35 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Investment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.
The order is short and relatively simple. It widens the powers to pay grant towards capital expenditure incurred on the provision of premises to be used for carrying on a qualifying industrial process.
The parent legislation provides that grant is payable only when a manufacturer provides industrial premises for his own use. The order will enable grant to be paid to any person who builds a factory and subsequently leases it to a manufacturing tenant. This amendment will have the effect of bringing the law in Northern Ireland broadly into line with that in Great Britain.
In Northern Ireland, advance factory building has tended to be the monopoly of the public sector, and there have been few attractions to the private sector to participate. The extension of grant in the way that the order provides will help to promote a climate in which the private investor will be persuaded to consider the industrial property market. The House will allow that in the current economic situation any measure which seeks to increase the resources available for industrial development should be enacted as quickly as possible.
There is a second reason for moving quickly. The special fiscal measure included in the Finance Act 1980 applies only to expenditure incurred before 27 March 1983. The Act provides for an initial 100 per cent. capital allowance on expenditure incurred on the construction of an industrial building with a gross internal floor space not exceeding 2,500 sq. ft. This incentive, married with the availability of regional development grant, has greatly encouraged the private sector to provide small factory units in Great Britain. I hope that there will be the same effect in Northern Ireland.
I commend the draft order to the House.
9.37 am
Mr. James Molyneaux: As the Minister has said, the order is another step in bringing Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. As such, we give it a very warm welcome. My right hon. and hon. Friends offer no objection to the Minister's decision to employ the shortened form of normal procedure, not to be confused with the various "Prayer Book" versions, nor do we object to the aims of the order. We must confess, however, that we are a little puzzled by the urgency of it all.
1512
First, spare factory space is unfortunately not a scarce commodity in Northern Ireland. Secondly, as the grant will not be paid on what one might call a private advance factory until the premises are in use for a qualifying industrial process, is there really likely to be any rush of private investors at a time when it has proved impossible to retain many existing undertakings in Northern Ireland? As this would not appear on the face of it to be an attractive proposition for an investor, can the Minister give us some idea of the take-up rate under the existing broadly parallel positions of part I of the Industry Act 1972 in force; in Great Britain?
We should also like some clarification of the phrase "qualifying industrial process" which is used in some of the accompanying notes. May we assume that that definition will exclude any form of service industry, or, perhaps more important, any kind of repair facilities?
The portion of article 3 which provides for grants for alterations or extensions to a building or even part of a building is probably the most useful part of the order. Hitherto, manufacturers have had the great problem of trying to assess requirements, first in the short term and then in the long term. They have had to decide whether to opt for a modest beginning, with perhaps no scope for expansion, or to take the risk and go for a much larger factory than might sometimes seem to be prudent.
In the foreseeable future, it is to existing concerns and undertakings in Northern Ireland that we have to look. It is likely to be much more profitable, from the point of view of reducing unemployment, to graft on to what one might call a growing stock. It is more likely to flourish in the present economic climate than some exotic plant which may wither in the first chill breeze.
I should like to be clear about sites, and to know what is to happen in one of the so-called new towns where the entire town has been vested. One is never very clear by whom it was vested. There was the former Ministry of Development, and there were the new towns commissions of various shapes and sizes. Then, at a still later stage, we have what is now called the Department of the Environment, under the control of the Secretary of State. In that case, everything within the boundary of the town is vested.
If I may be forgiven for mentioning a constituency point, Antrim is perhaps the clearest example. Where is the private investor likely to find a site? If all potential sites are the property of the Government, will the Government release the land and not impose the unacceptable requirement that the developer will be given a comparatively short lease? This poses all kinds of problems, particularly if some of the investment is being derived from a very much larger undertaking on this side of the water.
May we assume that potential investors will not be unduly hampered by location problems? It is reasonable to expect that they will have to pay due regard to planning policies, but one hopes that those planning policies will be interpreted with flexibility. Far more important, they must be relieved of pressures designed to force them to go to areas which are not commercially attractive. The investors simply cannot be expected to commit capital in locations which are hampered by, for example, transport considerations, and where potential tenants would be very hard to come by. Neither should they be expected to settle for a location where their factory would stand a fair chance of being razed to the ground in the first year.

1513
I am not advocating discrimination against particular areas on the ground of political or religious conviction, but it is common sense to say—and for the Government to say—that behavioural patterns of the natives in that area are bound to be a major factor when decisions are being taken by potential investors.
9.43 am
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to underscore one point that was emphasised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) concerning the location that has been appointed in certain areas for the development of factories, and to give one illustration.
In the village of Portglenone there was on the map for development a location that was allocated for the private development of businesses. No business has ever been built in that area, for the simple reason that it is the worst area for terrorist activity in that village.
When the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is on the Opposition Front Bench this morning, was in office in Northern Ireland, a certain potential investor wanted to build a factory in Portglenone. The planning authority said "You must build the factory in the area that has been appointed for it." The investor said "No. If I were to build there, I would be unable to get any work people to go to it. It is a very bad area. There have been many assassinations there."
The matter went to appeal, and the vice-chairman of the planning appeals commission recommended that the location should be changed, but the commission overruled the decision of its vice-chairman. I am glad to say that when the matter came to the right hon. Member for Mansfield, because there were 40 jobs at stake, he said "Jobs are more important than this argument". He let the matter go ahead, and there is a prosperous business there today.
Therefore, I underscore what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, South, and I trust that we shall have an assurance from the Government today that in the matter of location, where there is a danger of a new factory being razed to the ground, or work people attacked, there will be some latitude, and that jobs will take first priority. That is essential at the present time in Northern Ireland.
9.45 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) in welcoming the order and the fact that it has been introduced under the abbreviated procedure.
The Minister of State was good enough to supply hon. Members with a personal letter commenting upon the nature and purposes of the order, under the date of 5 June, although an explanatory document had previously been issued as usual. There are one or two points of explanation on those two papers that I should like in a moment to raise with the Minister of State.
As the representative of a rural constituency in Northern Ireland—and part of the beginning of wisdom in regard to Northern Ireland is to realise that there is Belfast and there is the rest of Northern Ireland—my attention was particularly caught by the words in article 3
"(including structural alteration, extension or improvement)".
That, I take it, would bring within the ambit of these grants the alteration, extension or improvement of existing buildings such as mill buildings.
1514
The mill buildings across the face of Northern Ireland strike the eye of any observer, but they are of potential interest not only to the industrial archaeologist. Although they were not originally constructed for modern productive processes, many of those buildings, in the locations in which they stand are suitable, after necessary adaptation, for occupation and use by new industries; in fact, already many new industries have found a workable home in such buildings.
It is, therefore, particularly welcome that grants should now be extended to those entrepreneurs whose use of such buildings would be made possible by the work of third parties, financed by third parties, and carried out by third parties. There is particular importance in this possibility, because employment in Northern Ireland can be localised to a degree which it is perhaps hard in the rest of the kingdom, or in most of the rest of the kingdom, to envisage.
I imagine that those who promoted the parent Act had in mind primarily such enterprises as those whose collapse is now causing havoc and distress in Northern Ireland. Whether or not this was so in the past, I am convinced that in the future much of the resumption of industrial activity will take place on the part of relatively small firms and new enterprises that will not necessarily be located in the obvious industrial centres but will take opportunities of building and labour where they find them. For that purpose, and for stimulating that process, I believe that the grants available under the order could be helpful.
I have in my mind's eye as I speak the village, or perhaps it should be called the little town, of Annsborough, near Castlewellan, which, as one drives through it, appears to be comprised almost entirely of derelict mills, the vestiges of a nobleman's investment in the last century. I am not sure whether it was the Minister of State or his predecessor and I who were concerned for a long time over the possibility of one of these buildings being made available and adapted for a local entrepreneur with the prospect of employing local labour. The entrepreneur believed—I think he was right—that one of these buildings could have been made suitable for his purpose. I remember the difficulty experienced at that time in adapting his requirements to the then existing grant legislation. I hope, therefore, that enterprises of that sort will be helped by the extension of the grant powers which this order will make.
In introducing the order and in writing to hon. Members about it, the Minister of State laid stress upon the competition for capital between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom. No doubt it was right of him, and something of which we would approve, to make sure that there was no inequality which, so far as such competition existed, would place Northern Ireland at a disadvantage. I think, however, that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland will agree that, in the coming period, it is to local enterprise, local investment and local saving that we shall find ourselves looking for the revival of industrial activity in Northern Ireland. That will be nothing strange, historically or socially, to the Province.
I put it to the Minister of State that this should be seen as an opportunity for banks and similar institutions, which would hereby have the full necessary collateral for advances, to come in on the act and, if the entrepreneur himself has only enough capital to start the business, to inject the additional capital that would provide suitable buildings in a suitable place. It is wrong if those who have

1515
investment capital in Northern Ireland, particularly the banks and institutions, do not look first to their own Province for opportunities of investment. I believe that if they look, particularly with this order in mind, they will find such opportunities to a surprising degree and perhaps in surprising locations.
That brings me to a technical point that I want to raise with the Minister of State arising out of the terms of the order and the principal Act of 1966 and his interpretation of it. The hon. Gentleman said in his letter that the premises that will attract grant—I believe technically called "the qualifying premises"—include premises
"which are subsequently leased to another person carrying on a qualifying activity".
I take it that the use of crystal balls and such equipment will not be necessary in administering these grants. I therefore want to know how a decision is reached to give a grant for expenditure on premises that are subsequently to be leased to a person carrying on a qualifying activity. Will the entrepreneur and the investor, or possibly the entrepreneur the investor and the developer, have to be brought together and already be in contractual relations, and firm contractual relations, before these grants can be made? That, I must confess, was the interpretation to which I was inclined after the minute textual study to which I had subjected the Minister's letter of 5 June.
But then I was caught up short when I applied the same attentive study to the explanatory document which has a whole spiel in the first three or four paragraphs on the question of advance factories, what a splendid thing advance factories had been in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the moves made to tempt—I do not know with what success, although my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South put out a tentative inquiry about the matter—private capital into providing advance factories. Paragraph 3 of the explanatory memorandum, describing the order, said that it was
"in response to the Government's policy of attracting private sector finance into advance factory provision."
Which is it? Is it into the speculative provision in the hope of getting a lessee some time in the future? Is it to that that the intended grants are to be directed? Or is it to cases where the parties concerned, including the potential entrepreneur, have been brought together?
If the Minister of State, in resolving that dilemma, embraces the second alternative, I personally would not feel disposed to criticise him. My belief is that we shall begin most fruitfully in these cases from a gleam in the eye of an entrepreneur and that the process will extend backwards from the entrepreneur to the choice of the site, to the finding of the building, builder or developer and, I hope, with the assistance of the Department of Commerce, to the location of an institution that is willing to provide the finance—not necessarily the working finance but the capital finance—for the premises.
On the face of it, there is a contradiction between what appeared to be the background and scope of the order, as stated in the explanatory document, and the explanation afforded by the Minister of State. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are here filling a gap that has always existed between the legislation on the mainland and that in Ulster.
That takes us back to the Industry Act 1972. Not all of us who were then sitting on the Government Benches look back on that Act with uninhibited enthusiasm for all parts of it. As it happens, they are not the parts with which we are concerned today. Although parts II and III of it applied
1516
to Northern Ireland, part I did not. The now defunct Northern Ireland Parliament was provided with dispensation from the limitations imposed by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and was enabled to enact its own legislation on that subject. It was assumed, I imagine, that the Northern Ireland Parliament would amend its 1966 Act in whatever way was necessary to mirror the provisions of part I of the Industry Act 1972.
However, as it happened, the Northern Ireland Parliament and its various assorted successors were busy with other things in 1972 and 1973, notably with suicide and extinction. It is therefore perhaps not altogether surprising that they omitted to take the invitation afforded to them by section 18 of the 1972 Act. Now it is 1981. At last we, in this House, have got round, by means of an Order in Council, to doing what ought to have been clone straight away directly for that part of the kingdom as for any other.
I have no intention of annexing my normal lecture on legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole to the welcome I am offering to the order. I say simply that it is a solemn reflection that whatever benefits part I and this aspect of part I of the Act afforded in the rest of the Kingdom are now, only after a delay of nine years, to become available in the Province. Belated as that is, we welcome it. Particularly those of us who represent rural constituencies will have this order at the back of our minds when, as happily occurs from time to time, we are approached by those who, often with very little backing but often with a good deal of personal skill and experience, are contemplating setting up productive processes and employing their fellow citizens. We shall bear this order in mind, and we welcome its making.
10.1 am
Mr. Adam Butler: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate. Obviously I am delighted that the order should have been received. The speeches which have been made point to its potential benefits.
I sympathise with the latter remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in questioning why it has taken this time to bring forward the order. I think that I can only answer him by saying that it is because of the success of Government encouragement to the private sector to be involved in the provision of factory space in the last year or two. This answers the first point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). The amount of activity has been very considerable. It is because of that success that we have been encouraged to look at our own situation to see whether it is possible to move away from the prevailing situation of largely Government-only involvement. That Government involvement, with other things which go with it, has definitely inhibited the private developer.
Having seen this success in Great Britain, I felt that it was right—I welcome the fact that hon. Members have considered it right that we should use the shortened procedure—to bring the order to the House as quickly as possible.
I should like to reply briefly to the points of detail that have been raised. The qualifying industry is largely manufacturing. Service industry is not included. One reason for that is that in Northern Ireland there is already a market, albeit limited, in private building—for instance, for warehousing.

1517
It is correct to say that the word "construction" in the order covers improvements. It covers alterations of a capital nature to parts of buildings. Any person is covered by the legislation, so that, whether we are discussing a private developer or a local bank, all qualify under the legislation. But—and this relates to the next point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South, about when the grant becomes payable—to the question whether it would be possible for a developer, working perhaps in conjunction with a financial institution, to draw grant if he is building purely speculatively, building in the hope of achieving a let to an industrial user, the answer is "No."
My Department will need to be satisfied that the provisions of the measure have been met. Generally, that will require a lease to have been signed, or documentation showing a firm contractual position, perhaps, between the developer and the eventual user of the premises. That will be essential. I believe that that is what the right hon. Member for Down, South would welcome.
Sometimes it is helpful to have speculative building. That is what public advance factory building is about. But, generally, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting that one needs what he described as a gleam in the eye of the entrepreneur—that is to say, a man with an idea, a product which he wishes to develop, who is looking for support in regard to the premises in which he might carry out an activity.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South, asked about new town sites. Where land is effectively publicly owned, we would encourage its sale or letting on long leaseholds to a private developer. We want to remove, where possible, any inhibition to private building. Where the public ownership of land is such as inhibition, we have to overcome it in the way that I have described.
This measure is neutral as to discrimination in the location of any private building. It would not be the Government's intention to seek discrimination of any sort. Indeed, it is significant that the grant about which we are talking in this instance is not the discretionary grant, which applies to plant, equipment and buildings, but the investment grant which is of a fixed percentage, and certainly of a percentage substantially higher than that anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is the fixed 30 per cent. grant which would apply universally throughout the Province. Therefore, in that sense there is no discrimination between one part of the Province and another.
The Government see this order as a small way of bringing more resources to bear in our endeavours to improve the economic prospects of the Province through greater industrial development. Therefore I warmly commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Investment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Diseases of Animals)
10.8 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
1518
That the draft Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 13 April, be approved.
This is a consolidation measure.
Question put and agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Before we begin the debate, it might be as well for me to comment on its scope. It will not be in order to discuss the police or general security matters, because the order covers only Northern Ireland Departments and not the Northern Ireland Office. Anything within the schedule is, of course, a subject which may be discussed.
10.9 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue of nearly £1,368 million out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and to appropriate that sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. The sum in question represents the balance of the main Estimates for Northern Ireland Departments for 1981–82 and three excess Votes incurred in the financial year 1979–80. The Public Accounts Committee has examined the excess Votes and has raised no objection to their being voted. Hon. Members should be aware that a sum on account amounting to £944 million has already been appropriated for 1981–82 under the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which was approved by the House on 9 March, bringing total main Estimates provision to £2,312 million.
More detailed information on the draft order can be found in the Estimates volume and in the document entitled "Statement of Excesses 1979–80", copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. An explanatory memorandum has also been circulated to right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, Opposition spokesmen on Northern Ireland affairs, and others who took part in the last Appropriation order debate.
I start by referring to some of the main aspects of the draft order. The House will note that within the £48·7 million provided for agriculture, fisheries and forestry a sum of £3·8 million is included under Class I Vote 2 in respect of agricultural support. I should like to make it clear to the House that this does not include the £10 million special package of assistance which has been allocated to Northern Ireland's agriculture industry following two years of rapidly falling farm incomes. That package, which includes the special aid agreed with the EEC Commission for the development of beef cattle production announced in the House on 3 April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will also benefit the milk and intensive livestock sectors. Supplementary Estimates amounting to some £7·7 million for those additional schemes will be presented to the House in due course.
Pending approval of those Supplementary Estimates, expenditure on the new services in Northern Ireland will be met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil

1519
Contingencies Fund. The balance of the £10 million assistance relating to the existing suckler cow subsidy, will fall on a United Kingdom Vote.
Moving on to industry and employment, hon. Members will see that Class II Votes 1 and 2 cover a wide range of expenditure aimed at the support and regeneration of the Northern Ireland economy. Those Votes provide amongst other things some £14·4 million towards the Department of Commerce's factory building programme; £57·8 million for industrial development grants to encourage the establishment and development of various industrial undertakings; £11·7 million for assistance to Short Brothers, the Northern Ireland aircraft manufacturer; and £46 million in assistance for the continued support of the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast.
Class II Vote 2 also includes provision for the local enterprise development unit, which is responsible for providing advice and assistance to small firms in Northern Ireland and will therefore have a key role in relation to the business opportunities programme, which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Statement and was launched in Northern Ireland on 15 June.
We are convinced that small businesses have a vital part to play in promoting economic recovery, and the aim of the business opportunities programme is to bring to the attention of as wide an audience as possible the significant number of measures which the Government have taken to alter the balance of risk and reward in favour of the small business.
We shall need to continue to try to attract larger-scale inward investment to Northern Ireland. That is vitally important, not just because of the scale of job creation potential which it represents but because overseas companies provide a valuable market stimulus to local firms. They often bring with them new management and management styles, and they introduce new products and processes which help to disseminate up-to-date technologies.
I turn to the expenditure proposed in Class II Vote 3—functioning of the labour market. I hope that I need not emphasise the Government's profound concern about the current high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, significant and lasting improvements in levels of employment can come about only with the reduction and elimination of the virus of inflation, the unmistakable cause of rising unemployment over recent years.
In the short term, strenuous efforts are being made to sustain viable projects and to promote new employment through the industrial development programme to which I have just referred. We aim also to ease unemployment through various special employment measures, including an expansion of the youth opportunities programme during 1981–82 from 7,000 to 10,000 places, for which £11·9 million is included in the main Estimates, and the introduction of a new scheme, action for community employment—ACE—which has as its primary objective the creation of temporary employment opportunities for long-term unemployed adults, and for which £2·1 million is included.
Next I turn to the Votes related to energy. Class III, Vote 1 deals with expenditure associated with the Northern Ireland gas industry. Of the £24 million provided in that Vote, £13·9 million is required to meet continuing
1520
operating losses incurred by gas undertakings and the remaining £10·1 million is to assist with conversion of consumer gas appliances.
In connection with the latter, the House will be aware that the Government have announced their intention to carry out further studies on the feasibility of a supply of natural gas to Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland's fields at Kinsale. We cannot, however, at this stage, predict the outcome of those studies and if the project cannot be demonstrated to be satisfactory and viable we shall have to continue with the arrangements for the rundown of the industry, which have been suspended for the time being, pending the Kinsale study.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When those studies are being carried out will the Government: be careful not to limit their consideration necessarily to the potential supply from Kinsale? Presumably, many of the considerations would be common to a supply from the mainland, as well as from the Republic, if not o a combination of both forms of supply.
It appears as if there were an almost exclusive concentration on the Kinsale project. I ask the Minister to confirm that it is understood that it would be wasteful and a distortion to concentrate exclusively on that possibility.
Mr. Alison: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. Much study had earlier gone into some of the ideas about a mainland pipe. Not only will the Kinsale studies be evaluated; necessarily, there will be a study of the inter-relationship between the two alternatives.
Still on energy, provision is sought in class III, Vole 2 for a grant of £79·8 million to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. Hon. Members will be aware that as part of the 1977 financial reconstruction of the service the Government agreed to make available £20 million in each of the five years from 1977–78 to help keep industrial And commercial tariffs in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of Northern Ireland's heavy reliance on oil for electricity generation, the rapid increase in oil prices since that programme of support was launched has caused further financial problems for the service and has led to tariff increases which were imposing a sharp and unreasonable burden on electricity consumers.
The Government decided, therefore, that for 1981–82 industrial electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland should be on a par with, and domestic tariffs 5 per cent. above, the highest in England and Wales. This differential will be completely removed in 1982–83, and these tariff relationships will be maintained thereafter. The Government consider that this has been a step of great significance and importance for the Province, enabling the Northern Ireland Electricity Service to limit tariff increases this year to an average of 5 per cent. rather than the 35 per cent. that would otherwise have been required. To implement this decision, therefore, a sum of £59·8 million is required in addition to the £20 million to which I referred earlier as being the final payment under the 1977 financial reconstruction. The balance of the support for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service from public funds in 1981–82 will be a net loan from the Government. That explains the discrepancy in the figure.
Mr. Powell: In this connection, will the Minister be good enough to bring out the point that there may be an equal sum by way of subsidy paid to consumers in other parts of the United Kingdom, which is concealed by the

1521
fact that it is an internal subsidy within the financing of the Great Britain electricity supply service? It would be helpful, if the Minister agrees, if he would emphasise that this is not necessarily a subsidy that is unique to consumers in Northern Ireland, although the financial form in which it has to be presented is necessarily so.
Mr. Alison: I am happy to confirm that. All references to discrepancies in per capita expenditure as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are, in a sense, artificial and arise from the fact that throughout the mainland the rich parts of the country effect a transfer of net resources to the poorer parts, but this is not thrown up because of the financial presentation of these sums.
I now turn briefly to some of the major features of the environmental programmes covered by the draft order. Under Class IV, Vote 1, provision of £27·9 million is sought for new construction and improvement works on roads. The greater part of this provision will be obsorbed by contractual commitments on schemes such as Foyle bridge in Londonderry and the construction of a link between the M1 and M2 motorways in Belfast. Provision of £38·6 million is also made in the same Vote for operation and maintenance services on roads and bridges.
In housing, the Government in their allocation of public moneys in Northern Ireland are continuing to give high priority to tackling the serious problems that exist, especially in Belfast. Hon. Members with an interest in Northern Ireland affairs have had an opportunity recently to discuss these issues during a wide-ranging debate in the Northern Ireland Committee. Class V, Vote 1 includes provision for £143·7 million in assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The executive's 1981–82 budget for revenue and capital expenditure is £328 million, split broadly between £226 million revenue and £102 million capital. This compares with a total figure of £293 million for 1980–81 and represents a slight increase in real terms over the 1980–81 figure. In addition, the resources available to voluntary housing associations in Northern Ireland have been substantially increased, from £13 million in 1980–81 to £19 million in 1981–82.
I come now to provision for education. About £199 million is sought in Class VIII, Vote 1. This is largely for payment of teachers' salaries, but it also includes provision for grants on capital expenditure at voluntary schools. Class VIII, Vote 4 provides for the recurrent and capital expenditure of the education and library boards, which carry the regular running costs of most schools in the Province. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is experiencing a considerable fall in school rolls as a result of the decline in the number of births since 1964.
Here I should like to draw the attention of the House to. the Northern Ireland Department of Education's publication in March this year entitled "Schools and Demographic Trends—a Backcloth to Planning". This paper suggests criteria that school authorities might apply in considering the necessary rationalisation of school provision. Preliminary discussions on the paper have already taken place. But the changes envisaged cannot be accomplished overnight, and planning must start at the local level. I mention the subject today to reassure hon. Members that we in Northern Ireland are not overlooking
1522
the possibilities of securing educational improvements as well as financial economies as a result of falling school rolls.
I turn next to the health and personal social services programme. In Class IX, Vote 1 the provision sought in the Estimate is £441·2 million, made up mainly of £430·7 million for current and capital expenditure by the health and social services boards. Although this level of provision imposes a tight financial discipline the sum available still provides for an increase in real terms in the current expenditure of the boards, which is in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The money will be used mainly to bring into operation new facilities which are now ready or which will come on stream during the current year. Regrettably, the planned capital programme has had to be reduced, but the level of capital expenditure available will still be comparable to that in Great Britain and will provide for expenditure of £21·8 million.
The last major area of expenditure to which I want to refer is that contained in Class X of the main Estimates, dealing with expenditure totalling £417·5 million by the Department of Health and Social Services on social security benefits and allied payments. The cash value of these benefits is kept in parity with their counterparts in Great Britain, and, as hon. Members will be aware, administration of social security in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is so co-ordinated as to provide in effect a common system throughout the United Kingdom.
Finally, I noted during the March debate on the last draft Appropriation order that some right hon. and hon. Members expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the arrangements for dealing with Supply matters for Northern Ireland. Many of those present today will recall that last year my predecessor attempted to obtain the agreement of the House to introduce a new procedure based more or less on that used for the Second Reading debates on United Kingdom Consolidated Fund Bills. However, the unanimous agreement that he sought was not forthcoming, and as a result that proposal was taken no further. None the less, should right hon. and hon. Members have any suggestions for improving the structure of these debates, I shall be only too pleased to consider the matter once again. I emphasise that the Government are as anxious as anyone to ensure that the time available for considering Northern Ireland Supply matters is used to the best advantage.
I have referred in necessarily somewhat broad and telescoped terms to the main features of the draft order, and I know that right hon. and hon. Members will wish to raise other, perhaps more detailed, matters in due course. I am grateful to those who were good enough to give me advance notice of the points that specially concerned them. My colleagues and I will, as usual, attempt to answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate. Any points that we do not get round to answering through lack of time will be dealt with, as usual, in correspondence later.
I commend the draft order to the House.
10.28 am
Mr. J. D. Concannon: I welcome the order, which I regard as the third side of the triangle of Northern Ireland debates. We have had the security debate and the political debate, and now we are having the economic debate—the third one since I took up my present position as Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. I

1523
should be in danger of repeating myself were it not for the continued deterioration of industry in Northern Ireland and the rapidly increasing number of people out of work.
I have taken part in such debates many times. It is basically a Consolidated Fund Bill debate to enable Northern Ireland Members to raise constituency points. I am sure that Northern Ireland Members have a number of points to put to the Minister and that they will do so forcefully.
Today We are voting a large amount of money for Northern Ireland. I should have welcomed a more detailed explanatory memorandum from the Minister, so that we could see exactly how the funds are being shifted around between Votes and how much additional money is being made available. Perhaps next year the Minister will consider that point in introducing memoranda for the winter and spring Appropriation debates.
We are disappointed not only at the relatively stagnant size of this Vote but at the way in which the money is being swopped between projects and areas of expenditure with no apparent reason or explanation. We sincerely hope that there will not be a repetition of last year's fiasco, when we wasted virtually the whole debate because the Government announced a massive reallocation of resources away from health, education, housing and social services in August shortly after the main Estimates had been debated in the House. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will make it absolutely plain that this money will be available for the rest of the financial year and that there will be no rejigging of the books in a month's time.
Any debate on the economic situation of Northern Ireland should deal specifically with employment prospects, which have taken further serious blows during the past three months. Redundancies at Courtaulds, STC and Goodyear are now at the end of a long list that the Government have been compiling over the past two years. In addition, British Enkalon has announced more than 1,000 redundancies this week. However, there will be a spin-off not only in Northern Ireland but in some parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. One has only to think of Flixborough, at Scunthorpe. The case of British Enkalon was brought to my attention forcefully by Mr. Shierbeck and the trade unions seemingly months ago. I must point out that these redundancies must be shouldered fairly and squarely by the Government. Today there will be much talk about how much money the Government have offered. I rest my case with what will be said by Northern Ireland Members today. They understand, from dealings that we have had with British Enkalon previously, that a Labour Administration would not have allowed the plant to close. We worked on the assumption that it was better to keep jobs in Northern Ireland and to cost them in that way than to go out and look for another 1,000 jobs. How much more will it cost to find another firm that will provide 1,000 jobs in Northern Ireland? How much money will have to be expended to recompense Northern Ireland for those jobs?
Northern Ireland is experiencing an industrial decline that is unknown in any other part of the United Kingdom. I put this fairly and squarely at the Government's door, because months ago management and unions at the British Enkalon plant agreed on a survival plan. I pay tribute to both sides for the reasoned and honest efforts that they made to save the factory. However, they have been sold down the river by the Government, who steadfastly refused to hand over the necessary cash to keep the company going in this most adverse of economic climates.
1524
I ask the Minister to tell us exactly how and where he plans to find 4,500 new jobs for Northern Ireland. That represents the number of jobs that have been lost during the past five weeks. How much will it cost to replace those jobs? Any child knows that it is cheaper to keep a factory open and producing goods than to allow it to close and the machinery to go to waste. Furthermore, every extra man on the dole costs the country at least £5,000 a year in direct costs, not to mention the additional costs of wasted talent and training and everything else that is involved.
Even in these Estimates the supplementary benefit goes up by 30 per cent. to pay for unemployment. The figure now stands at £170 million. The money could have been used more usefully not to create new jobs but to hold on to the jobs that we have. In Northern Ireland we are living with the economics of the madhouse. The workers want to work and the managers want to keep the factories open, but the Government dictate that British Enkalon must close. It would have made good economic sense to keep British Enkalon going, but now it is no more than a name on the Government's long list of dishonour.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the closure of British Enkalon. Does he believe that taxpayers' funds should be committed on an open-ended and indeterminate basis to a business that has no prospect whatever of an eventual return to commercial viability?
Mr. Concannon: I make no apology. Here we see the great divide between myself and the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). In my view, it is part of the Government's process, particularly in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman had 25 per cent. unemployment in his constituency, he would rethink some of his views. I am not seeking an open-ended commitment. From my dealings with Mr. Shierbeck and many others in Northern Ireland I know that arrangements can be made, as has been done on many occasions, and as I did, to keep jobs in Northern Ireland. One must put on the balance sheet not the jobs being lost but the effect on Northern Ireland as a whole, such as how much has to be paid for unemployment and for other jobs commensurate with the jobs being lost.
These are not the economics of the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is a special case in this respect. It does not have the industrial base that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. For that reason it must be viewed differently. I make no apology for saying that, because we see the proof of what was done in the four years of the Labour Administration. We put those things in the profit and loss account not only of British Enkalon but of Northern Ireland as a whole.
At the same time as factories are being allowed to close wholesale cuts are being made in various budgets in this year's Estimates for Northern Ireland. The funds for industrial support and regeneration are to be cut overall from £26 million to £24 million, and within Class II, Vote 1, the financial provision for industrial land and buildings is to be sliced from £21 million to £18 million. The increases that are being made are marginal and will hardly cover the increase in inflation, let alone help to overcome the adverse economic circumstances that the Government have created.
In desperation, I look to see what the Government are doing to counter unemployment and I find only piecemeal

1525
attempts to patch up the problem, without any sign of serious concern. Band-aid will not do where major surgery is required.
The employment services budget has been cut at a time when more people than ever require those services. Almost one in five of the working population in Northern Ireland is now on the dole. By the end of the year, probably one-quarter of the Province will be out of work. It is a bitter irony that there are currently more people without jobs than at work in manufacturing industry in the Province. That is a far cry from the last year of the Labour Government, when at least 140,000 were employed in manufacturing industry and no more than 60,000 were unemployed. That figure of 60,000 was plastered on the wall of my office, because I used to think that it was a disgrace. Any hon. Member who came into my office would see the figure stuck on the front of my desk as a reminder to me. If I did not remind myself, the trade unions and other people reminded me about it every day.
Perhaps the most serious unemployment problem is that of the young. In June there were 8,578 school leavers without jobs. Who knows how many more there are in the main figures who left school last summer or in the spring of 1980 and still have not found jobs?
I can remember the sheer pleasure of leaving school and doing my first day's work. It happened to me at the age of 14. It was not all that hard a job in those days, but leaving school and getting my first job gave me great pleasure. I cannot describe my delight at picking up my first wage packet. It was not the size of it that mattered—because it was not a great deal—but the fact that it was mine and that I had been to work for it rather than go to social security for it. I remember my own delight, but the fact is that many schoolchildren will not benefit from that experience. They will go straight from school to State benefits and not feel part and parcel of the economic system.
The events of recent weeks must have brought home to the Government and Northern Ireland Ministers especially that disaffected youth with no stake in society have nothing to lose in street rioting and criminal activities. In Northern Ireland the scale of unemployment will only play into the hands of terrorist organisations and thereby create more social upheaval and misery. If for no other reason, the Government must alter their policies. In creating a generation of disillusioned young people with no say or interest in society they are storing up trouble for many years to come.
Of all the cuts in the employment services budget, the reduction in funds for Enterprise Ulster is the most incomprehensible. Over the past nine years this organisation has given employment to more than 100,000 individuals in recreational and community projects. Enterprise Ulster has always been much more than a temporary relief from the dole queue. It has offered job security and acted as a genuine bridge between unemployment and regular employment. This well-established corporation with proven social and environmental achievements is now to be sacrificed for schemes such as Action for Community Employment, which are no more than a temporary respite from the dole queue.
In view of the severe cut from £13 million to £9½ million, it is time that the Minister made clear his
1526
intentions about Enterprise Ulster. Will he give a firm assurance that the organisation will have the financial resources in the future to carry on with the worth while and valuable projects that have characterised its work in the past? There is no rhyme or reason why Enterprise Ulster should be cut down in this way when it has served the community so well. It looks very much to me as though it has been sacrificed on the altar of dogma and ideology.
Three times a year we allocate large amounts of money to help Northern Ireland's industry, but we rarely hear of that money being put to good use. I have already referred to British Enkalon, which is one instance where Government funds could have been of great benefit. Another example in respect of which the Civil Service dispute has caused serious cash flow problems is Abbey Meats. I understand that the work force is now on a three-day working week and that closure is imminent unless the Government can help with a cheap short-term loan to tide over the company. I ask the Minister to make it clear whether he intends to help Abbey Meats. If not, what possible ground can he have for refusing such small interim aid?
I have mentioned Abbey Meats and British Enkalon, but my purpose is to stress the absolute need for a change in direction and thought, if not for the rest of the United Kingdom certainly for Northern Ireland.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I am not necessarily disagreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. However, does he agree that a great deal of the difficulty facing Abbey Meats arises from the complicated mechanism of the intervention board? No Opposition Member associates efficiency with any branch of the EEC, but this is a particularly cumbersome operation where, even in what might be described as peace time in terms of the Civil Service dispute, there is always great delay. It is not uncommon to be telephoned by the company and told that the intervention board currently owes the company perhaps £2½ million.
Mr. Concannon: That is undoubtedly a factor, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it would not have put me off in my time at the Northern Ireland Office. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I would have found a way through the difficulty.
I find a similar lack of concern on the part of Government agencies towards a small employment project in County Tyrone. I refer to Tyrone Tweeds Limited, which has been refused aid by the local enterprise development unit. Before going any further I ought to remind the House of the interest that the Secretary of State has in small enterprises. Speaking on 15 June at the launch of a business opportunities programme, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"But there is still untapped potential in Northern Ireland, essentially 'a man with an idea', and we must do everything possible to encourage him—not only because of the jobs he can provide but also because the home-grown company with its roots in the Province is the one most likely to provide the longer-term potential for growth in the economy."
Those are all good sentiments, with which I agree. But obviously that message has not filtered through to the LEDU, which has refused aid to Tyrone Tweeds on the most shaky of grounds. The decision has caused a great deal of bitterness, since a number of those involved in the venture were made redundant from Spamount mill earlier this year and had spent their redundancy money on this project.

1527
I sincerely hope that it is not a politically motivated decision. The fact that Tyrone Tweeds is a workers' co-operative can, in my view, only enhance its chances of success. The fact that the Government have cut funds available to the LEDU may have something to do with the decision, but the truth is that no one really knows. I urge the Minister to look into this matter in some depth to find out whether there is some way in which this small but determined group of highly skilled people can be helped to produce a high-quality product which is much in demand.
People often come to me with their problems in Northern Ireland, including trade unions and others. I offer a piece of advice to the Northern Ireland ministerial team. There seems to be a lack of communication at times. I receive many complaints about it. In my view, such people should be in closer contact with the ministerial team. I do not mean formal meetings. I have in mind informal contacts where Ministers are more accessible to people. I do not want to give specific examples, but I assure the Minister that many people travel from Belfast to see me and find that they are able to do so almost at the drop of a hat, but they tell me that they cannot see Ministers because of certain rules and regulations. I find that hard to understand, but perhaps the problem could be solved by way of a chat between me and the Minister behind the Chair after the debate.
In these Estimates a considerable sum of money is allocated to the energy services in Northern Ireland. Some £24 million has been made available for the orderly run-down of the gas industry, whereas virtually nothing was allocated last year. A number of serious questions arise on this subject, and I am sure that they will be taken up by other hon. Members. Now that the decision to run down the gas industry has been put on ice pending discussions with the Irish Government on a natural gas pipeline north, the future of Northern Ireland's gas industry has a question mark against it.
Is the Minister in a position to say what progress is being made in the pipeline discussions? Further, can he tell the House about the probable use of the money if other decisions are made? Will he also assure the House and Northern Ireland gas consumers that any gas brought from the South will be made available at a price that domestic consumers can afford?
I sincerely hope that some agreement on this matter between North and South can be found. We have always believed that the best interests of all the people in Ireland are served where there is co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Can the Minister say whether there have been any talks recently about restoring the electricity interconnector between the North and the South? Northern Ireland produces excess electricity, which could be sold as backup capacity to the South. Both North and South would save a combined total of over £5 million a year if the interconnector were restored.
I know the difficulties involved because I tried on various occasions to restore the interconnector for the benefit of both North and South. But there are the problems of terrorist attacks. There was another last night when, unforunately, another of our soldiers was killed. I pay tribute to our soldiers and the security services. Such activity has an effect on the economy not only of the North but of the South. If the stories are true, the attack was from over the border. I stress what I said at Question Time
1528
yesterday—that we would take the blandishments of other Governments better if we thought that they were backing them with other activities.
Security measures are improving all the time. If the Minister tells me that there is no possibility of restoring the interconnector, I shall understand. However, we must keep the matter to the fore so that we can connect it as soon as possible for the convenience not only of the North but of the South.
I note that the Government have this year made an additional sum available to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service to keep down tariffs for domestic and industrial consumers. I hope that the impression left by the Prime Minister in her speech to the assembled few is not correct. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to follow the example that we set five years ago by giving large-scale aid to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. We regarded that as essential to counteract the high reliance on expensive oil to produce electricity.
I am sorry that the Government are not doing more for domestic consumers. The Northern Ireland tariff is 5 per cent. higher than that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the highest tariff is in London. Northern Ireland people earn smaller incomes and yet they are asked to pay for electricity an even higher price than consumers in London. The people of Northern Ireland have to pay for the high reliance on oil as the result of a decision taken some years ago. In spite of Government funds, electricity in Northern Ireland is still the most expensive in the United Kingdom. It is slightly more expensive than it is in London. The withdrawal of fuel assistance payments for people on supplementary benefit will not be fully compensated for by holding down prices.
It is not clear from the Estimates where the £40 million has come from. We are always a little worried, after the fiasco of last year, about finding extra money for specific jobs in case they have to be paid for at the expense of something else. May we have an assurance that the £40 million has not come from funds allocated to other schemes? I hope that the Minister will give a clear answer.
Every consumer in Northern Ireland has a right to know for how long the help will be available. It would be a useless exercise if the £40 million were given this year and cut back in subsequent years. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. Whatever aid is made available to the energy services, there is unlikely to be any change in the employment and industrial problems of Northern Ireland as long as the present policies continue.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is an alternative economic strategy for Northern Ireland. We have stressed over and over again that coherent policy, with new public enterprise and planning agreements, is the only sound and rational way of coping with regional deprivation. In short, two things would help the Northern Ireland economy. The first is a recovery in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. That can be brought about only by a change in Government or a change in policy. The second is a much stronger regional approach, with a fixed programme of State investment and a strong programme to direct private investment to the Province.
So long as there is Tory rule in Northern Ireland, poverty, unemployment and social deprivation will thrive. Who would dare to speculate about the effects that those forces will have on the campaigns of terror and violence if unemployment rampages in Northern Ireland, and if, as was said in yesterday's debate, youth unemployment is a

1529
contributing factor to what is happening in the rest of the country? We must take youth unemployment in Northern Ireland seriously. It distresses me that Northern Ireland is no longer looked upon as a special case in that respect. If it were, some of what has happened in the last six or seven months would have been regarded differently and more rationally.
This debate presents an opportunity for hon. Members to make constituency points. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will back some of my comments about employment. We shall not do anything untoward about the allocation of funds, but it is our right and duty to suggest where the funds should go. Anything that I have not covered will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). He manages to cover topics well in our two-man team. He does a wonderful job, and I thank him for his backing. The Minister of State has had a torrid time of late. He will find this economic debate a relief and a change. He has borne some of the brunt of what has happened in Northern Ireland with great courage and fortitude. I wish him success.
10.57 am
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to take up the Opposition spokesman's argument about unemployment. Northern Ireland is in a serious and sad position. I trust that from the Government Benches today we shall have a full statement about British Enkalon. The House and the people of Northern Ireland need to know the facts. What really terrifies me is that factory after factory is being closed. Thousands of people are being made unemployed. It seems that in neither the near nor distant future is there any possibility of employing these people in proper numbers.
People in Northern Ireland who are being made redundant are losing hope. It is often said in Northern Ireland "If you lose your job when you are 50 you will never work again." It is also said "When you leave school you will possibly not work for five or six years." That strikes at the heart of hope among the people of Northern Ireland.
Is it true that British Enkalon was prepared to stay in operation for at least three more years and that it was prepared to soldier on provided that the Government met it with the necessary moneys? We all know the state of the man-made fibre industry. The cycle could turn and there could be opportunities to retrieve something of that industry in Northern Ireland. How much money will be spent on redundancy payments?
Would it not have been possible for the Minister to have retained that factory for Antrim? Although it is situated in the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), very many people from my constituency are employed there. Therefore, we have a common interest.
Carrickfergus has been decimated. Factory after factory has closed. We welcome the Minister's activity in seeking new industry, but what are a couple of hundred jobs compared with the many thousands of people who have been made redundant in that area? While the Minister might do his best to find new industry, surely it would be far easier to retain the industry already there, with its work force, expertise, apprentices and existing order books?
1530
I make a plea, even at this late hour, that the Minister should reconsider the whole position of British Enkalon. What hope is there for the people in that area? Conservative Members talk about taxpayers' money. It will be paid out in redundancy payments, unemployment benefits and other benefits. I would rather see it invested in keeping people in employment than in keeping them unemployed. British Enkalon is in a serious position. I pay tribute to its management and its efforts over the years to help the area. I do not know of any other management that has come forward over and over again with its own investment to try to keep the factory in business.
There has been co-operation between the work force, the trade unions and the management. They have done their best to keep the factory in business. Now, sadly, it is to close. I do not know where jobs will be found for the people of that area.
The whole planning, development and housing programme of Antrim was tied to the British Enkalon factory. It was the keystone to the rebuilding of the town. Now, that keystone has been pulled away. What future is there for its population? Governments have encouraged people to go to Antrim. They paid them large sums of money to take the oxygen of Antrim. Posters said "Taste the country air of Antrim. The Government will support you if you leave the city'. Now that they have torn up their roots from Belfast, gone to Antrim and established their homes, they find that it has all been in vain. The Minister must tell us today whether he intends to continue with that policy.
I hope that the Minister will tell us something about small businesses. A small fish processing plant in Glenarm is the only business there which provides employment for women. We have enormous difficulty in getting any support from the local enterprise development unit. The company is asking for a loan of £30,000 because it has a cash flow problem. It is having great difficulty in raising that money. If the factory closes there will be no scope for female employment in the area. The Minister needs to take on board what has been said to him about the LEDU. I have found great difficulty in obtaining support for small businesses from the LEDU. I do not care which way the businesses are organised, or who are their managements. As long as they give people employment, they should be supported. That is an important matter and I hope that the Minister will reply to it.
I wish to draw attention to the position of Abbey Meats, and to the interjection of the hon. Member for Antrim, South about the payment of intervention money. Government representations to the EEC authorities need to be made forcefully. The money owing to Abbey Meats should be forced out of the EEC. The firm is entitled to that money.
I turn to the question of agriculture. It is the largest industry in Northern Ireland. The farming community has received many bitter blows. We welcome the short-term measures, but the Government must be more active. One great difficulty is that the person responsible for both education and agriculture is not answerable to the House. It is difficult to get the noble Lord to meet deputations. I greatly resent that. No doubt if the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will also make that point. There is a drainage office in Coleraine. The borough council, which covers part of my constituency and part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry, wanted to send a

1531
deputation of four, accompanied by the two Members of Parliament, to meet the noble Lord. His office telephoned to say that he would not meet a deputation of six because it was too large and that he would meet only a deputation of four. The office wanted the two Members of Parliament to drop out so that the noble Lord could meet a deputation of four councillors. If we did not drop out, two of the councillors would have to drop out. I told the noble Lord's office that I was a member of this House. I was told that he would be prepared to meet me on my own to discuss the matter, but that he was very busy. I said that he would be less busy if he saw the whole deputation at once. It was only after I insisted that it was eventually agreed that the whole deputation would meet the noble Lord.
I have asked the noble Lord to meet deputations on many occasions. I have found great difficulty. Perhaps that is one of the problems of communication mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It is an important matter, which needs to be examined. The agriculture industry and the farming community are very sore about that. They form the largest industry in Northern Ireland. Someone should be answerable in this House.
During the last plenary session of the European Assembly, a good proposal was accepted, which will benefit the farmers of the South of Ireland. They will receive support for the interest rates that they are paying on their loans. The agricultural committee, chaired by Sir Henry Plumb, said that that would be very helpful to farmers in Northern Ireland and recommended that it should apply to them. However, no representation has been made by the Government to the authorities about the possibility of a grant for the farmers of Northern Ireland.
I should like an assurance from Ministers on the Front Bench today that they will take up the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that the farmers in Northern Ireland will receive the same benefit. Those farmers have made applications for and have received substantial loans from the banks, and now, with the crippling interest rates, they are feeling the burden and the heat of the day.
I am opposed to the EEC, but I believe that when we are in it we should get as much cream out of it as we can. Every penny that we pay in we should get back. The time has come for the Government to push those schemes. There is a dilatoriness about the Government's making applications for the money that is available from the EEC. The farmers of Northern Ireland would be much helped if they could get some relief from the crippling interest rates that they must pay because of the schemes into which they have entered to improve their farms. Now they find that they are not getting the cash back that they thought they would have from that investment. The Government should take that matter on board.
I now come to the matter of drainage. I do not understand the Government's thinking on agriculture in Northern Ireland. Anyone who knows Northern Ireland knows that the rivers there drain towards the north, yet it has been decided that the one main drainage office in Coleraine has to be closed. The office will be operated from as far away as Omagh, in County Tyrone. I do not understand that decision. The area office at Coleraine provided an important service in the lower reaches of the river Bann. The lower Bann is the main artery of drainage of the Province and controls the water level of Lough Neagh. It is the only navigable river in the Province. The professional engineers and technical staff at Coleraine
1532
have a detailed knowledge of the river and the many problems associated with it. Flooding and drainage problems usually occur at downstream ends of rivers. Some 75 per cent. of the rain which falls in the Province flows to the sea through the rivers controlled from Coleraine. It is therefore the most logical place for a major office, as the professional staff are available to deal with problems immediately as they arise. Yet we discover, because we are told that it is in the interests of cutting back expenditure, that this office and its functions as a main office will be moved to Omagh.
The only commercial salmon fisheries—Foyle, Roe, Bann and Bush—are located in the area. Problems of flooding in the urban areas of Londonderry, Ballymena and Coleraine are the responsibility of the Coleraine office. Anyone who knows anything about the environment knows that there has been constant flooding in those areas. The main drainage scheme in hand at the moment is at the river Maine which is also in this area. The farming community is appalled at the suggestion that that drainage office should be run down and should become only a second-rate office. No doubt, the hon. Member for Londonderry will have something further to say about that matter.
As that matter comes into Class I, I should now like to pass on to Class III, in regard to the rundown of the gas industry. I should like the Minister to tell us what is happening on County Fermanagh. Has he any knowledge of the prospects of a gas strike in Fermanagh? The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know what is happening. I should also like to emphasise that I feel that if there is to be an opportunity of getting gas, we should get our gas within the United Kingdom family. I do not understand why the Government are stopping to see whether it is feasible to have gas from Kinsale, when it is feasible to have gas from the North Sea. If there is trouble about having the interconnector, there will be more trouble having a gas land line. I know that we cannot discuss security, but we know what happened and it is a terrible thing that a British soldier was shot and that the shots were fired from across the border. That is serious. I believe that we need a statement from the Front Bench about gas. What is the Government's thinking on the matter?
What I have read from the South of Ireland does not seem hopeful in terms of what will happen. The Minister is duty-bound to tell the people of Northern Ireland why he thinks that we should not have gas from the United Kingdom and that the only way that we should get gas is from the Republic. We get all sorts of gas of other kinds from the Republic that we do not appreciate.
I should also like to refer to harbour facilities, which come under Class IV. I should like to ask the Minister again about the harbour facilities in Rathlin and Ballycastle,. If there is to be a strike of oil or even gas in the north channel, we should know something about what facilities will be available. Rathlin island is the only large island off the shores of Northern Ireland that is inhabited. Its inhabitants have had a rough time. The time has come for us to know what is happening about the proposals for access to the Rathlin harbour and to Ballycastle because those are linked. Some hon. Members may not know that when the boat arrives at Ballycastle, if one does not get off quickly one can be swept away. People who have travelled have almost been swept into the sea at

1533
Ballycastle. Some improvements have been made to the harbour on Rathlin island, but others need to be made. Has any progress been made on harbour facilities in that class?
I do not want to talk at length on housing, but I am deeply concerned, as a Member from a rural constituency, about the schemes that are going ahead in Belfast. Those schemes need to go ahead, but will the other schemes for rural cottages now be seriously cut back? I have had word from part of my constituency that water and sewerage schemes in rural cottages there have now been put into cold storage. Can we have an assurance that, while progress is made in the city of Belfast—no doubt those who represent the city are well able to put the views on housing—the schemes for rural cottages will go ahead?
People who have no facilities or amenities and who need water, light and sewerage facilities should have those essential services. It is all very well to talk about cuts and say that we must share what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the Northern Ireland people have already suffered serious cutbacks. The rates that they are paid for their jobs are less than the average wages for the rest of the United Kingdom. Their cost of living is higher. When one takes all those matters into consideration one realises that Northern Ireland is bearing the burden and heat of the day. We need to find out from the Minister about those schemes.
I now turn to education. I am alarmed at the policy that seems to be developing on closing rural schools. That concerns me. The argument is put that there will not be so many children, and that the children will therefore be bussed to the nearest village or town. A new school was built in my constituency at Rasharkin. The powers that be said that the birth rate was decreasing, so they would not build too large a school; but they closed rural schools to pilot, shepherd or bus children to that school, and it is now overcrowded, with Portakabins all around the playground. It would have been better to keep the rural schools open. There is now a policy to close rural schools in Portglenone, even though there are plenty of children available to attend them.
I do not like rural schools being closed. They are part of the community and help to hold it together. They cement rural society. The teachers are looked on as friends by the children and parents, and pupils get a good grounding in the three Rs. I am perturbed about the closures, and would like to know whether it is the Government's policy to continue them.
The Minister made a slip about the democratic process. I wish that we had a bit of democracy in our education system. Because of the fall out of the vote, the largest parties in the Province will not be represented on the education boards. An article in a newspaper said that the Official Unionists had drawn attention to that fact, but I had already written to the Minister pointing out that in the past members were appointed to give a fair spread of representation on the boards. The noble Lord thanked me for the representation, but told me that he would not be appointing anyone whom my party nominated. I am not a bit surprised. Defeated Alliance members are appointed to the boards, but evidently democratic success in Northern Ireland tells against us. Is the undemocratic rule to continue, or will the boards be changed? Although we
1534
do not know exactly what he has in mind, the Minister has a suggestion about changing health boards. I hope that he will also do something about education boards.
At Cambridge House school, Ballymena, the board did not keep to the rules about transferring children. The parents applied to the ombudsman, and there was a public hearing, which I have never heard of before. The board and the parents put their cases, and the parents won. Yet they have never had compensation; nor has the ombudsman's recommendation about transfer been fulfilled. What good is it to win an appeal if the education board just thumbs its nose? The Minister says that it is a matter for the board, but the time has come for the board to abide by the ombudsman's decision. The parents had to pay lawyers and counsel, yet when they win their case they get no satisfaction or justice. I trust that the Minister will find out what is to happen.
The Minister skated over the cutbacks in health and social services. He said nothing about how long the new Antrim hospital will be in cold storage and what will happen to the other hospitals in the area. Will they be continually run down, or will money be available to give the people in the area the acute services that they need? The Waveney hospital was to be the main acute hospital. What money will be available for that hospital, and what are the prospects for the staff in the other hospitals? There is a big question mark over the whole situation in North Antrim because of the decision to build the new hospital, which has been delayed because of the cuts. What is happening in the meantime? People are concerned because of the blight that has developed through hospitals being run down or their purpose changed.
I trust that we shall have some satisfaction from the Minister on matters that concern the people of my constituency and the people of Northern Ireland generally.
11.26 am
Mr. Wm. Ross: We have heard complaints about the failure of the intervention board to pay money to a meat firm in South Antrim, but that is not the only meat firm that is suffering. A meat plant in my constituency is also having the gravest difficulty in extracting £¾ million from the intervention board. If the Minister takes up the problems of Abbey Meats, will be also consider the other meat plants in Northern Ireland, some of which may not have complained but which, on the evidence available, are almost certainly experiencing the same problem? The matter should not be allowed to continue. The sums involved are substantial and are a heavy drain on the resources of the plants, which are trying to provide employment in exceedingly difficult circumstances.
The subjects in the Appropriation debate are taken in alphabetical order, and, as I have long been my party's agricultural spokesman I take great pleasure in starting with agriculture. I shall not rehearse all the difficulties. The Government know the situation precisely. They have been approached by hon. Members, the Ulster Farmers Union and the ancillary industries, so there is no excuse for their not knowing the problems. Equally, there is little excuse for the fact that no serious efforts have been made to resolve the difficulties.
To illustrate the difficulties I point out that in 1978 the net income for Northern Ireland agriculture was £66 million; in 1980, the estimate is about £9 million. That is not the whole story. Northern Ireland produces about 6 per

1535
cent. of the United Kingdom production. Before the present drop in incomes we received about 5 per cent. of the total United Kingdom net income. In 1980 we got only 1 per cent. of the net income, which is perhaps the most horrifying aspect of the problem. The total net income has dropped by an enormous amount in real terms.
Farmers exist and expand basically by ploughing back profits, so where an amount sufficient merely for living expenses is made investment ceases. It does not take much intelligence to realise that that is what happened in this case. When one considers the drop in sales of farm machinery, and so on, it is clear to one that farmers have cut back on inessentials and have tried, as far as possible, to live or the accumulated effects of past years' investment. That can happen for a year or two, but the effects are rapidly seen in lost production, and once one has started clown that hill it is extremely difficult to reverse the trend and get back to where one once was. Farm incomes must be improved, and that improvement must be put in hand soon.
There was the £10 million of EEC money that was found in the spring by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should like to know a little more about what is going on. Apparently, some of the problems have been ironed out, but it is clear from what I am told that not all of them have been solved. The £10 million is a drop in the ocean, anyway.
So far, we have been told about the A1 scheme. I understand that about £2 million is going to pigs and poultry and £3½ million to £4 million to milk. But the funds in respect of those three aspects of farming are not going directly to the farmers. They are going to the milk distributors, the processors and the egg packers, on the theory that what is paid to the middle man will filter back to the farmer. In the highly competitive world in which we live, I fear that it is just as likely to filter the other way, to the consumer, especially when faced with imports of eggs and other subsidised produce from all over the place.
How much of that £10 million will wind up in the farmer's bank balance at the end of the day? Have the Government investigated that? Are they yet in a position to give an estimate? If they are not, I fear that instead of receiving £10 million the farmers will receive very much less, and perhaps nothing at all. A re-examination is needed of EEC and, indeed, Government funding to Northern Ireland farmers. We have lost schemes such as milk aid, which were far more use than these fancy schemes where so much is lost in the process and never reaches the pockets of those who are supposed to receive it.
There is one matter that I believe the Government could do something about. I understand that there has been some movement recently. Will the Government explain what the position now is with regard to school milk? Under EEC rules, if the Government provide 25 per cent. of the funding the EEC will provide the rest. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has failed to convince the Commission that as the Government provide the finance for education and local government in Great Britain the money involved should be treated as Government expenditure. The Commission is not too willing to accept that, and there seems to be some difficulty.
Even if that were accepted, however, it would not help the Northern Ireland situation very much. We are far worse off, because the education and library boards in Northern
1536
Ireland have no financial independence but must act simply as an extension of the Minister's arm. I understand that the Department has instructed the education and library boards not to provide school milk. If that is so, the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland is being denied, by Government decision, moneys which otherwise would be available to it. If that is the case, the Government should tell us today why they have done that and how they intend to get around the problem and obtain that extra money for the farmers and, indeed, the schoolchildren of Northern Ireland, where at present only 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. can get milk at school. The difficulty is a spin-off of the present direct rule system and is another good reason for ensuring that democracy returns to the control of the boards in Northern Ireland and that we stop the boards acting as an extension of the Government's arm instead of for the people who elect them.
I turn to the various smuggling rackets that are currently operating. As the Minister knows, in Northern Ireland agriculture there are myriad smuggling schemes operating across the border, making money in one way or another. The smuggling is generally from the United Kingdom into the Republic. I understand, however, that pigs are currently being smuggled from the Republic into Northern Ireland and then sent openly, and apparently legally, back across the border so as to collect the cost of the United Kingdom MCA. There is also, apparently, cattle smuggling into Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us what is going on? Are reports of the IRA acting as agents or contractors in the smuggling rackets correct? Can the Government also give an estimate of the cost of all these rackets to the public purse in Northern Ireland?
Until the border is properly controlled and sealed off, with only a few legal crossing points so that smuggling can be controlled, the problems will continue. They extend, of course, far wider than agriculture—to all manner of other things coming into Northern Ireland across that frontier, which lies wide open. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to discuss those matters today, but no doubt we shall manufacture an opportunity to do so on a future occasion.
I turn to the fisheries aspect of Northern Ireland agriculture. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to touch upon the general sea fishing problems of Northern Ireland later in the debate. I wish to deal with the specific problems of the salmon fisheries. This is a very valuable . resource for the tourist industry, for the recreational activities of people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, from the commercial point of view. It is a most important resource and it is under severe threat from the activities of poachers, who, although they have salmon licences, are fishing with equipment such as nylon monofilament nets, which are illegal in Northern Ireland waters, as well as using nets which are too long, and fishing in areas where they are not supposed to be.
I welcome the success of a week or so ago, when a major poacher was caught and heavily fined as a result of his activities. I hope that he loses his Northern Ireland licence, which I understand he possesses although he lives not in Northern Ireland but in the Republic.
I draw the Minister's attention also to the serious shooting incident on Lough Foyle yesterday week, in which a protection vessel was fired upon by poachers. It is not the first time that this has happened in the Foyle system, but to my knowledge it is the first time that it has happened on the waters of Lough Foyle itself. As the

1537
Government of this nation do not accept that any part of the waters of Lough Foyle are under the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic, and as the policing of the lough, the protection of fisheries vessels and the enforcement of the law on the waters of Lough Foyle are entirely our responsibility, what steps will the Government take to ensure that law and order are maintained on those waters in future years, and, indeed, in future days— for Heaven only knows what happened there last night? This is a continuing problem that must be dealt with. Until it is properly dealt with and the Navy has a greater presence in the area, especially off the north coast, I fear that the salmon will continue to be decimated.
The House should be clear that last week's success was due entirely to the muscle that the Navy can provide. But my understanding is that the vessel that looks after that salmon fishery also has responsibility for the Manx herring fishery and for the west coast of Scotland. I fear that at the height of the salmon season, when the fish are concentrated and are an easy prey—not only in Northern Ireland but on the west coast of Scotland—the fishery protection vessel has too much to do in the short period of two months and cannot properly cover the ground. There were considerable problems last year, with the fisheries protection vessel of the Fisheries Conservancy Board simply not having the manpower to deal with the poachers. This year there is not the money to pay the manpower to keep it afloat.
This is a totally unacceptable position, because this is a resource that is subject to pressure and is being attacked in many ways throughout the world, and will inevitably disappear, with the sad result that some people will lose their livelihood and many more will lose pleasure. In addition, the tourist industry in Northern Ireland will lose a matchless asset. I hope that the Government will take seriously what I am saying and what other people have said, and take steps to deal with the problem.
Beyond that, we have the situation at Toome, where the poachers seem to take over periodically and do precisely as they please, because the area is so dangerous that the police cannot keep a permanent presence there and, as I have already said, the Fisheries Conservancy Board does not have the manpower. Cash is needed for additional manpower for the two or three months in question, and I see no reason why it should not be provided.
The Black report on angling is relevant to all these matters and I hope that there will soon be a discussion on it. If it cannot take place in this Session of Parliament, I hope that it will take place in the next Session. Meanwhile, will the Minister give an undertaking that the staff of the Fisheries Conservancy Board will be told what their future is to be? At present, the report having been published, the staff do not know what is to happen to them. They are asked to do a very difficult job without any guarantee as to their future. They have no guarantee that their jobs will remain if the new fisheries body is set up. The staff should be told precisely what their future is to be, regardless of the Government's views on whether there is to be a new inland fisheries body. If people are to do a difficult job they need to have some assurance that they will be properly treated and cared for, and that they have a future in their chosen professional work. That is an urgent matter, which should have the Government's attention.
1538
I turn to Class II, Votes 1 and 2, relating to industrial development and selective assistance to industry. Vast sums of money have been expended on assistance to industries that have quietly folded up in the night and stolen away, leaving many thousands of people unemployed. There has been reference to the British Enkalon factory, and in the flurry about that people seem to have forgotten the Campsie factory, in my constituency, which is in the process of closing. One wonders whether the money has been properly spent, and whether the people involved in setting up those factories, the Department officials and the Ministers responsible at the various times, got all their sums right. I do not know, but the Public Accounts Committee had the harshest of things to say about the Courtaulds concept. When the Committee deals with it I believe that it will have even harsher things to say about the Campsie site.
The most modern factory of its type in Europe is now closing down, yet I was told last year that all Campsie needed to survive was a weaker pound and lower interest rates. Despite now having those things, the Courtaulds factory is closing. We are told that the competition that closed it down was from low-cost areas. Then we find that the United States is one source of the competition. I do not think that any of us would describe the United States as a low-cost area, especially when President Reagan has removed the limits that were imposed on the cost of coal, gas and oil. I should like to know why the factory has closed down. To say that I am puzzled by the closure would be the understatement of the year. I wonder whether the Minister is also puzzled. Is he able to give us the source of the imports that have buried not only the Northern Ireland man-made fibres industry but the whole United Kingdom industry?
There is very little industry left in Northern Ireland. I have a couple of factories in my constituency and there may be a few more scattered around, but the whole industrial base built up by the late Brian Faulkner in the 1960s has now vanished. Can the Minister tell us the extent of the loss to the public purse that has arisen and will arise as a result of the closure of the Courtaulds plant at Campsie? Can he give us any indication of how he hopes to replace the 700 jobs that are vanishing there?
I turn now to primary school education in Limavady. It is a constituency problem We have a very severe overcrowding problem in the primary school because of the growth of that town. We have long been promised that a new primary school would be built in Limavady. Plans were drawn. They have been drawn three or four times. The last time that they were drawn they went to the board and from there to the Department, and they were lost in the Department for 12 months or so. The Department then managed to get round to telling the board that the plans must be redrawn. It is curious that it took so long for the decision to be taken. I understand that the plans have now been redrawn and returned to the board. I express the hope that they will not remain there long, and that the school will soon be under way.
This is a peculiar situation, in that the existing primary school, which is to be replaced, is immediately beside the county secondary intermediate school, which is bursting at the seams. The schools, as far as possible, share some facilities, such as the gym and the assembly hall. If we get the new primary school, the problems of the primary schoolchildren and of the intermediate schoolchildren will be immediately resolved, because the secondary school

1539
overflow can move into the primary school, which is very suitable for that purpose. It is not often that a Department in Northern Ireland has the opportunity of getting two for the price of one, but that is the case in Limavady, and the building should not be delayed any longer.
A more serious shadow lies across the other end of the education spectrum in my constituency, as a result of the reports that are being circulated about the New University of Ulster, in Coleraine. There have been two or three reports in The Sunday Times about what the Chilver report will contain concerning that university. There was a recent report in The Irish Times, and I have been contacted by the students in Coleraine. They say that they were in touch with the person who wrote the article for The Irish Times, and that he assured them that he had seen the document from which he quoted, and that his report was true. The report states that Coleraine university is to be downgraded and changed into something that is not a university, and that it will lose its degree-granting status.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that Chilver is a completely independent body. It is all very well to say that the Government cannot comment until the Chilver report is on the Minister's desk. The truth is, however, that these accounts, are having a most damaging effect on staff morale. Doubts have been raised in the minds of well qualified people who would otherwise apply for posts in the university. A young man contacted me to ask whether the university would still be in existence if he applied for a post in which he was interested. There are also the distressing effects on future students who wonder, if they apply for a place, whether the university will still exist when the time comes to take up their places.
If the reports are completely unfounded, hon. Members would be grateful for a ministerial statement indicating that they are unfounded. If no such statement is made, can we draw the conclusion that the reports are true? If the reports are soundly based, I demand that the Government should not accept what Chilver is alleged to say. The university has had a chequered history. It has many enemies. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that some of its enemies sit high up in the Department of Education. It is an institution that I believe can survive and that, perhaps, would have fared much better if earlier efforts to sustain the life of the university had been maintained.
There have been complaints about the size of the student body. A few years ago, many other universities in the United Kingdom had student bodies of a similar size. There have also been some complaints about the poor level of recruitment of students from Great Britain. What can one expect with the present security situation in Northern Ireland? It is foolish to think that people will be lining up to attend a university in Northern Ireland. If, however, the university is closed or downgraded, all those connected with it, or who know anything about it, will have to say that the IRA has had another victory in destroying not perhaps a building but an institution that, in the long term, is more important than any particular building.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the visit—it was a second visit—that he and I paid to the Minister in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland regarding the rundown of the drainage office in Coleraine. I shall not rehearse all that the hon. Gentleman said, except to say that I agree with him. I believe that we
1540
presented an excellent case together with officials and members of the Coleraine council who accompanied us. I believe that our arguments were soundly based.
If the rundown of the drainage office had been based on sensible grounds rather than bureaucratic nonsense, the case, I believe, would have been won by the arguments put forward. I fear, however, that the decision has been made and that it is the wrong decision. This is an old and important office. It was not established by accident. It was set up because of the peculiar drainage difficulties in Northern Ireland. I accept that most of the main drainage schemes have been completed. I do not accept, however, that it is necessary to close the office.
The most telling point that I have heard is the fact that when a new major river drainage scheme is carried out it is necessary to put a resident drainage engineer on the river bank. The absence or presence of a major river drainage scheme has little implication for the work load in the area office which oversees it. Much of the design work is done at headquarters. The case for closing the office is ill-founded and is perhaps seen by bureaucrats in Stormont and Dundonald House as a matter of tidiness. I cannot believe that if the Minister examines the situation and makes his own decision, rather than accepting the decision of civil servants, he will go ahead with the nonsense that is proposed.
11.55 am
Mr. James Kilfedder: In yesterday's debate on the riots in Great Britain, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) intimated, unemployment was stated to be a contributory factor. It follows logically that unemployment must have some effect on the situation in Northern Ireland. Now, perhaps, tribute will be paid to the restraint of the Ulster people, particularly the young people, despite 12 years of terrorism.
Television cameras tend to zoom in on the small number of youths in Republican areas who, usually manipulated and master-minded by the Provisional IRA godfathers, throw stones and petrol and acid bombs at the security forces. I wish that the television cameras would portray the law-abiding young people in Ulster who, despite the terrorism and terrible unemployment, are a credit to any country. I am sorry that Ulster is given a bad name throughout the world. If the news media looked at ordinary, decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland and dealt with how they go about their business, despite the great problems, and concentrated on the manner in which decent people behave, a different conclusion about Ulster would be drawn.
However, the young unemployed in Northern Ireland need help. They need jobs. All the fine phrases about Government action to deal with the increasing number of young people who cannot get a job are virtually meaningless. The Government should be aware—if the Minister will pay attention to what I say instead of talking to his colleague on the Front Bench—of the feelings of hopelessness and despair felt by the 16-year-old sch000lchildren who have no hope of a job.
It is an indictment of the Government that young people leaving school full of hope and idealism can look forward only to the prospect of joining the dole queue. That is what the Government offer the young people of Northern Ireland who are the future of the Province and the best hope for the Province. Unless the Government act

1541
reasonably to meet this grave situation they will be condemned rightly by people in all parts of the Province. This year, 26,000 boys and girls left school. Only 2,000 of them will get a job, or may get a job. About 8,000 will continue in further and higher education. Another 8,000 will join the youth opportunities programme or Enterprise Ulster for short-time employment or training. What is to happen to the remaining 8,000 who have no jobs and who go out every day, idle about, and feel in a state of despair?
When I go about my constituency, young people ask me "Jim, can you help me to get a job?" Perhaps they make a plea for the opportunity to complete an apprenticeship which has been prematurely ended by redundancies. It is no comfort to them for me to say that this is the result of Government policy and that under our democratic system all that I can do is to tell the Minister in the House about the feelings and anxieties of young people. I hope that today the Minister will be able to offer these young people some hope and some action by the Government, because they deserve that.
On the subject of education, it is sad to reflect on the failure of successive Governments to do anything positive and effective about Ulster's divided community. From time to time they have castigated the Ulster people about religious division and have sought to impose impractical political solutions on the Province. But Governments in turn have been too cowardly to bring an end to religious apartheid in education at the taxpayers' expense. I mentioned that matter as recently as yesterday, at Question Time.
The present Government pride themselves on taking tough and unpopular decisions about public expenditure cuts. But they take the taxpayers' money to maintain two systems of education in Northern Ireland. At a time of great need and heartrending unemployment, that waste is bad enough, but it is well-nigh criminal that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being used to enable the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, to trap young people into a mental ghetto. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for the Department of Education is not a Member of this House. That is sad, because we cannot argue these matters to his face in this Chamber. From what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, it is very difficult to put matters to his face anywhere else. But we must put our arguments here, so I hope that the Minister's colleagues will express to him as forcefully as possible our feelings about education, as expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and others.
The only places of learning in Northern Ireland where the young of Ulster can meet irrespective of religious or cultural differences are the two universities and the technical colleges. With only a few exceptions, Protestant and Roman Catholic children must go to separate primary and secondary schools. and even to separate youth classes.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps he will make it clear that we are talking not about Roman Catholic schools in Ulster and Protestant schools in Ulster but about Roman Catholic schools and State schools. The State schools are not synonymous with Protestant schools, because in the State schools there is no attempt to impose a religious ethos on those who attend
1542
them. I simply ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify that matter, because I have much sympathy with what he is saying and that point would strengthen his argument.
Mr. Kilfedder: I have put that matter before the House previously. The reality of the present situation is that Protestants and relatively few Roman Catholics go to State schools, and the vast majority of Roman Catholics go to Church schools, in which children from a very young age are moulded and set almost permanently in that mould, and that is very sad. Taxpayers' money should not be used to put young people into schools at which they cannot meet and play with boys and girls of another religion and learn together.
But the matter does not stop at the schools, because we have separate teacher training colleges for Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Protestant college is the State college at Stranmillis. In effect, it is Protestant. Worst of all was the demand by the Roman Catholic Church that even nursery schools must be divided on sectarian lines. Sadly, the Government of the day surrendered.
The Government are acting unfairly in the matter of financial support. Ulster's further education has suffered proportionately greater cuts in expenditure than its primary and secondary schools. How can the Government justify cutting further education programmes at a time of high unemployment in Northern Ireland? Ulster has the same rate of youth unemployment as the worst areas in Britain, and no local education authority in England with similar youth unemployment has made such severe cuts as have been made by the five education boards in Northern Ireland. I want the Government to justify from the Dispatch Box today that unfair treatment of our young people in the matter of education.
At a time of unprecedented and savage unemployment, young people should be encouraged to proceed from school to places of further education rather than to break their hearts and spirits in the dole queue. Northern Ireland suffers gravely from lack of raw materials, but in our young people we have the best hope for the future. I therefore call on the Government to invest in them by providing more money for grants and making sure that teachers who have lost a job because of Government expenditure cuts are used to educate our young people.
The Chilver committee was due to report in June. When does the Minister expect to receive that report?
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that an ugly rumour was circulating that the New University of Ulster is to be reduced in status to a kind of non-university institution. I do not agree with those who allege that the university, with almost 1,500 students, including about 200 postgraduate students, is not a viable university. The 18-plus age group in Northern Ireland will continue to increase for a number of years. The special contribution which the university has made to university life in Northern Ireland is in bringing together students from all denominations in the education centre. I see the education centre at the new university as being the main centre in the training of Ulster's teachers of the future.
This is a golden opportunity for the Government to abandon the old sectarian teacher training colleges—St. Mary's, St. Joseph's and Stranmillis—and to start afresh in a university setting with a completely new concept of teacher training. All teachers of the future will have to have a university degree. Where better to obtain their

1543
qualifications than in a residential university far removed from the sites and the historical and theological associations of the three teacher-training colleges that I have mentioned?
Ulster should be proud of its two universities and we should do all in our power to help them. The Province is at a disadvantage in not having a devolved Parliament. A devolved Government in Northern Ireland would fight to maintain the new university and its status. I do not believe that the present Government have their heart in the New university. They do not seem all that interested in young people, employment and education. They can prove their interest by saving the new university. We in Northern Ireland should maintain the New university as well as Queen's university in Belfast.
The Government could save money by getting rid of the interference of the Northern Ireland Department of Education in the matter of university grants. There should be no need for that extra layer of administration between the University Grants Committee and the universities. It makes no sense. The two Northern Ireland universities should be regarded in the same way as British universities and should receive their grants directly from the UGC.
At present, the universities receive their money from the Northern Ireland Department of Education, which is 11 weeks behind the UGC in informing Queen's university and the new university of their current and capital grants. That delay is unnecessary and unacceptable. It is not to the universities' advantage to have two masters, and I urge the Government to consider doing away with the intermediate stage.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Gentleman will realise that the funds given to the two universities in Northern Ireland are made available by the Department on the recommendation of the UGC.
Mr. Kilfedder: But, as I pointed out, there is a delay of 11 weeks and there is no point in that delay. The iniversities suffer because they cannot make their plans as early as other universities. I cannot understand the function performed by the Northern Ireland Department of Education. It receives a statement from the UGC and eventually—11 weeks late this year—it informs the two universities what grants will be available to them.
I wish to refer finally to the bureacracy of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Bureaucracy is the bane of the lives of Ulster people, and it is seen at its worst in housing in the Province. We have the lowest standards of public sector housing in the United Kingdom, and some people have been waiting desperately for a home for many years.
Ulster has one all-powerful, omniscient housing organisation—the Housing Executive. It is failing to build enough houses for those who desperately need them and it is failing to maintain existing properties at an acceptable standard. Tenants find it difficult to get repairs carried out. I mentioned that in the recent debate on Northern Ireland housing, so I shall not go into detail, but it is a serious matter and something must be done about it.
I believe that the answer is to get rid of the Housing Executive. With more than 3,500 employees, it is top-heavy. Like so many other organisations in Ulster, it owes no allegiance to any elected, representative body and it is not subject to proper and regular scrutiny by democratically elected representatives. The executive is appointed by
1544
the Minister and does his bidding. It increases rents when he says they should be increased, even though those increases are unfair.
The Housing Council, which is meant to watch over the working of the executive, is a useless, toothless body, superimposed on the executive to deceive people into believing that there is some sort of democratic control by elected representatives. The council may be the basis for the proposed advisory council that the Secretary of State has foolishly put forward as a constitutional move. It will have no powers, and is a dangerous sham. I hope that people will look at it carefully.
Millions of pounds were lost by the Housing Executive on contrasts given to IRA-dominated firms. The quality, of the finish of many houses, including some in my constituency, is pathetic and appalling. Windows rot, doors twist, spouting leaks and chimneys do not draw, so that some tenants are smoked out of their homes. Maintenance contractors carry out repairs without any check being made on the finished job in far too many cases.
Judging by the work that many maintenance contractors claim to have carried out, I get the impression that they are using the Housing Executive as a quick way to a fortune. Too often a couple of workmen with a ladder turn up to repair a roof, for example, after the tenant has waited for months. They spend a day doing a botched-up job and therefore have to return three or four times before doing a proper job. All the time, the rain is coming through the roof and the tenant is suffering.
I heard of a recent case of a tenant who had been complaining for years about various defects in his house. After I sent a letter to the chief executive of the Housing Executive, workmen went to the house to replace the fireplace. The tenant had never asked to have his fireplace replaced. No doubt that cost a lot of money—taxpayers' money—and when I wrote another letter of complaint to the Housing Executive I received a reply saying that men had been sent to look at the fireplace and it was hoped that all would go well. That tenant did not want anything done to his fireplace. He wanted action to remedy the defects in his home. If that example is being repeated throughout the Province, thousands of pounds are being wasted and tenants are suffering because correct repairs are not being carried out.
The Housing Executive has always been a remote organisation for most tenants. People are frightened by its bureaucratic face and the executive gives the impression that it is dispensing charity to those who apply for tenancies. At the rents that people have to pay the tenancies cannot be regarded as charity. According to the Government, they pay economic rents.
I know from my constituency work that the district managers are excellent. They are fair, sympathetic and understanding, and many of their support staff do a good job in trying and difficult circumstances. But the executive fails, because it is top-heavy at headquarters. It is not looking after the interests of its tenants. More than likely, it is pushing paper round its headquarters.
The executive has moved into grandiose headquarters, purpose-built for it, in Adelaide Street, Belfast. Has the Minister been told the total cost? What are the economics of the move into the new headquarters? Who was responsible for the executive standard of the furnishings?
Mr. Peter Robinson: What about the Town 'n' Country, in Newtownards?
Mr. Kilfedder: That is not a club that tenants of the executive go to for recreational purposes. It is a newly-built, empty hotel that was taken over by the executive as a regional headquarters. It is rumoured that the rent is enormous. I have been trying to find out from the Minister what it is, so far without success. I have telephoned the private office of the Department of the Environment, but I have received no answer. I have received no answer to my questions about the cost of the wall that may be put up to screen those looking for homes from people who use another part of the hotel that is to be operated as a commercial enterprise.
Is the rent £30,000, £40,000 or what? The people—certainly those who have been asked to pay a hefty increase in rent—are entitled to know what they are paying towards splendid offices for officials whose jobs are perhaps not necessary. Now the rumour is that that large hotel is not large enough for the executive's regional office, and that the executive will have to add to its accommodation. There is no need for that Rolls-Royce accommodation. The executive exists to serve its tenants or prospective tenants, and the organisation and offices should be located for the convenience of customers and operated for the benefit of tenants and not for the enhancement of the organisation's status.
All of the vast increase in the numbers of persons involved and the expensive office accommodation arises from a report by the Civil Service Department, which recommended that between the area manager and the board there should be inserted a regional controller, with his own empire and support staff. That decision has resulted in the present administrative octopus, with a tiny brain and many grasping arms. It was an administrative disaster, and it should be reversed.
The proper place for housing is in the care of the democratically elected councils. The executive costs about £143 million a year. If housing were transferred to the elected councils the result would be more and better homes for the people at lower cost than that of the present bloated bureaucracy.
12.23 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that sometimes Members on the Opposition side of the House are inclined to feel that they are being repetitious in debates on Northern Ireland, particularly when a number of debates immediately follow one another. There is some validity in that, but it is not necessary to warn my right hon. Friend that if we began to feel embarrassment about putting ideas to the Government it would be to the Government's advantage.
We should never hesitate to put on record at each and every opportunity the fact that since May 1979 this Government have effectively doubled unemployment in Northern Ireland. We know, from statements and from the figures that we obtained only last week, that unemployment is increasing day by day, and week by week. I make no apology for saying as often and loudly as I can that it is an absolute disgrace that the Government should have allowed unemployment in Northern Ireland so to escalate.
The Government have an unenviable record in that they have presided over the closing down of many industries in
1546
Northern Ireland that were regarded as the linchpin of our economy. The whole man-made fibre industry has gone since this Government were elected. Grundig has gone. All the little factories that employed 200, 300, 20 or 30 people have gone within a period of 27 months under the aegis of this Government. No apology is needed when we who represent Northern Ireland constituencies appeal, request or demand that the Government change their attitude. Unemployment has increased in the constituency of every Northern Ireland Member since the advent of this Government.
Yesterday afternoon I was standing behind Mr. Speaker's Chair when I heard the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the Opposition Benches, shouting above the natural discontent that was being voiced from these Benches, say that one man's rise in wages is another man's unemployment or redundancy. I accept that we cannot totally isolate the Northern Ireland economy from the rest of the United Kingdom, but will someone tell me—again I am being repetitious, because I said it in the last debate, in the debate before that, and in the debate before that, and I shall say it in the next debate—which section of the workers in Northern Ireland have been given such an increase that their wages are so high that they have resulted in redundancies in the Six Counties? I repeat, what section of the industrial work force has had such outlandish increases in pay that they have led to all the redundancies in Northern Ireland?
We are always told by the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues that if a work force can produce something which is saleable or usable, that work force is entitled to continue to exist. As I said in last month's debate, and as I shall say in the next debate, the whole construction industry in Northern Ireland is virtually unemployed at present because of the cutbacks in Government public expenditure. What the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said about the Housing Executive was right. I realise that there are people who oppose the Housing Executive, originally for political reasons. I oppose the Housing Executive purely because of its ineffectiveness. Parkinson's Law seems to apply to the staff and officers of that executive. It is opening offices all over Northern Ireland and putting in telephone extensions. Incidentally, one can never get through to the Housing Executive. The administrative staff is increasing day by day and hour by hour, but no houses are being built.
We had a debate recently in the Northern Ireland Committee on the working of the Housing Executive. There we produced figures to show that this year—1981–82—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will produce 2,500 houses, and it will produce 1,000 of those houses only if it is able to sell to the tenants who at present occupy 1,000 houses that they are prepared to sell. There is a massive increase in the administrative staff, yet no houses are being built.
I tell the Government again that there are thousands of unemployed in the construction industry in Northern Ireland. They comprise labourers, bricklayers, plumbers and fitters. All their skills could be used to build houses. In the debate to which I referred the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) seemed to question the figures that I gave, but I maintain that Northern Ireland is, and has been for a considerable time, the worst-housed region not only in the United Kingdom but in Western Europe. Those figures cannot be contradicted, and I have publication after publication to prove them.

1547
If there is such high unemployment in the construction industry, could not those who are unemployed be put usefully to work building houses which are so badly needed to house those in Northern Ireland who, as the hon. Member for Down, North said, have been waiting for years, some for almost a decade, to get houses from a public authority?
Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman compares the housing record of Northern Ireland with that in other parts of Europe. I received a written answer to a parliamentary question of mine setting out a number of figures. Has the hon. Gentleman studied those figures? If so, he may wish to revise what he has just said.
Mr. Fitt: I advise the hon. Member for Epping Forest to read a report published by Shelter, Northern Ireland, which had its first conference in Northern Ireland three or four weeks ago. I believe the facts published in that document to be undeniable.
Mr. J. Bradford: Unreliable.
Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman must take his choice. I am prepared to accept the figures published by Shelter, Northern Ireland, because I do not believe that such an organisation would irresponsibly collate figures for which there was no basis.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman study the figures provided by Her Majesty's Government before he repeats his assertion?
Mr. Fitt: I have studied a great many figures provided by Her Majesty's Government over a number of years, and I have not always found them to be the most reliable statistics. Again, "You pays your money and you takes your choice." There are figures issued by a succession of Governments which have not always been the most reliable.
This Appropriation order puts into legislation the standard of living in Northern Ireland. It is about the amount of money available and how it is spent by the different agencies, Ministries and Departments in Northern Ireland. This is a very important debate, therefore, and right hon. and hon. Members are totally justified in taking a little time to put on record how the order will affect their constituents.
I shall go through the order's contents chronologically. Class IV, Vote 1, deals with the Department of the Environment and the money made available for roads throughout Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will have some recollection that during the period in office of his Administration a great deal of disquiet was voiced in Northern Ireland by the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union about the Government giving licences to private hire operators who were not paying fair and just wages to their employees. That is still happening. The Government are paying private bus operators to transport children to and from school, and they are not paying the fair wage that is recognised by the trade union movement.
Recently I met a deputation of the trade unionists involved. They advised me that not only were the operators paying lower wages than the accepted level but that they were employing people to drive their buses whose physical condition should not have permitted them to do
1548
so, bearing in mind that the vehicles were used to transport schoolchildren. It is happening in County Antrim, County Fermanagh and County Armagh.
The Minister must be aware of the circumstances but, if necessary, I shall have no hesitation in leading a deputation to him from the union to put before him the names of the firms concerned. I do not believe that the Government should try to cut public expenditure by giving licences to private operators who pay less than the legitimate wage and, more important, who are not all that careful about those whom they employ. The Government should make certain that the drivers of these school buses have all their physical faculties.
Class IX deals with health and social services. I have always taken an interest in that subject. Many cuts have been made in that Department. Hon. Members will remember the mini-Budget last year and the reallocation of funds that caused chaos in Northern Ireland. As a result of that reallocation of resources, schoolteachers, school cleaners, people who served school meals, school window cleaners and ambulance drivers became unemployed. Drivers who transported disabled people from their homes to treatment centres became unemployed. Every facet of life in Northern Ireland was affected by the cuts. We are still suffering from the effects.
In the last few weeks I have received letters and telephone calls from young girls who are anxious and eager to take up nursing. I refer particularly to the Royal Victoria hospital. The girls have had their interviews and physical examinations. They were told that they would be able to take up their nursing careers at the end of July. They then received a note from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board which said "We are very sorry, but because of Government cuts we shall not be able to employ you as nurses."
The young girls are bitterly disappointed. I have spoken to them and to their parents. They were promised that they would be able to take up their chosen profession at the Royal Victoria hospital. That hospital has rendered signal service throughout the community in the past terrible 12 years. Not only are the young girls bitterly disappointed, but an inferior service is now provided by that hospital. It has to work with fewer nurses. The hospital is one of the most famous in the United Kingdom. It has rendered great service not only to the people of Belfast but to the whole of medical science because of what it has had to do in the last 10 or 12 years.
The same is happening at the Purdysburn hospital and in the mental hospitals. I have spoken to the COHSE trade union leader. The ratio of nurses to patients is far lower than that which is normally accepted. The same applies to Downpatrick hospital. The Government's policies are leading to a fall in the standard of provision in our ordinary hospitals and mental institutions.
Mr. John Patten: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Royal Victoria hospital and nursing ratios at Purdysburn, I must tell him that the financial allocation per bed at the Royal Victoria hospital is the third highest in the United Kingdom. Only two teaching hospitals in London are higher. The Government have in that way rightly recognised the extraordinary and excellent contribution that the RVH has made to medicine, not only in Ulster but in the whole of the United Kingdom. The staffing ratios in Purdysburn hospital do not fall below the national average.
Mr. Fitt: "You pays your money and you takes your choice." I am prepared to listen to the trade union leader. He is dedicated to his profession, to his trade union and to the welfare of the patients being cared for by his trade union members.
Mr. Kilfedder: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the case of Downpatrick, some patients who should not be in closed units are in them because there is not the staff to look after them?
Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman should make further inquiries. He will discover that I am not exaggerating. There is a great deal of discontent.
I wish to raise a petty matter. Within the past four or five months I attended the Mater hospital in Belfast, not far from my home. I was approached by one of the sisters. She asked me in a rather embarrassed fashion to look at the corridor. It was in an appalling condition and needed painting. Because the hospital was not in my constituency, I did not want to take a case belonging to another hon. Member. However, the hospital is close to where I live, and I know the people involved. The hospital made representations to the Eastern health board but was told that because of Government cuts the corridor could not be painted. How petty can the Government be? A dilapidated corridor in a hospital creates a certain impression for people visiting their relatives. Its repainting should be permitted, irrespective of Government cuts.
I received a letter from a teacher at St. John the Baptist school, Andersonstown. In 1973 the Northern Ireland Department of Education agreed to provide a nursery school for younger children. In 1980 the school was told that there had been a reallocation of funds and the Department did not think it necessary to provide a nursery school. It said that it would provide one at some other time. The teachers at the school recognised that there had been cuts and that the nursery could not be built—even though the Department had agreed that it was necessary—and said that one of their teachers would teach the nursery pupils.
There should have been 35 young boys entering the nursery school in September. One teacher was to be given the job of looking after them. However, because of the reallocation of funds—nothing to do with what we heard earlier about fewer children attending schools—the principal of the school was told that the young boys could not be accommodated in September but would have to wait until next September because no money was available to pay the teacher. That teacher is signing on the unemployment register. There has been a cutback in almost every facet of education. Teachers are finding it difficult to obtain jobs. The youngsters who should have been admitted to the nursery school are left to roam the streets for another year. That is an example of the small issues that have an everyday effect on the people living in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to go into the closure of the British Enkalon factory in any great detail, but many jobs will be lost. When those jobs go we shall not get them back again. We have said time after time that the Government should do their damnedest to keep the existing jobs in Northern Ireland. There is little point in trying to attract new investment if it is from sources that have no experience of Northern Ireland and whose attitudes are conditioned by what they see and hear about the Province on television.
1550
British Enkalon is already in Northern Ireland. Its management and staff know the conditions. They know where the troubles are happening, are liable to happen, and where they do not happen.
Those men are taking that knowledge with them. They will not stay in Antrim. They will have to move somewhere else in the United Kingdom to try to find jobs. All those skills which were built up, technical and managerial, are lost to Northern Ireland. We shall then read that the Minister, as happened with his predecessor, is on a plane to Chicago, Illinois, San Fransisco, Bremen, Paris or somewhere else and is trying to attract a new industry to Northern Ireland. We read in our newspapers every day that there is a world recession. Other countries have unemployment problems as well and their people are on the dole. If they can keep industries in their countries they will not be all that generous and take great compassion on people in Northern Ireland. They will not let industry come from their shores to Northern Ireland.
It behoves the Government to keep as many jobs as possible in Northern Ireland. That is why I believe that it is foolish to have any cutbacks in Enterprise Ulster or LEDU in Northern Ireland. Those are home-based projects, run by men born and bred in Northern Ireland, who know exactly what is necessary at any given time. The Minister should tell us what section of industry has demanded such high wages that they have led to unemployment in other sectors of the Northern Ireland economy.
As usual, this debate is taking place on a Friday. There are not many hon. Members here from other parts of the United Kingdom. They are not terribly interested in what is happening in Northern Ireland. I know that Northern Ireland is regarded by many hon. Members as a liability in many ways. It might be thought that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are lucky to have a whole day to themselves and to talk for as long as they like, with no time limit. That is not the right way to look at such debates. I know that the whole economy in the United Kingdom is in recession, but I also know that the measures that are being taken by the Government are exacerbating unemployment in the United Kingdom.
The recent civil disturbances which we have had here and in other parts of the United Kingdom are a symptom of the great frustration that has been felt by young people who do not have the prospect of a job to go to in the foreseeable future. We have had that in Northern Ireland over a number of years. I cannot see that this Government's measures, if they are to take any measures will help. There is talk of £40 million to set up new factories, which might give a temporary respite to some people in the construction industry who will build the factories. But who will occupy them? The only organisation that can profitably occupy such industrial establishments is the Government. The Government must recognise that about 32 per cent. of the industrial work force in Northern Ireland is employed by the Government, which is a high percentage. If, over a period, the Government decide that they will have cutbacks in public expenditure in all the areas that I have mentioned—health, social services and the Housing Executive, for example—and if they allow other industries in Northern Ireland to die, the position can only become worse.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made some predictions yesterday. I disagree with the way that he expressed them. However, unemployment has

1551
contributed to the troubles in Northern Ireland. With an ever-increasing number of people becoming unemployed, we can expect the trouble to get worse. I warn the Government of that. I appeal to them on behalf of my constituents to take whatever steps they can in the shortest possible time to tackle the terrible spectre of unemployment.
12.50 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am my party's housing spokesman, so I usually find myself on these occasions dealing mainly with housing, but we recently had a comprehensive debate on housing in the Northern Ireland Committee which gave us an opportunity to air our views on the subject, although the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) still wished to throw out one or two matters.
Ministers have been criticised for not readily being prepared to meet deputations, but the Environment Minister should not be included. He is always willing to meet deputations on planning and housing matters. However, I cannot include his noble Friend in that remark. He has been unwilling to meet deputations.
The hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Down, North joined in a common theme on unemployment which was first mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It would be wrong for any Northern Ireland Member to participate in the debate without drawing attention to our soaring unemployment. Two years ago we should have laughed in disbelief at the fact that the number of unemployed in 1981 would be over 100,000, but the prospect is that the situation could get even worse. Indeed, other factors may mean that the correct number is 20,000 to 25,000 higher than the official figure. In those circumstances, it ill-becomes hon. Members and people outside the House to run around like the Mafia hitmen, groundlessly criticising projects such as De Lorean and the Belfast shipyard. I was no fan of De Lorean. The siting of the factory was not appropriate, although an effort has been made to make the entrance more suitable. However, it is right to give it every possible support and encouragement, first, because of unemployment and, secondly, because of the investment that has already been made. There has been a vast investment in the company, and it would be churlish to criticise the firm in a way that would be detrimental to its prospects.
Closer to home is Harland and Wolff. It is unfortunate that hon. Members who have criticised the company are not here. Perhaps they will have returned to the Chamber before I resume my seat.
Before criticising Harland and Wolff in particular, it is necessary to consider world shipbuilding conditions in general. It would be unjust to criticise one company if every other shipyard in the world was suffering in the same way. Harland and Wolff is suffering from the dearth of shipbuilding orders caused by the world slump. The Belfast yards have been particularly hard hit because the market for which their facilities were designed—tankers and bulk carriers, but especially the former—has been the hardest hit of all. About 600 tankers are still reckoned to be laid up throughout the world, so it will be some time before there is a resurgence of orders for tankers. I shall deal later with the market for bulk carriers.
Harland and Wolff is not alone in making losses. British Shipbuilders made considerable losses despite the fact that many of its larger constituent parts have the
1552
advantage of naval construction orders. The Minister will recall that on many occasions I and other hon. Members have pressed for naval contracts to be given to Harland and Wolff, if only in the repair section, as it has shown that it can deal very successfully with that kind of order. Once again, therefore, I press upon the Minister the necessity for naval construction orders, which by their very nature are always regarded as profitable. The resulting profits offset to some extent losses on merchant ship construction. It can therefore be argued that the losses made by British Shipbuilders are not a true comparison because Harland and Wolff does not receive naval orders at all.
Other parts of the world show a similar pattern of heavy losses in shipbuilding. In Japan, which is often regarded as the world's most efficient shipbuilding nation, a number of shipyards are closing because of the depression in the world market. Many of the larger Japanese shipbuilding companies are part of even larger enterprises whose profits in other spheres of operation, like those on British naval orders, may be offset against losses on merchant ship construction. It was recently estimated that to gain a foreign order certain Japanese yards had to offer ships at a price 40 per cent. below the cost of production.
That situation is reflected in the financial results of the top 10 Japanese companies for the years 1978 and 1979, which recorded total losses of 391 billion yen. A single Japanese firm, IHI, in 1978 suffered a loss—its first loss since 1974—of 10 billion yen. In 1979, the company cut the salaries of all employees by 5 per cent., suspended all pay increases, reduced the salaries of managers by 5 per cent. to 15 per cent. and made drastic cuts in the labour force. Another Japanese company, Mitsui, also recorded its first loss, and one of its main yards switched from shipbuilding to the manufacture of containers and steel products. A third Japanese company, Sasebo, in 1978 recorded a loss of 2·1 billion yen. In the first half of 1979, that loss increased to 9·7 billion yen. That company, too, instituted cuts in wages and salaries and reduced its work force. Yet Japan is supposed to be the leader in world shipbuilding.
To single out one British shipyard is therefore patently unfair. Moreover, in relation to Harland and Wolff, we must appreciate that it is not always possible to quantify the effect of shipbuilding problems because the knock-on effect may last long after the original problem has been solved. Like the nail that was lost in the shoe of the horse, a seemingly minor problem may prove very costly indeed. I shall therefore detail some items which can easily be accepted as major problems for Harland and Wolff and which should be taken into consideration to put the whole matter into perspective.
First, I refer to the insulation problem on the Shell LPG ships. When the order for those ships was taken, a specific method of insulating the containment tanks was agreed between Harland and Wolff and the owners. Because the ships were intended ultimately for use between the United Kingdom and the United States, the design had to be approved by the United States coastguard service. The original insulation system was not approved. A second insulation system was then adopted, but the sub-contractors appointed to carry out the insulation work were unable to meet the rigorous specification requirements. The second method had therefore to be abandoned. Fortunately, a third system was discovered and adopted, and this, once put into operation, enabled work on the ships to proceed steadily.

1553
It should be pointed out, however, that each insulation system has required changes in ship design and production methods, all of which add to the ultimate cost of production and the length of time needed for the completion of the ship. As has been indicated, delays in the completion of the LPG ships have knock-on effects. For instance, with the steady rise in the cost of labour and materials, every delay brings the construction of the ship into a more expensive period. Harland and Wolff is, however, happy that the new insulation system, which has received approval, will prove effective in operation.
The second matter that has to be taken into consideration is the construction of ferry vessels. The shipyard is ideally suited for the construction of large ships. Although the company has built ferries in the past, they have not been built with the present facilities. The ferries have therefore been built using facilities not designed for small ships. Furthermore, the labour balance—that is, the ratio of hull construction men as against outfitting trades—varies considerably with the type of ship under construction. The yard had to recruit many more outfit tradesmen in order to complete the construction of the ferries. Anyone in industry will know that there is always a learning curve with new employees and that they must learn to adapt their skills to the environment of shipbuilding.
The record of Harland and Wolff in the construction of ferries has been steadily improving, and construction of the last vessel, which is to be delivered at the end of this month, has proceeded far more smoothly than that of the first three ships. This improvement has been achieved despite a serious hold-up caused by no fault of Harland and Wolff. One of the two main engines in the vessel blew up during its test running in Manchester, and because of this it was impossible for Harland and Wolff to install the engine before the launch of the vessel. When the engine was delivered to Belfast nearly a year after the original delivery date, a hole had to be cut in the side of the vessel to permit the entry of the engine. Obviously the fitting out of the engine room could not be completed until this time-consuming and costly replacement had been made. There have been other supply problems, not necessarily so dramatic but none the less infuriating, with other bought-in components.
The third matter to be taken into consideration is steel supply. During the construction of the British Rail ferries the yard received a number of faulty plates of steel. In many instances the faults were not discovered until the steel had gone through a number of fabrication processes. Harland and Wolff is still receiving a number of faulty plates. In the case of the new Foyle bridge—for which Harland and Wolff is manufacturing the steel work—the rate of rejection of plates has been running as high as 25 per cent., and that is bound to hold back the production rates.
I have listed three major problem areas. Although there have been others upon which I have not gone into detail, great criticism has been levelled at Harland and Wolff, particularly by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who recently made a scathing attack on the company and on the Government's proposal to continue with financial assistance for Harland and Wolff. During the course of his attack he claimed that Harland and
1554
Wolff had received £300 million, and that it could not build ships to specification or on time, or at a price that the customer was prepared to pay.
Taking these points in order, reference to the three major items that I outlined will indicate why it has taken longer tko build LPG ships and parts than had been originally planned. There have, of course, been other factors, but they have been of a minor nature.
The charge made about the Belfast yard's inability to build ships to specification cannot be substantiated. In only one instance—that of two VLCCs for the Coastal States Gas Corporation—has the yard's quality been questioned. Those who have followed the progress of that case will know that Harland and Wolff contested the company's complaints and the matter went to arbitration. In all the matters with which the arbitration panel dealt before the proceedings ended, the panel found in favour of Harland and Wolff. It is worthy of note that the Coastal States Gas Corporation accepted the ships without any modification and has been operating them successfully and without complaint to Harland and Wolff since acceptance.
Harland and Wolff has received many congratulations on the quality of the three Sealink ferries already delivered. It is known that the second ship delivered has been able to operate on English Channel routes in weather conditions that have stopped other vessels on the same route. It is also worthy of note that, to my knowledge and also to the knowledge of Harland and Wolff, despite the large number of ships that have been laid up, no Harland and Wolff ship has been taken out of service. Harland and Wolff has evidence that the "Ravenscraig", operated by the Ropner company on behalf of British Steel, has a better performance than ships of comparable size operated by competitors in a similar service.
The hon. Member for Knutsford alleged that Harland and Wolff had received to date £300 million in Government assistance. This, again, is incorrect. The amount of aid given to Harland and Wolff from 1966 to the end of March 1981 amounted to £219 million. Of this total, however, £59 million has been in the form of industrial grants that are available to industry generally. The amount of special funds allocated to Harland and Wolff over the past 15 years is £160 million, not £300 million.
It would be wrong of me to conclude without looking to the future. In the past month or so, the competitive position of British Shipbuilders has been altered radically by the change in the value of the £ sterling. Products have been made more attractive to foreign buyers. It is worth recording that the selling price of British ships has remained virtually unchanged, largely because of the pressure of foreign competition, since 1973. Surely there are few other industries that have had to absorb the cost of inflation for so long without commensurate changes in the selling price of goods.
There is unlikely to be a quick re-emergence of the oil tanker market, but with the second of the preferred type of vessel mentioned earlier—the bulk carrier—there are distinct signs that the market will improve. Of particular interest is the steady increase in the movement of coal throughout the world. Harland and Wolff has, because of comprehensive studies of the market, been able to offer shipowners vessels ideally suited to this market. Harland and Wolff's market predictions on the scope of the market and the size of vessel required have to date been proved correct. These predictions show that a considerable

1555
number of new bulk carriers will be required by coal traders. Harland and Wolff is making strenuous efforts to capture a share of the market.
Unsubstantiated allegations by the hon. Member for Knutsford and others do little to enhance the yard's reputation throughout the world and are, in the end, damaging and counter-productive. It is encouragement that the Belfast shipyard needs rather than irresponsible sniping.
Class IX deals with the Department of Health. I have to make a serious allegation against the Department and certain people attached to it. The hon. Member for Down, North, in an intervention, mentioned the Belfast city hospital building contract. He referred to what he said was £42 million—I think it is considerably more and that it is at least £46 million, and perhaps well over £50 million—involved in the cost of the project. It was planned, I believe, to cost about £7 million or £8 million. One can therefore see why the Public Accounts Committee became interested in the expenditure.
Some factors have been brought to my attention, in the first place, by post and anonymously. I set out to confirm the facts given to me. Having confirmed them, I think that it is right that I should put them before the Minister and ask not only for his comments but for urgent attention to be given to the matter. It appears that the claim made that the increase in money was going, in some degree, to encourage workers to stay on the site despite terrorist activity has not been substantiated by the men themselves. No less a person than W. J. Duffy, the Northern Ireland branch secretary of the National Union of Sheet Metal Workers, Coppersmiths, Heating and Domestic Engineers, wrote in the News Letter Belfast on 3 July:
"no members of my union, who have been employed on the site since the beginning of the contract, have ever received any such payments."
That is a clear statement. It admits of no doubt or confusion.
The allegations made to me suggest that the money is going to a different destination. From the sub-contractors on the site my inquiries inform me that Haden Young has received no financial benefit in this way, nor have Air Flow, Otis Electric, Nelson Insulation. Satchwell and Apuana (Floors); and Crown House has received only four hours a week time-keeping bonus. The only people who seem to have benefited have been the main contractors. One is drawn to ask why the danger of terrorist activity applies only to the main contractors and not to sub-contractors.
The allegation made to me is that the Government, albeit indirectly, have been paying racketeers—the Irish Republican Army and perhaps one other paramilitary group. These organisations have been paid money to keep away from the site. The Minister must address himself to this matter. He must either confirm it today or investigate it fully. The Public Accounts Committee should also address itself to this matter. In Northern Ireland this has been widely rumoured for some time, but there is considerable support from people on the site for this view. Given that, the. Minister must make a full inquiry before he makes any denial.
Mr. John Patten: I should be happy to receive any substantiated evidence of the hon. Gentleman's allegation.
Mr. Robinson: It is simple to trigger the Minister's inquisitiveness. If the subcontractors have not been getting
1556
the money which it is alleged has been paid, who has been getting it? The Minister must have a good look at the accounts to see where the money has been going. An official of the union said that his men were not getting the money. Sub-contractors say that they are not getting it. Yet the money has been paid out. This is nothing short of a scandal. It must be examined closely by the Minister and his Department.
Finally, under Class XI, Vote 1, for the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly—£104,000—once more we are being asked to vote a substantial sum to maintain what is effectively a political vacuum in Northern Ireland. The foot-dragging exercise of the Government in their attempts to get meaningful devolution in Northern Ireland is deplorable. The Government must come to terms with this matter. In effect, we are being asked to pay £104,000 as a donation to the shrine of past and present Government failures to get devolution.
The Minister and the Secretary of State must face the fact that the proposed Northern Ireland advisory council falls far short of what Northern Ireland representatives want and of what Northern Ireland needs. To have a non-elected talking shop is an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. I ask the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, to consider giving Northern Ireland real devolution. Will he not, at last, honour the ballot box and let the people of Northern Ireland decide the form of devolved government that they want for the Province?
As a start, and in good faith, will the Secretary of Slate tell the House that he will call off the abortive and ill-fated Dublin talks? I assume that the money that is being voted for the Civil Service is to pay in some part for the running backwards and forwards to the joint studies, so I assume that it is permissible to speak on that subject. I hope that the insult of the Dublin Government in going to the United States behind the teacher's back and telling the American Government to put pressure on Britain will bring the Secretary of State to his senses and make him realise that the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom have no friends in Dublin.
Until the consultation with the Dublin Government is ended, there will be no prospect of Northern Ireland politicians being able to enter constructively into the process of devolved government, and the Votes for the Northern Ireland Assembly will for ever remain a monument to the Government's failure.
1.15 pm
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I wish to refer first to Class II, which deals with expenditure by the Department of Commerce. I shall not intrude into the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who will deal with the important subject of the likely future of British Enkalon, but I wish to refer to the use of money for sustaining jobs in the Province.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who, as usual, impressed the House with his sincerity and dedication in trying to engender new hope for employment prospects in the Province. I hope that he will not take my comment amiss if I say that I accept that there are times when the Government must seriously consider sustaining jobs in non-profit-making businesses, when the cost of doing so is no greater than the cost that would be incurred by paying unemployment benefits. But the Government cannot keep

1557
paying out large sums that will reduce their capacity to produce long-term, worthwhile, productive jobs, particularly in microchip techology.
The Government have to look at the arithmetic involved in the British Enkalon case. If it will cost, say, £6½ million to provide the dole money that would be required if workers lost their jobs, and the jobs could be retained for a sum not much in excess of that, the Government have a responsibility to agree that it is moral and helpful to keep the business in being.
However, I should hate to give the impression in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom that there is an endless supply of resources. If that impression became prevalent it would reduce the commitment of workers and management in the public sector to get on with providing competitive operations.
There is an obvious role for the Government in sustaining jobs when the cost of doing so is not much in excess of the cost of paying unemployment and related benefits. However, there must be a balance and we must pay our way at the end of the day. Industry and workers in Northern Ireland are prepared to face that reality as much as workers in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I come now to my second point under this Class. I believe that we are on the verge of yet another Industrial Revolution. We are moving into a completely new era in industry, and only the most obscurantist fool will not accept that this will involve the complete rationalisation of the work force, management, and so on. Happily, I believe that this new revolution will advantage the Province, because one of our great problems in the past has been the transportation costs of heavy finished products. As we move into microchips the Province will not be burdened with such costs. Therefore, somehow or other Northern Ireland must receive the one-fortieth of the economic cake, particularly in the microchip industry.
I know that the Minister responsible for industry in the Province is very concerned that we should introduce companies of this ilk, and he has at times afforded me the opportunity to discuss the possibilities. In fact, all the Ministers, with the exception of Lord Elton, one of the Under-Secretaries, have afforded me and all my colleagues opportunities to meet them face to face. In fairness, that should be put in the record. I ask the Minister to continue to pursue the possibility of getting these new microchip-based industries into the Province, and not least the Japanese industries. I know that he is anxious to do that. Therein lies the future for Northern Ireland. For long, we have struggled with the problems of transport and energy costs and infrastructure problems in the siting of new factories. I believe that this new Industrial Revolution, which is just around the corner, will be of advantage to the Province.
I come now to Class IV, which deals with Department of the Environment expenditure on roads, the building of bridges, and so on. I am critical of the way in which many contracts related to bridge-building and other Department of the Environment work have been retained and reserved for the in-house teams within the Civil Service. The Minister will know that the consultant engineers and many of the other consultancy groups in Northern Ireland depend on public expenditure contracts more than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
1558
The moratorium, to which many Members have referred, and the cutbacks, have affected the consultancy groups in the Province more fiercely than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. Even at this stage much could be done for some of these consultant engineering groups. More of the work could be released to them than has been released so far. The in-house teams are monopolising the work in the Province to too great an extent.
Secondly, a number of contracts, among them the Foyle bridge contract, have been given to companies outside Ulster. There a small number—very small—that Ulster companies are perhaps not completely fitted and equipped to deal with. But the number of contracts being given to non-Ulster concerns is unfair and does not reflect the expertise and ability in the Province to carry out some of the sophisticated bridge-building and road construction work.
I move on to Class V, which deals with housing. I listened with interest to the observations of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive when he criticised the Government for the uncertainty and insecurity created by their lack of a planning programme. I believe that a five-year programme for the executive, which he wanted, is impracticable—indeed, impossible—but he has a point in stressing that it needs to know much sooner precisely how much money will be available to it for the next financial year.
To get a project on site requires many months during which definite information is available for planners, architects, those doing costings and quantity surveyors, and then to get all the plant on site. Unless the executive knows many months before the beginning of the next financial year, it will be impossible for it to keep its word to public representatives, constituents and tenants about the repair, refurbishing and rebuilding programmes. The executive should be told at least in August before the next financial year how much money will be available for it in that year.
That will not happen this year. Last year the executive did not know until January in the financial year 1980–81 exactly how much money would be available for the year beginning April 1981. That is wrong. It will not help us to produce the number of homes that are required.
I have great sympathy with the Minister when he says that he cannot produce a five-year plan that will not be amended, and that he cannot anticipate what money will be available for housing in five years, but much more could be done to create more certainty and stability within the housing movement.
Incidentally, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the way in which he has responded to the movement. He has substantially increased the moneys available, though we could use a little more if more materialised during the latter part of this financial year. The extra moneys have made it possible for many projects that were in jeopardy to get under way.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the potential for more use of the housing association movement during the present financial year in relation to specialised housing for the elderly and disabled and the rehabilitation phases. I was able to announce at the second meeting of the Northern Ireland Committee, unhappily when the hon. Gentleman was out of the room for a few

1559
minutes, a substantial additional programme of projects within the Province, which I brought forward from next year to this year in the housing association movement's programme of expenditure.
Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, which proves that he is sensitive to the need in the voluntary sector.
The Minister may also have helped with the sheltered dwellings programme. He will know that it is estimated that by 1985, 9,000 sheltered dwellings will be required. I am not sure what the present figure is, but it was just over 1,000 at the beginning of the present financial year. I wonder whether some of the programmes that he mentioned involve sheltered dwellings. If so, I am delighted. If not, let me tell him that the need for more sheltered dwellings in Northern Ireland cannot be exaggerated or over-emphasised.
I wish to mention one further matter under Class V—the importance of spending as much money as possible on housing in the public sector—not just because houses are needed, but because it will create jobs. The matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I am totally committed to more public expenditure in the housing sector, because it has the dual benefit of providing much-needed homes and creating much-needed jobs. I underline that issue again.
However, further expenditure on housing is needed for another reason that will reflect on the peace of mind of tenants in houses that are in poor repair. No doubt, at some stage the Minister will tell the House about the increase in rents. Certainly, there must be a realistic rent for housing in 1981–82, but he will understand the great reluctance to pay that extra money if the repairs to which tenants are entitled are not carried out.
The Minister should therefore look at the amount of money that is available to the Housing Executive, and not only for building and refurbishing programmes. He must not look just to the voluntary housing movement. He must give serious and isolated consideration to the amount of money that should be spent on repairs. If necessary, he should order the Housing Executive to spend £x on repairs. If work is done on the houses that are in grave disrepair there will be less reluctance to pay future rent increases. I would be loth to criticise any tenant who says "You are getting no more money from me for this house until it is put into proper repair". If the machinery exists for the Minister to say to the executive "You must spend £x million on repairs and on nothing else", the Minister should use that, machinery.
Class IX deals with health and social services expenditure. Again, I point out that this is the International Year of Disabled People. The Government have been sensitive to many of the ideas that have been put forward in Northern Ireland, but now that we are two-thirds of the way through the IYDP I wonder whether it would be a good idea for the Government to list what precisely has been achieved in Northern Ireland for that section of the community which occupies our thoughts during this year and list the objectives that have not been achieved.
I am particularly concerned about the provision of old peoples' homes. There is a growing need for such homes in Northern Ireland. A survey that was made in 1975 showed that 15 beds were needed per 1,000 of the elderly population. We have achieved nothing like that.
1560
The Minister responsible is kind enough to let me know from time to time the future prospects for the Woodstock Road old people's home, and I am grateful to him. But we need more than letters and expressions of good intentions; we need these homes to materialise. In this International Year of Disabled People, even if we have only one-third of it to come, the Minister could do a great deal worse than concentrate his energies on the provision of more beds for old people who can no longer care for themselves.
Mr. John Patten: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should produce, either now or at the end of IYDP, a checklist of what we have achieved and failed to achieve in the Province. I ask him to remember only that the International Year of Disabled People is linked to the voluntary organisations. It is not a wholly State-run year. Secondly, I ask him to reflect on the importance of not letting the year finish at the end of 1981 and saying "That is the end of action for the disabled". We must stress the importance of keeping in being the valuable movements that public and private organisations have got going in the Province into 1982 and beyond.
Mr. Bradford: I take the Minister's point. However, the thought occurs to me that if obvious needs are not met in the year given over to the disabled it is very much less likely that those needs will be met when we move on to concentrating on some other facet of society's needs. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very sensitive to all the programmes and projects placed before him. However, there is a need, before it is too late, to ask ourselves what precisely we have achieved and what we may achieve before the year ends.
I revert to Class III, which deals with energy. In this connection I may be at variance with some of my colleagues in talking about the future of the gas industry in the Province. I am totally committed to securing a place for Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom's integrated gas system, and I suspect, and am very unhappy about, any moves to divert our attention to a link-up with the South. I say that not for ridiculous party political reasons but for economic reasons of the best kind. We should be sharing and involving ourselves in the total assets of the kingdom to which we belong. I should be very unhappy if we pursued the possibility of a link-up with Kinsale and the South when there is no economic argument for dropping the case for integration into the United Kingdom gas network.
I am not an expert in these matters. I do not pretend to have a grasp of all the technicalities involved. But I have a very comprehensive brief from those who have such a grasp. They say that with the inclusion of the Morecambe Bay field into the integrated system, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland shares some of the characteristics of Morecambe Bay—by which I mean the possibility of storing natural gas for periods and then releasing it, and I understand that those geological characteristics exist at Kilroot—we have a real case for integration into the United Kingdom network.
The case is very simple. Just as gas is stored at Morecambe Bay for use during winter periods, so it can be stored in Kilroot, if there is a pipeline. I understand that the link with the Morecambe Bay field would cost £30 million less than a link with the North Sea scheme, which was suggested about four years ago.

1561
I do not know whether that £30 million estimate is false or accurate. It is still not too late to decide to keep the gas industry alive in Northern Ireland. If the £30 million is correct, there is no economic argument for failing to link with the Morecambe Bay field. If we do fail to do that we are pushed back to the unsavoury position of having to conclude that the decision not to give us the North Sea gas asset is political. We do not want to come to that conclusion but we shall have no alternative if it is proved that the decision is taken not on an economic basis but on some other basis.
The Minister might not have time to answer all the points put to him. I shall be happy to receive his replies in writing.
1.41 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I shall attempt to answer some of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on health and social security and education matters. I shall divide my remarks into two, dealing with three issues in relation to health in particular. I shall deal with the hospitals in Antrim and Purdysburn and the new tower block at the Belfast city hospital about which serious allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I shall then examine education in relation to rural schools, segregated education and the impact of the Chilver review on higher education in the Province.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not in his place, asked me specifically to tell the House what steps we were taking in the interim period while the Antrim hospital project cannot go ahead to ensure that hospital services in the area do not suffer. We are in continuous consultation with the Northern board on the implications of the delay. We are making additional funds available to ensure that between now and 1985, which is the earliest time that the hospital can begin, hospital services, which are good, are maintained.
I turn to the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who also, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber, about the Purdysburn hospital, which is the subject of an industrial dispute. It is not profitable for a Minister to attempt to intervene in collective bargaining between the employers, the Eastern board, and the trade unions. I hope that the Opposition agree with me. The hon. Member for Belfast, West expressed the view given to him by the trade union side. I should welcome the opportunity to put the other side of the story. The House will recognise that generally there are two sides. I refute once again the allegation that Purdysbum hospital is understaffed. Within the last few weeks 30 new full-time posts have been created in the hospital. That will increase greatly the standard of care available.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I have met representatives of COHSE and the board. Is not the figure of 735 staff at the Purdysburn hospital agreed by the district nursing officer, on behalf of the board, and union representatives? Is not the number at the hospital below that figure?
Mr. Patten: I am not prepared from the Dispatch Box to enter into arguments between employers and trade unions when an industrial dispute is taking place. I wish that the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Belfast, East would use their offices, through their contacts with
1562
COHSE, to persuade nurses in the hospital—even while the industrial dispute is taking place—to continue nursing special category patients. They are refusing to do that. It is a serious matter. Failure to provide adequate nursing care for special category patients, even while a dispute is taking place, should not happen. It runs contrary to national policy and also to COHSE trade union policy. I ask both hon. Gentlemen to make every possible attempt to ensure that that practice is brought to an end.
My last point on health and social services concerns a serious allegation by the hon. Member for Belfast, East about financial improprieties in the carrying out of the long-delayed and expensive contract for the tower block of Belfast city hospital. The building of the hospital has been a sad saga. I do not wish to go over ground that has been crawled over time and time again by right hon. and hon. Members, including spokesmen from both Front Benches. Nor do I wish to go into the detailed examination of the accounts of the building of the hospital that has been carried out by the Public Accounts Committee.
The hon. Gentleman has made serious allegations, which imply that there was some irregularity in the payment of public funds for the contract. I shall choose my words carefully because it is a serious allegation. No such suggestion was contained in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that was prepared for the PAC. My understanding is that the so-called tower bonus, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was paid to all contractors on the site. In the face of the allegations made in the Chamber, all that I can do is to repeat that if the hon. Gentleman has any concrete evidence of irregularity we shall take urgent steps to investigate it. I shall be grateful if he will let me have such evidence at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Robinson: When the Minister refers to "all contractors", I assume that he includes sub-contractors. What he has said runs contrary to my information from the sub-contractors. How does he reconcile that with the quotation that I gave from the Belfast News Letter, from the branch secretary of the union involved?
Mr. Patten: It is difficult to conduct industrial relations negotiations from the Dispatch Box. It is also difficult to carry out detailed examinations of public accounts from the Dispatch Box. It is extremely important that the hon. Gentleman should let me have as soon as possible in detail any information about the alleged non-payment to sub-contractors. It will be subjected to the most detailed investigation. I do not feel that I can go any further on that point this afternoon.
I turn to the second part of my remarks, and the question of education. I said that I wished to look at three themes—rural schools, segregated education and the supposed impact of the Chilver review of higher education in Ulster. The hon. Member for Antrim, North made an extremely important point that is as common on this side of the water as it is on the other side, namely, the impact on rural schools of declining rolls.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House know how important schools are to small rural communities, and what an important role they play not only in the education of children but in the life of the villages and townships of which they are a part. It is not the intention of the Government or of my noble Friend Lord Elton, to run down rural schools as a deliberate part of policy.

1563
The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that we must address our attention more and more to the three Rs in schools. I say "Hear, hear" to that. There is a point below which numbers cannot fall in a rural school or in a town school. We have examples in West Belfast as well. There is a point below which numbers cannot fall, beyond which the teaching of the three Rs is impeded and the levels and quality of education become not better because of the small size, but worse.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that the rural schools which the Government intend closing in Portglenone have a full complement of children? They have more than the complement required for a two-teacher school. The children who are now coming up and who will attend those schools if they are kept open will mean that there will be an increase in attendance over past years. Why close such schools?
Mr. Patten: I take the hon. Member's point. It is one which I intend to bring to the attention of my noble Friend who is responsible for these matters.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister be able to see him?
Mr. Patten: I see him often on aeroplanes and at lunches, just as I see the hon. Members for Antrim, North and for Belfast, East on the aeroplanes going back and forth to Belfast. Knowing the noble Lord as I do—of course, he is not able to defend himself in this place—it does not ring true to suggest that he would not see a delegation.
I turn to the issue of the Chilver review of higher education. I have been challenged by hon. Members on both sides of the House to say more about the proposed and supposed impact of the review. I can say no more than that we have not yet received the final report of the Chilver committee. The first thing which everyone is taught about appearances at the Dispatch Box is never to say "Yea" or "Nay" about unsubstantiated speculation in the press, whether it is in The Times Educational Supplement, the Belfast Newsletter, Fur & Feather—
Mr. Concannon: Or Horse and Hound.
Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman suggests Horse and Hound. There is no point in commenting on speculation in the press. Let us wait and see what Chilver says. We expect to have the Chilver report by the end of the year.
Let me say to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, that just because the Government ask for reports and they are produced it does not mean that those reports are necessarily acted on by the Government. I should think that the weight of reports produced and which are in the Library of the House which have never been acted on must be prodigious—not that I am suggesting for one second that we shall not act on Chilver.
Lastly, I turn to the long-running saga between the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and myself ever since I have been a junior Minister over the issue of segregated education. I know his views well. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know and respect his views. He wishes to see a greater measure of integrated education in Ulster. The Government wish to produce in Ulster the education which the people of Ulster want. For example, the people do not want comprehensive
1564
education, so we do not intend to impose it on the people of Ulster. It seems to us that at the moment the majority of people in Ulster do not wish to have a form of integrated education forced on them.
Mr. Kilfedder: Is it forcing the people for the Government to decide that they cannot accept the separation of children at an early age according to religion for educational purposes? The Government should make a decision so that taxpayers' money will not be wasted on two systems of education but will be used only for one.
Mr. Patten: Taxpayers' money is spent on education devoted to one religion or another on this side of the water, just as it is on the other side of the water. It is an important issue of parental choice. I have always believed that as far as possible taxpayers' money should be spent in the way that taxpayers would like to see it spent. I bet my bottom dollar that the majority of people in Northern Ireland who pay taxes would prefer to see continue a system of education based on controlled schools and independent Roman Catholic schools, however much the hon. Gentleman may disagree. However, I note with great interest that the hon. Gentleman has support for a greater measure of integration from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). The hon. Gentleman pointed out that controlled schools were precisely that—schools controlled by the State—and that they have no particular religious affinity. I look forward with interest to further remarks of that sort from him.
Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister emphasises strongly that he is guided by opinion in Northern Ireland, so the answer is to put the matter to a referendum. Let the people decide.
Mr. Patten: I shall convey that suggestion to my noble Friend.
Mr. Fitt: Many Roman Catholic schools are situated in so-called Republican areas, such as the Falls Road, Andersonstown and the Bogside. Does the Minister really see an avalanche of children of free Presbyterians running into those areas to go to school?
Mr. Patten: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer better than I do.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister make it clear that the grant system for schools in Northern Ireland is not uniform? An independent Protestant school receives no grant from the Government. My position is clear. If a Church wants to run a school, it should pay for it. There should be one system of non-denominational education run by the State.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman's views are well known.
I say to the hon. Member for Down, North that, in advancing the cause of integrated education and in calling for a moderate approach to education, it ill behoves him to use the language of extremism and to talk about educational apartheid.
1.58 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I shall not be drawn into the dangerous minefield of denominational education but will content myself with dealing with a subject on which there will he a common view in the House—the Sports Council. I had intended to deal with the matter at some length, but I understand that the hon.

1565
Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will cover it in more detail. It is, however, curious that the Sports Council alone of all the youth organisations is to have the funds allocated to it cut.
I wish to deal briefly with Class IV, item 2, particularly the road safety aspect. The House deliberated long and thoroughly on the roads order two years ago. At the end of that, we all assumed that the definition of what constituted a "road or highway" would enable the police and the Department of the Environment at long last to deal effectively with the problem of itinerants' camps.
The Lisburn council area seems to be the most afflicted by this serious problem, notably on two illegal sites. The Environment Minister who is present is no doubt aware of one of them, as it is on the main road from the airport to Moira and thence down to the M1, on the main Moira road at Ballinderry. The second is a few miles away at Bushfield Road, also near Moira.
Now that the Department and the police have been given the power to deal with this, why are the authorities reluctant to act in response to the pleas of the law-abiding permanent citizens of those areas? It is not only those who reside in Moira who are affected. As one who often has to travel on the main Moira road at night, I can say that one may be suddenly confronted with the spectacle of a stray horse or other animal looming up in the middle of the carriageway. There seems to be no attempt to control this, as there is no fence between the itinerants' camp and the road. I am not suggesting that the camp should be fenced off. We want it removed from the locality altogether.
It cannot be claimed that the mechanism is cumbersome or slow-moving. There was a dramatic example of how it can be made to work at Easter 1980, when a section of Bushfield Road was closed to provide a special stage in the circuit of Ireland motor rally. The organisers discovered just a few days before the rally that the section to be closed for that special part of the test included the itinerants' camp. Because the itinerants refused to obey the order and clear their various caravans and animals off the road, or perhaps because they would be somehow inconvenienced, at the last minute—only 24 hours beforehand—the area was switched to another section of the same road, causing great inconvenience to farmers and others with a legitimate interest in using the road. It therefore cannot be contended that the machinery is too cumbersome, difficult or slow-moving to be put into action. As I have illustrated, it can be done in a matter of hours. What can be done in one case should be possible also in the longer term.
While this is not the kind of matter on which one would expect a detailed answer today, I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to look at the problem, which I assure him is a real one.
Mr. David Mitchell: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Molyneaux: I am most grateful to the Minister.
I wish to deal briefly with Class VIII, dealing with education. The Minister of State referred earlier to consideration of the demographic trend and the consequent effect on the school building programmes. This affects not only future accommodation but schools built quite recently. I am afraid that educational planners are no different from planners as a race. More often than not they get things wrong. They were certainly wrong in Antrim
1566
where, some months ago, they concluded that of the three new secondary schools in the town one was already surplus to requirements. One is thankful that they stopped short of chopping one of them, which would have been the one with the weakest lobby at board level. I hope that the position will not be destabilised as a result of the Enkalon disaster, because it would be a regrettable step and a great mistake to jump to the conclusion that economic recovery in that area is impossible.
I should like now to look briefly at the problem of Enkalon in relation to Class II. We should not underestimate the scale of the effect on Antrim and the surrounding region of the Enkalon closure. I could understand the Minister's reluctance to disclose confidential information about the negotiations with the company when those negotiations were taking place over the last six months, since the parent group indicated that, for purely commercial reasons, it would have to contract and concentrate work on the Continent on more profitable products. Like other hon. Members, I feel that the Government, even in their own interests, will want to listen to what is said here today. I am sure that the Minister has listened with great attention. But now that the need for confidentiality no longer exists it would be helpful if the Government were to describe the points that have been at issue over the past six months. Perhaps I could encourage the Minister by posing questions that have not yet been answered—at least, not answered publicly.
First, when the Department of Commerce and its consultants completed the examination of the restructuring plan, did the Minister at the time feel it prudent and wise to offer £6 million in the way of assistance?
Secondly, when the parent company replied that that figure was inadequate, did the Minister and his colleague the Secretary of State, in the course of that hectic weekend of 4 and 5 July, which he will remember very well, increase the Government's offer of support?
Thirdly, it is a fact that the Northern Ireland Ministers wrested from the Treasury another £2 million last weekend, which brought the Government contribution up to £8½ million, which matched the input of the company itself?
Fourthly, as it was agreed that the factory would incur a working loss of about £12 million over three years, did the Government offer to cover half the cost of that loss-making operation?
Fifthly, is it possible to discover whether the company, at the end of it all, was convinced that profitability could be restored at the end of three years, even if the Government had gone all the way and met all the demands of the parent company?
I ask these questions so that elected representatives in Antrim and the unions concerned will have the facts before them as they urgently examine the possibility of retaining some form of activity on the Enkalon complex.
I plead with the Minister to avoid giving the impression that the door has been finally slammed. I accept that the Minister, like myself, will not want to commit the error of raising false hopes, but I make that plea to him. I am not at this stage asking for a re-start of the bargaining, but after all that the Minister and I have been through in the past two weeks I should like to be assured that he will be prepared at least to examine any fresh proposals that I may be in a position to put before him in the coming weeks.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his co-operation in receiving a series of deputations, when it has been

1567
possible to put the wider Antrim case. We are grateful for the Minister's response in the form of an increase in selective financial assistance on the industrial front—an advance from 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. This will give Antrim an advantage. However, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) stated, I do not think that any other region will object when it is pointed out that Antrim's need is greater. If production were to cease entirely on the Enkalon site, unemployment in the Antrim travel-to-work area would be very much higher than in similar areas. I feel, as the Minister obviously feels, that the increase to give us the edge on other areas can be justified.
Whatever may be possible on the Enkalon site, I trust that advantage will be taken of the increased grants, particularly by new industries of the type mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). I can assure the Minister that the elected councillors in the Antrim borough and those of us who have played some small part in attempting to salvage something from the collapse of the company in Antrim will continue to provide our full co-operation in attempts to continue some form of production in the Enkalon complex and, even more important, to try to replace those jobs as soon as possible over a period of years by the introduction of fresh capital investment and new industries in the Antrim area.
2.11 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In rising to address a House almost as empty as when considering the Armed Services, I confess that I had entertained the ambition of being able to put some propositions directly to the Patronage Secretary. That hope, which flickered occasionally during the day, has been finally extinguished; but I console myself with the presence of an inmate of the Whips Office; for although it is known that Whips do not speak, I believe that Whips hear. I therefore hope that the helpful advice that I should like to give will be conveyed to the Patronage Secretary.
I wish to raise the question "Why are we here at all?" I cannot imagine that it is particularly gratifying to the Patronage Secretary, as he and the other managers of Government business struggle, under the approach of the long recess, to get through the necessary business of the Government, to have to find a whole day, or virtually a whole day, to debate one of the three annual Appropriation orders for Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Patronage Secretary and the Government business managers understand why this is done. It is done not to provide facilities for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, or for other hon. Members concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland, to debate those matters, but for a purely technical reason. The Government still see fit to pretend that the Estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, which are in no way different from the Estimates for the other corresponding Departments of Government, cannot be included in a Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bill, even though the sources of the finance, the management of the finance and the ministerial responsibility are absolutely identical in the case of the Northern Ireland Departments and in the case of all the other Estimates whose content is combined in the three Consolidated Fund Bills.
Having listened, as one should, to the prefatory words of Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was careful to refer to "the
1568
Northern Ireland Departments"', for that small head on a large body which is known as the Northern Ireland Department—that small group staffed by former officials of the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Office and others swept together from the other corners of the Imperial Civil Service—is not included in the Estimates for the Province which is governed through that office. The result is that on the three full days in the year that the House, thanks to the Government, has to find for voting the money for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Members are prevented from debating the very subjects that they and their constituents most wish to have ventilated in the House. Vital matters, such as the policing, the security and the policy for the government of the Province as part of the United Kingdom are forbidden to us on each of the three virtually full days on which money for the government of the Province is voted by the House.
I can tell the Patronage Secretary that the House is about to receive advice from a Select Committee on Supply procedure, which has been labouring—oh, how labouring—to produce its report. I do not know officially what that advice may be, but I hope that when that Committee has reported the House will find more efficient and effective ways of using the Supply and kindred days which are reserved for Opposition use by the conventions and customs of this House. If that is so, Northern Ireland Members, along with Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom, will have full opportunity—as full as can be found within the ambit of a parliamentary Session—for bringing to the Floor of the House constituency matters, and matters larger than constituency matters, affecting the Province.
I am not arguing—I would not dream of suggesting it—that there should be any limitation or reduction in the opportunities open to Northern Ireland Members to ventilate the needs of their constituents. Though I do not see how we should be on strong ground in claiming more opportunity than hon. Members representing other parts of the kingdom, at any rate, I am not arguing for a restriction or limitation of what, in effect, we possess. I am saying that it is not to the advantage either of Northern Ireland or of the House as a whole that because of the maintenance of a pedantic technicality for devious political reasons—namely, the pretence that there has to be a separate Consolidated Fund and Appropriation procedure for the Province—these three days are imposed upon the patience of the House and of Ministers.
That said, I perform the first duty—I think that it is a duty—which falls to be performed on these days, and particularly on this, the principal of the Appropriation order days. There labour on behalf of the House and of Northern Ireland a devoted body of officials headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. His report is prefaced to the accounts of the last previous financial year. Out of consideration for Northern Ireland Members, the Public Accounts Committee has in the last year or two so arranged its business that its comments upon those comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General can be available to us for this occasion.
I have no intention of dealing with any matters that are retrospective and concern closed transactions—not that instruction cannot be drawn from blunders committed in the course of such transactions—but it would be wrong

1569
the opportunity were not taken on the Floor of the House to draw attention to continuing lessons embodied in the two reports.
I am concerned, first, with the Department of Commerce and two cases that are of continuing instruction. The first is the case of the Peter Pan bakery, which raises the matter of use of public money to rationalise an industry by encouraging closures. The story of that transaction, as set out in the two accounts, is extremely grim, and it would be right to put on record the conclusion arrived at by the PAC: it
"endorsed the Department's acknowledgement of the very great care that it must take in any future case"
where it intends to use public money to ensure the closure of a company.
I gather that the case was the first experiment in that procedure. Perhaps it ought to be the last. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that they have fully accepted the strictures of the Public Accounts Committee.
Incidentally, while on the subject of the expenditure of public money by the Department of Commerce I should like to express my astonishment at the exchange that took place earlier between the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), in the course of which, although the right hon. Member disavowed the proposition that he was asking for open-ended subsidies to loss-making firms, he was not able to explain satisfactorily how he distinguished his position from that of the Government, since he was obliged to admit that there must always be an end to such a process.
It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to complain that the Government do not commit themselves to maintain in operation indefinitely firms that are making losses. He drew attention to the expense of closing a company—the loss entailed in such a closure and the burden of sustaining and compensating, in part, those rendered unemployed. But there is at least one figure on the other side that the right hon. Member for Mansfield omitted to mention. The loss made by a company is a debit to be placed against the charges incurred if the company closes. It is not a private loss which falls locally and individually on the shareholders; it is an actual loss to the economy of the country. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is potentially a double loss—not merely a loss of the resources used to no purpose but a potential loss of the production to which those resources—above all, those human resources—could, and in due course would, be devoted. So I hope that the right hon. Member for Mansfield will reflect on the exchange that took place and will conclude that the course that he appeared to be urging is not one that his party could defend.
The other Department of Commerce case that deserves to be recorded is that of McQuillan Brothers Ltd. One aspect of that case is so startling and shocking that it ought to receive public animadversion. In the course of the negotiations—the ill-fated negotiations—with that firm, the Department decided to make a further loan upon security of a building—a building which was to be improved and adapted. It was
"assumed that the historic cost of the building plus the cost of the adaptations would represent the value of the factory against which it would be reasonable to make the loan."
It is almost inconceivable that a Department of State could act in a financial matter upon an assumption so infantile
1570
as that one can value a building at its existing value, spend so much money on adaptations to it, and then assume that its effective market value will be the original value plus the cost of the adaptations. Yet that is what the Department of Commerce did. I hope that it will not do such a thing again and that its staff will be of a quality to prevent such an occurrence in future.
I come now to the Department of the Environment, qua the roads service. The Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention over several years to serious and dangerous deficiencies in the storekeeping of that Department—almost incredible deficiencies when one considers that the criticisms have been made so regularly. How serious they are should be put briefly on the record of the House. The Comptroller and Auditor General's officers
"found the maintenance of store records so inadequate that they were frequently unable to ascertain what a store should have held and the extent of it, and reasons for the discrepancies. Stores records were very often out-of-date or inaccurate and in some stores were not maintained at all. In many stores maintenance of stock ledgers and the ordering and receipt of stores were the responsibility of storekeeping staff. The issue of materials without written power or authorisation is common. There was a widespread practice of omitting entries in stock ledgers of surplus materials returned to store on completion of jobs."
These are not all the complaints but just an epitome of the most serious ones that the Comptroller and Auditor General made. This is a scandal—the word is not too strong for the circumstances—and I hope that the Minister will give a firm undertaking that in no subsequent year will the House be faced with a repetition of those criticisms of storekeeping in the roads service. After all, it must be one of the major financial commitments of that service, and this state of affairs is a standing temptation and a standing opportunity for defalcation.
Finally, I have a somewhat less edged criticism, which concerns the charges for use of the forest parks. The Public Accounts Committee endorsed the recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General that these charges could be brought more closely into line with the cost of providing the facilities. The Committee believed that the Department had been
"unduly sensitive about consumer resistance to increased charges in recent years and that it should not allow this factor to weigh so heavily with it when it is making its annual review of charges."
I know that it is not a popular thing for hon. Members to suggest increasing charges which either their constituents or others will have to pay; but this is a special case, and I heartily endorse and urge upon the Minister the recommendations of the Committee. I have two of these forest parks in my constituency, and remarkable and admirable institutions they are, from which immense delight, instruction and refreshment are obtained by young and old as they come from all over the Province and further a field, in huge numbers with their cars and caravans. I cannot believe that there would be any appreciable effect upon the use of those forest parks and their facilities if the charges were adjusted to meet, as is Government policy, the current costs of the services which would properly fall upon them. The serious result, if we go on in this way, will be that we shall find false economies being made in the care, maintenance and improvement of these forest parks. So the plea that I make is, as it should be in this debate, on behalf of the public at large; it is not a plea for a covert form of taxation. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to state firmly that that recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee will be accepted.

1571
I gave notice to Ministers that I should take the opportunity to bring forward five other matters. Although all came to my notice initially in a constituency connection they all have wider importance and are worthy of a place in this debate. The first concerns the use by Her Majesty's Government, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Department of Fisheries of Northern Ireland, of the Government of the Isle of Man as their agency for the administration of the fisheries of the Irish Sea within the rules and overall control of the EEC.
The Irish Sea comprises the Mourne fishery, adjacent to the coast of County Down and the Mull fishery, adjacent to the coast of South-West Scotland; but all the rest, apart from the fishery area adjacent to the Irish Republic, is known technically as the Manx fishery. That is misleading. Of course, the Isle of Man is in the centre of it, but it is, in fact, all the rest of the Irish Sea.
For reasons best known to themselves—they may be satisfactory reasons—Her Majesty's Government have for some years devolved to the Government of the Isle of Man the administration of the Manx fishery, which is particularly important in the context of the herring fishery, subject as this is to strict limitation for conservation purposes. I have to impress upon the Department the fact that this function is executed by the Government of the Isle of Man in a manner which places vexatious limitations upon non-Manx boats desiring to avail themselves of their herring quotas in the Irish Sea and is deliberately designed to give an unfair and, in some cases, effectively exclusive advantage to the fishermen of the Isle of Man.
I refer, in particular, to the rule which forbids pair trawling, which is the major form of trawling for herring, except during night hours. At one stage there was perhaps a justification for this limitation in some waters immediately adjacent to the Isle of Man, but, there is no possible justification for it in the waters of the Irish Sea generally. The result is that boats based on Northern Ireland find themselves prevented from taking a catch which would otherwise be perfectly legitimate between the Isle of Man and their own ports in County Down. This absurd and pettifogging regulation has no conservation purpose—conservation is governed by quotas—and does not even preserve the waters that I have in mind between the west of the Isle of Man and the eastern coast of County Down for the Manx fishermen, because the Manx fishermen hardly fish there at all.
This is a miserable arrangement. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for what is done under this system which they have adopted. I take this opportunity to say publicly that they should review the question whether responsibility ought to be transferred in this way to the Government of the Isle of Man from where it properly rests, namely, with Her Majesty's Government.
While I am on the subject of the Isle of Man, I say one other word. We are coming up to a day if not of reckoning at any rate of sorting out with the Isle of Man. From the point of view of the EEC, the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, but by convention internal to the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man is for most purposes independent. This results in our commonly having the worst of both worlds. Take, for example, meat exports. The Isle of Man forbids imports of meat into the island from Ulster. It can do this under the rules of the EEC because, from the point of view of the EEC, the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom and the EEC is no more concerned with trade between the Isle of Man and Ulster
1572
than it is with trade between Birmingham and Leicester. On the other hand, if the Isle of Man were to impose restrictions on imports from the Irish Republic it would be in trouble. The consequence has been that, while refusing imports from Ulster, the island has been accepting substantial imports from the Irish Republic.
The anomalous position of the Isle of Man and its repercussions upon the citizens of the United Kingdom are matters which cannot indefinitely go on without reexamination. I am by way of giving notice that this is not the last that Ministers have heard of the consequences of the anomalous position of the Isle of Man within the British Isles and the European Community.
My second matter concerns the sale of houses by the Housing Executive—which, incidentally, was Government policy before there was a Conservative Government. That policy is beneficial to Northern Ireland in more ways than one. It is beneficial also ex hypothesi to those who become home owners; but, as the sales are financed by building societies, it is also beneficial to housing in Northern Ireland generally, by increasing the total volume of capital available for house building by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland.
This is a process to which we desire to see no impediment. Unfortunately', what happens is that an offer is made by the Housing Executive to a tenant; the tenant accepts it; the sale is ready to go forward; and the tenant obtains a mortgage from a building society, but before he can actually get the mortgage, signed and sealed, and thus complete the purchase, the Housing Executive naturally has to make good its title to the goods which it is about to sell—its title to the house.
The Housing Executive is the beneficiary—if that is the right word, which I do not think it is—or at any rate it has been the recipient of the stock of houses created by the previous housing authorities. I am sorry to say that in some cases the previous housing authorities were extremely careless about establishing title to the lands on which they built their houses. That might not have mattered before, but it matters very much now. The result is that in case after case where otherwise the sale could go forward and the tenant could become the owner and carry out works of improvement as he is longing to do, while the Housing Executive reaped the additional capital from the building society, the transaction is held up for months—sometimes years—in an endeavour to obtain good title.
I ask the Minister to see whether there is some mechanism that can be brought into play for dealing with this automatically after a certain point. I believe that I am correctly informed that if title cannot be established otherwise, some legal procedure exists which can be used in lieu.
The proposition that I am putting to the Minister is that he should agree with the Housing Executive that these delays will be tolerated only up to a certain point and that where, after a given period, it is found impracticable to establish title by normal means, the emergency procedure, so to speak, will be brought into play. At any rate, I should be glad to have an assurance that the Minister does not intend to accept this continued delay in the process of the sale of council houses.
Mr. David Mitchell: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I must admit that I am reluctant to introduce a special procedure which would require legislation, as I understand it, to enable the Housing Executive not to have

1573
to go through the normal house conveyancing legal procedures that any other transfer of ownership requires. However, I am able to meet the right hon. Gentleman's point because the Executive is introducing for building society sales a form of indemnity which will enable the building society to be satisfied that the tenant proceeds on the basis of making the improvements while the existing and proper legal arrangements are fulfilled for the conveyancing of the property.
Mr. Powell: I am most obliged to the Minister. That will be good news to a large number of people who are being kept dangling at present.
I think the Minister will find, if he looks into the matter, that an alternative procedure is available without legislation; in one case of which I am aware that alternative procedure was put into force after a long lapse of time. However, I am not quarelling with him because I accept that his method of indemnity will produce the same practical result, and clearly one would wish normal establishment of title to take place wherever possible.
It is not often that one can register success on the spot in such a debate as this. I feel that the Minister and I have succeeded in doing that between us. I hope the good news will be speedily conveyed by the Housing Executive to the many would-be purchasers now in limbo as a result of the difficulty to which I have drawn attention.
Thus emboldened, but not, I hope, too flushed, by success I shall proceed to the remaining points. I can deal with the next very briefly because I received an affirmative reply on it at Question Time yesterday afternoon from the Minister at the Department of the Environment. I refer to the minor alteration in enforcement procedure which will end the abuse whereby, if planning control has been evaded or defied for over six months, it can no longer be enforced upon the defaulter. There have been too many cases where that has happened, and the fact that it works that way has become too widely known. It remains for me to say to the Minister, as I did briefly yesterday afternoon, that the sooner the order can be brought forward and the earlier the date of effect of the order, the better it will be for planning control and for respect for the maintenance of law in the Province.
The Comptroller and Auditor General and the examiner of statutory instruments drew attention a year or two ago to the fact that in Northern Ireland, unlike the remainder of the United Kingdom, some Departments took out commercial insurance. The House will be aware that Governments do not take out commercial insurance, because the Government is really all of us and there is no point in all of us insuring ourselves. The only consequence of a Government taking out commercial insurance is to pay gratuitously for covering losses which would fall in the same place if they were not so insured. On the face of it, commercial insurance by public Departments is a waste of public money, an unnecessary transfer of public money to private pockets.
I was surprised, therefore, when, together with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I had brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of State, I was told that he had reviewed the matter and Departments were effecting insurance through commercial insurers for further periods. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that apparent contradiction. On what principle can
1574
it be justified, in Northern Ireland circumstances only, for Departments of Government to take out commercial insurance—a practice which appears to be in conflict with what I thought was an established principle? It is only right that the decision should be publicly explained. If it cannot be explained in today's debate, a public explanation for something so surprising should be given later.
My last point relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. Despite the quaint arrangement of this debate, there is no problem in my raising this matter after the Minister responsible for that Department has spoken because it is a matter on which he and I are at one and where we would both wish our view to prevail in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole; for, as was said earlier, social security provision is effectively uniform throughout the United Kingdom. So I wish briefly to put on record a peculiar form of the "poverty trap" which could be removed, and should be removed, as it is manifestly unjust to those who become its victims.
One of my constituents suffered an injury at work which, I fear, has resulted in his permanent disablement. Initially he received sickness benefit, child benefit and supplementary benefit. His whole income was about £65 per week. However, in due course, and before he had received supplementary benefit for a full 12 months, he became entitled to invalidity benefit. One might suppose that that would be beneficial—as presumably it is intended to be—to my constituent. On the face of it, his total income rose to about £71 per week. But in fact, as a result, because he lost entitlement to free school meals and also to the higher scale rate to which he would have been entitled on supplementary benefit after a full year, my disabled constituent's effective income has been reduced by £7 or £8 per week—a not inconsiderable sum for him and his family—by the transition from sickness plus supplementary benefit to invalidity benefit.
Mr. John Patten indicated assent.
Mr. Powell: I am grateful for the Minister's assent. I know that he has paid personal attention to the case.
This is an admitted absurdity in the present arrangements. As the Minister pointed out, it can be remedied if the 12-month condition for the higher rate could be fulfilled partially by supplementary benefit and partially by invalidity benefit. I understand that for the United Kingdom as a whole the cost of removing this absurd injustice, would be about £15 million a year. I should like to put on the record that it would be £15 million well spent, and I trust that the Northern Ireland Office will be making representations to the other Departments in the United Kingdom for this reform to be included in the next round of amendments to the social security scheme.
That only illustrates the way in which an individual case arising in a remote constituency in the United Kingdom may be—and in this case ought to be—the means of remedying a defect in legislation and administration of the United Kingdom as a whole.
2.51 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: Although our debate on the Northern Ireland Estimates for the current financial year has been demoted to a Friday, I hope that that in no way detracts from its importance both to the British taxpayer and to the people of Northern Ireland.
When opening the debate the Minister said that it was clear that we had not got the structure right yet. I believe

1575
that this Administration has tried hard to get the right structure. It appears that we must go back to the mill and try to work put something. It is unsatisfactory, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that there was a winding-up speech from a Minister before the debate had been terminated. That must be considered.
I have no intention of going over the ground covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who has covered this part of the debate so well. However, I share his hope that the Minister who replies will respond positively to the points that he made and to the questions which he has asked.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a good speech. He spoke much sense, especially when he talked about the 15 and 50-year-olds and their job prospects. What he said is, sadly, true. What he said about British Enkalon and Abbey Meats is also, sadly, true. I believe that the pleas that he made to the Ministers during the debate will, unfortunately, fall on deaf ears. We join with the hon. Member in what he has been saying about those issues.
However. I wondered, when the hon. Member was speaking, and when he was joined by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and others, whether he had a twinge of regret that he was responsible, as much as any other person, for bringing down the previous Administration. I cannot speak for them, but with hindsight I should have thought that they would not have gone through the Lobby on that night if they had known what would happen—
Rev. Ian Paisley: Taking into consideration that the hon. Member's party has now officially come down on the side of a united Ireland, surely he can hardly expect any Unionist Member in Northern Ireland to have any regrets. Perhaps he should put pressure on the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who, of course, is a different kettle of fish.
Mr. Pendry: The hon. Gentleman may be spending so much time looking into constituency problems that he is unable to bother too much about the intricacies of the Labour Party and the way in which we take our democratic decisions. We have arrived at no such conclusion. Perhaps he will reflect on that.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the problems in agriculture. There is a serious need for additional help, but under Class I there is to be reduction in the funds available for agriculture support. Agricultural produce is Northern Ireland's chief resource, after labour, so the Government's negative attitude is difficult to comprehend. Production, processing and marketing schemes are an integral part of the proper and successful operation of the agriculture industry. I am sorry to see that the Government have not learnt from their mistake of disbanding the agricultural trust, a matter which we debated at great length. By this Vote they continue to erode the essential support services for this most vital and needy industry.
On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to the plight of agriculture in Northern Ireland, as have many other Northern Ireland Members. The hon. Members for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and Antrim, North did so today. There may be a danger that constant repetition of the dismal situation will deaden our concern, but I feel most strongly that every opportunity should be taken to air the problems of farmers in Northern Ireland.
1576
In the past year in particular, many farmers have suffered serious losses and setbacks because of the poor weather at the beginning of the summer—I suppose that we cannot blame the Government for that. They have had to wait many weeks for help from the £10 million allocated by the EEC. That little help is, of course, welcome, but, as the hon. Member for Londonderry said, it is only a drop in the ocean, and it is eroded by these financial cuts. It is widely expected that the next figures for the net farm income will show a drop of 70 per cent., which is a devastating blow to farmers, who had to suffer an average cut of 60 per cent. in the previous year.
I urge the Government to heed the pleas from the Ulster Farmers Union and Northern Ireland Members representing rural constituencies to come forward with additional funds for the struggling farmers in the Province and, indeed, for all those in the food processing and agriculture-related industries that rely heavily on the well-being of agriculture for their livelihood.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the Abbey Meats problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raised the matter in the renewal debate, and we expected a reply on that occasion, but there has been complete silence. It is a worrying situation. We hope that in his reply the Minister will give encouragement to those who work at Abbey Meats.
Many hon. Members mentioned poverty and social need. The grim catalogue of statistics has been repeated many times, and has certainly not diminished as a result of the Government's policies. Nowhere is that more true than in Class V. It is certainly true of housing in the Province, where three times as many houses are unfit for human habitation as in the remainder of the United Kingdom. We have said this in Committee, and it has been repeated many times, but it needs repeating time and again. The figure was once much higher—there were five times as many—but, thanks to the previous Administration's commitment to improving the condition of Northern Ireland's housing stock, there has been a marked improvement. However, this Government plainly do not have the same commitment. The budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been consistently eroded over the past two years. The entire work of the executive was jeopardised last summer with the moratorium on building projects and the cut in its annual budget.
It is now time to ask the Government exactly where they stand on the matter of financing housing projects in Northern Ireland. It is no good sitting back and relaxing, as they appear to be doing, because the budget to the housing associations has been increased. The increase is welcome, of course, but in terms of the overall problem the difference will be extremely marginal. Some very serious questions must be asked of the Minister responsible, who, unfortunately, will not be replying to the debate. I see him scribbling very fast, so perhaps he will be passing messages to his hon. Friend.
First, are the Government prepared to indicate what will be the budget for public sector housing in Northern Ireland for the next three or four years? House building is a long-term venture. Not surprisingly, the executive needs to know whether it can meet its bills on a similarly long-term basis.
Secondly, are the Government committed to bringing housing standards in Northern Ireland up to the national standard? In the rest of the United Kingdom, the unfitness

1577
level is 4 per cent. The people of Northern Ireland would like to know whether the Government intend to bring the level in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. If they do not, what possible excuse can there be for withholding funds and eroding the budget?
Further, will the Minister make it absolutely clear what happens to the proceeds of the sale of council houses in Northern Ireland? Do they all go into the current expenditure budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and is it possible to carry over such funds from one financial year to the next? That is certainly not clear to me, so perhaps the Minister will help on that.
Society cannot afford the social consequences of not investing in housing. That is especially true in Northern Ireland, where such a high proportion of the population is under the age of 20 and where there is such a dearth of adequate housing in the inner cities. On 10 July the Minister responsible for housing made two comments which, if logically linked, would go some way towards solving the problem. He said that he was making housing a top priority in the Department of the Environment. I see the Minister nod, so I am right there. At the same time, he stressed that the Government had a duty to help to create and retain jobs in the Province. This time, I do not see him nodding. Perhaps he will clarify that.
If the Minister is prepared to act upon his words—I am sure that I have them right, as I listened very carefully—he could do no better than to increase the budget to the housing sector in Northern Ireland to alleviate the Province's dire housing problems. As at least two hon. Members have already mentioned, 26,000 construction workers are unemployed, representing about one in five of the total unemployed in Northern Ireland. If the Minister were true to his words he would ensure that they had some positive work to do. I hope that he will get that message across one way or another before the end of the debate.
If the Minister were meeting his responsibilities properly he would have taken action some time ago. I hesitate in saying that, as I believe that he has perhaps not been in office long enough. A number of compliments have been paid to him, to which I add my own, as he seems to be sensitive to these issues. I therefore have some hope that the Minister will respond to what we have said. I shall leave the matter there, in the hope that my instincts are right and that the Minister will take action along the lines that I have suggested he should.
Mr. David Mitchell: I intervene briefly to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman made about housing. He referred to the erosion of the budget for the Housing Executive. I must tell him that the expenditure planned for the Housing Executive this year is higher than for last year.
I find it very difficult to understand the repeated references by the hon. Gentleman to cuts every time we increase the expenditure. I assure him that the expenditure on housing repairs is up. He referred to house building starts as being inadequate. We would all agree that the number of housing starts is not as high as we would wish, but I am able to assure him that they have gone up ever since he left the Province. I have the figures before me. There were 2,841 starts in 1978. When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in 1979 there were 2,046. This
1578
year we expect to have 3,600. I am sure that he will be pleased to note that since we took office we have made substantial progress along the lines that he wishes.
Mr. Pendry: The Minister has disappointed me already. He is referring much more to things that are said outside this House rather than inside it—and by very senior people within the Housing Executive—about the cuts. We left a great deal of construction in the pipeline, and the Minister and his colleagues are able to claim credit for that. We could also throw doubt on the question of starts, but that would get us nowhere. But one thing is certain, and the Minister cannot deny it. There is an enormous housing problem and there is also a great unemployment problem among construction workers.
The main point is that if the Government want to tackle the housing problem in a meaningful way and to give employment to the construction workers they must produce a better plan than the present one. Let us not talk about particular years when either his Administration or ours did well. If he wants to play that game—we have done it in Committee—I assure him that we shall come off rather better than he will.
With regard to Class VIII—education—it goes without saying that the education service is one of the Government's most vital responsibilities in laying the foundations for future social and community life. But, here again, the Government have not lived up to their responsibilities. The cuts in this year's capital expenditure programme in the education sector are nothing new to Northern Ireland. They have come up time and time again in these debates. Nevertheless, we believe that the consequences for Northern Ireland have been devastating.
The cuts take place against a background of social disadvantage that is unparalleled in any other region of the United Kingdom. That is beyond doubt. It should never be forgotten that over 50 per cent. of Northern Ireland's children are brought up in families who are either living below or on the minimum income level that is considered essential, by this Government, as it was by the previous Labour Government, to meet basic needs.
Where the education service has to operate against such a background of community deprivation it should have all the help and support that we can muster. With such obstacles in the way of progress there is an obvious case for boosting education services. Yet over the past year school staffing has been hit, allowances for books and materials have not risen to match inflation, new equipment is unobtainable, new building work has been almost eliminated, and the maintenance of premises has been drastically curtailed. I do not notice any Minister disagreeing with that.
In the Estimates before us today there is no indication that the position will improve over the next year; in fact, signs of deterioration are already apparent. Over 350 teaching posts have been eliminated from the service and there is little hope of work for the newly qualified teachers who will be corning out of college in a few weeks from now. The Government are using the excuse of falling rolls. The Minister of State, who, I am sure, is being very attentive to the matter, mentioned it earlier. The Government give this as the reason for additional cuts in the service. What they should be doing is redeploying the finances and the resources released by fewer children coming into schools to improve the service.

1579
Since hon. Members last discussed the subject there has been a further erosion in the school meals service in Northern Ireland. The Government cannot blame local authorities for these cuts, as they can in the rest of the United Kingdom. The erosion is the direct responsibility of the Government. Over the last two years, up to March 1981, the number of school meals served in Belfast schools fell by 1¼ million—a change that is no doubt reflected throughout the Province, especially since the increase in price of 50p a day last January. The number employed in the school meals service over those two years has fallen by over 1,000. It has been stated in the House that many of those employed in the service are working part-time to supplement a small family income. Most will not be shown on the unemployment register.
Of all the cuts and reallocations in Northern Ireland's budget over the last two years one of the most serious has perhaps been the rundown of funds available for sporting activities. Some hon. Members may think that my priorities are somewhat inverted. I understood that the hon. Member for Antrim, North intended to make more of this matter but has decided to leave it to me. I would never underestimate the social value of a sports and leisure centre in a local community. Any hon. Member who underestimated that value would be making a great mistake. The value of such services is enhanced considerably when so many of those communities are without work or without any useful activity with which to fill their days.
I visited Northern Ireland on two occasions recently. I attended the United Kingdom athletics championships at Antrim, where I was impressed yet again by the significance of the contribution that sport and physical recreation make to a sense of normality and continuity and to the good side of life in Northern Ireland, of which there is a great deal. It is difficult to place a value on the benefit to Northern Ireland of events such as the athletics championships and the world bowls event at Jordanstown, which I also attended.
I hope, as I understand the Minister also hopes, that the Football Association and other sporting bodies will have noted these successful meetings and will not repeat their recent folly of pulling out of sporting events in the Province. Surely, the events of recent weeks in this country have demonstrated the dangers of allowing inner city areas in particular to become barren wastelands of poor housing and warehouses.
It is essential that the Government should give a long-term commitment to the provision of leisure services in decaying areas and in all places where social deprivation is rife. I believe that the previous Labour Government realised the value of sporting activity. We were proud to have left Northern Ireland with a number of well-equipped sports centres. This Government obviously give little priority to sport, as one can see by the attempt to disband the Sports Council last summer. This was successfully reversed, due to widespread pressure in the House and outside.
I marvel at the treatment received by the Sports Council in these Estimates. It appears to be totally inconsistent with the treatment given to the Sports Councils in England, Wales and Scotland. At a time when their budgets have been approved at 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. above last year, the Northern Ireland Sports Council is to suffer a decrease of 4 per cent. I hope that the Minister, if he does not refer to anything else in my speech when he
1580
replies, will explain why the Sports Council in Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. it is important that that should be said.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman is keenly interested in sport. We appreciate that. Perhaps I may ask him to lend support to the efforts that some of us are making to persuade the Gaelic Athletic Association to end its unjust ban on ex-Service men or Service men taking part in its activities.
Mr. Pendry: I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on that subject previously. That question was put to me. on the first occasion on which I was at the Dispatch Box at Question Time. I believe that this matter must be looked at long and hard in the context of what I was speaking about—sport for all in Northern Ireland.
There is another discrepancy in Class VIII, Vote 3, which requires detailed examination. The average increase in the recurrent expenditure for museums, the arts and the youth services is 16 per cent. We welcome that increase, but we do not understand the rationale for increasing it there, on the one hand, and reducing the Sports Council grant, on the other. I can only conclude that the Government are trying a new and different method, having lost their fight to banish the Sports Council altogether. of eroding the Sports Council's effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will explain in full exactly what is the Government's view of the Sports Council.
If the Government want someone on their side of the House to support what I am saying they should look at the relevant Hansard for 1977, when the White Paper on sport and recreation was debated, when the Minister now responsible for sport went out of his way to praise the development of sport and the Sports Council in Northern Ireland. Perhaps Ministers will take time to read what was said by their hon. Friend then.
It seems that we have the difficulty of the Minister responsible for sport in Northern Ireland being in the other place. I know that he cannot be everywhere at once, but sometimes in these debates we do not get sufficiently punchy and factual replies on these important issues because he is in the other place. If we restructure these debates I hope that we shall have better communications between the other place and this place.
For instance, under Class VI the grants to the town and country planning service for provision of recreational facilities have also been cut. It seems that wherever we have sport and recreation we shall have such cuts. The grant to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive contains provision for recreational facilities, but there is a cut there, too. The grants have been chopped to a nominal £1,000 where they have gone to district councils.
I often ask myself what the Government have got against sport, because it seems to be part of a dedicated pattern on their part that they knock sport at every level and every turn. At this most delicate time in Northern Ireland's history it is essential that the Government should act positively to cut down the attractions of terrorist activity for the disaffected young. Where unemployment and social deprivation are high, so are the inducements to criminal behaviour. By increasing funds available for recreational and sporting activities, or, at the very least, by not cutting them, the Government would be making a significant contribution to alleviating a complex social problem, which is, sadly, not confined to Northern Ireland.

1581
Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to grants being made to the electricity and gas industries, but there has been little mention of the fact that this year there is no grant for fuel cost assistance for those on supplementary benefit. Electricity prices in Northern Ireland, however they are pegged, are still among the highest, if the highest, in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, no increased amount of gas will make the burden of paying fuel bills one jot easier. The Government's action in removing aid to the poorest section of society has demonstrated their mean and penny-pinching attitude, and they have further deprived one of the already most deprived communities in these islands.
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the dire employment position in
1582
Northern Ireland and I reiterate that the Government's policies must take a large share of the blame for that senseless waste of human resources. In recent weeks we have had both a Church of Ireland bishop and a Catholic bishop in Northern Ireland calling attention to the problems.
The words of the Bishop of Derry, Dr. Edward Daly, carry a special message. They were delivered just after the Courtaulds Campsie closure was announced. He said:
"Unemployment has been a major factor in much of the civil unrest that has taken place in the area in recent years; the civil unrest has added to the difficulty of attracting new industries … One social evil feeds off another."
Unless the Government take heed of those words and others spoken in the debate, the problems of the people of Northern Ireland will get much worse. The real remedy must be a change of Government, and the sooner the better.
3.21 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Questions have been asked about whether the procedures that we follow in arranging Northern Ireland debates are the best. We have had virtually a full day's debate and covered an immense amount of ground. It is my lot to try to respond to the many points made in the debate. In other circumstances it might have been possible for me to deal with them all in detail, but the pressure of time will not allow that. However, I shall, as usual, ensure that either my office or my hon. Friend's offices carefully go through what has been said and respond to the various points.
On a personal note, and on behalf of my fellow Ministers, I should reply to the suggestions that we are not as accessible as we ought to be. My noble Friend Lord Elton has been criticised in his absence. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that almost nobody is more accessible than my noble Friend for those who wish to put their problems to him. No doubt he will read the report of the debate and will consider whether he can improve his accessibility.
There must be a limit on the time that Ministers can make available, but I frequently have meetings with management, trade union representatives and hon. Members. Indeed, my room is probably the best ventilated in the Northern Ireland Office, because the door is permanently open.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made his usual speech about the separation of Northern Ireland matte from those of Great Britain. The fact that we are looking for a return to some form of devolved government persuades us to preserve the present treatment of Northern Ireland matters. Merging the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and Supply procedure with that of Britain would work against that process. Therefore, we listen carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says each time. But as we begin to know what he will say, he must expect the sort of reply that I have given him.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In case the hon. Gentleman misses an opportunity for variety in future, I should point out that there would be no difficulty—if ever, by some alchemy, a method were discovered of introducing a devolved legislature—in separating these matters from the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Butler: We cannot forecast the outcome of my right hon. Friend's latest initiative and where it may lead us. While there are initiatives and Government policy of that sort it would be wrong to take steps that would make it more difficult when that devolvement came about.
Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister accept that whatever the Secretary of State may do in the long term about an advisory council or some other mad scheme, the best and quickest solution is for the Northern Ireland Committee to meet regularly in Northern Ireland, so that Ulster people can hear what is said, and for a Select Committee to sit regularly at Stormont?
Mr. Butler: I should be delighted to be drawn down that path, but if I did I should stray outside the rules of order. All that I can say is that I hope that the new initiative will lead onward and that the challenge will be given to those who will participate in the council.
1584
Matters to do with the Public Accounts Committee very much concern the House. The right hon. Member for Down, South raised a number of points about it. The Government are, of course, considering the issues raised in the PAC report, and a memorandum of reply will be represented to the House in due course. It is better to wait for that considered reply than to try to anticipate its contents, perhaps inaccurately.
The matters of housing raised in the debate were dealt with effectively in the brief interventions by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). I do not doubt that there will be others to which he should respond, although such questions have been debated twice recently in the Committee. Therefore, much of what was said has probably been answered in advance, and what we heard was emphasis being given to points that had been dealt with previously.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) dealt especially with the Government's attitude to sport and leisure activities—
Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister say more about housing?
Mr. Butler: I prefer not to say any more about housing, because there are many economic matters with which I wish to deal, but I am prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and if I can respond to what he says I shall do so. If not, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will hear what he says.
Mr. Kilfedder: I want to ask the Minister about the waste and the top-heavy organisation of the Housing Executive. Will the Government get rid of the regional offices? May I now have an answer, which I have sought for some time, to the question of the rent of the Town 'n' Country headquarters of the executive in Newtownards?
Mr. Butler: I believe that my hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman today about that last subject. We hope that the letter will arrive over the weekend, or immediately afterwards. My hon. Friend will deal with the question of the executive's tiers of administration, as appropriate.
The Government's attitude towards sporting activities goes much wider than athletics. Sport and leisure, the provision of entertainment and matters of interest to the young, in particular, are important. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde gave special emphasis to the provision of leisure centres. The fact that 11 are now operating is no credit to the present Government. Plans for them, and doubtless the building of them, either took place before we came to office or had been laid and then the building was started. Building has now commenced on three more major sports complexes, at Belfast, Ballymoney and Omagh, for which I think we may take some credit.
In fact, the Northern Ireland Sports Council is receiving substantial funds this year, albeit some reduction on last year. I need not tell the House again of the decision that was taken last year by the Administration to reallocate funds in support of industrial development, providing jobs and job opportunities in the Province. Inevitably, the activities of an organisation such as the Sports Council had to suffer. My noble Friend gives personal support to these activities. He is a frequent attender at sporting events,

1585
including athletics meetings. I hope that more such activities will take place in Northern Ireland, because that will encourage those faint hearts who are concerned about taking part in any activity of any sort in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister comment on the fact that of all the Sports Councils in the United Kingdom, only the Northern Ireland Sports Council is having a reduction? Surely that is not right.
Mr. Butler: I can only repeat what I said a moment ago. It may be true that it is the only sports council that is being treated in that way. Equally, it was Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who took a decision in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland to effect this reallocation of resources, because of the special and trying unemployment there.
The next subject properly received a great deal of attention from a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). It is, of course, agriculture, which is so vital to the Province's economy as a whole. Suggestions were made, which I totally refute, that this Administration are not concerned to help solve the problems of that industry. That is totally incorrect, and is evidenced particularly by the injection of £10 million into the industry, which was well received by farmers in Ulster. That money was aimed to help the sectors that were hardest hit, such as the beef sector, particularly the intensive livestock sector, and, of course, milk. No one pretends that that money will be sufficient by itself to meet the shortfall in incomes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, it is evidence of the Government's realisation and acceptance of the difficulties facing agriculture and of their determination to support agriculture in what is undoubtedly a difficult period. There is further evidence of that determination in the money that is forthcoming from the EEC—the £34 million or so to be paid over the next 10 years.
I was asked about the interest relief payments that the industry in the Republic of Ireland is likely to receive. I gather that this matter will be discussed at a forthcoming Agriculture Ministers' meeting. Frankly, there is no question of that type of aid being given to Ulster's farmers.
The question of the Coleraine drainage came up, as it has done on previous occasions. I should be happy to elaborate on the matter in a note. We are looking for the most cost-effective way of carrying out this responsibility, and I have no reason to believe that there will be any prejudice to the efficient drainage of land in Northern Ireland resulting from the downgrading of the Coleraine office.
The hon. Member for Londonderry spoke about salmon poaching. I do not see the hon. Gentleman in his place at present, but I understand that he will be meeting my noble Friend Lord Elton next week to discuss this problem as it concerns the River Bann. I have no doubt that my noble Friend will be happy to widen the discussion to include the sea off the North Coast. In fact, there is very good co-operation now between the RUC, the Garda and the Foyle Fishery Commission staff, and this has resulted in a considerable reduction in the level of poaching in the Foyle. However, that is a matter which the hon. Gentleman can develop at greater leisure with my noble Friend.
1586
Smuggling has given the Government cause for considerable concern, as it has right hon. and hon. Members. Again, the rate of activity has been stepped up, and I understand that Customs and Excise officials have identified and seized a significant number of animals suspected of evading the MCA levy payable on their importation into the United Kingdom, and special additional control measures have been introduced with the agreement of the Irish authorities. Nevertheless, with a border of that length it is inevitable that some illicit movement occurs.
Abbey Meats has been mentioned again. The problem of the meat processors is a very serious one. It is caused solely by those civil servants who are on strike. In this case, I think that it is the ones who operate the Guildford computer centre. This is one of the many effects of that strike, and we must hope that any talks which are going on at present or are likely to take place will bring a resolution of it. We cannot afford to have one group of people in our community doing harm to others who, I suggest, face very much greater financial problems in their own lives and businesses than those who are on strike.
The problem is one which the Intervention Board is well aware of, and it is doing all that it can to assist individual plants. In co-operation with the banks it is able to assign money to company accounts. It is recognised that that form of help is of limited value, but it is at least of some assistance in present circumstances.
I turn to the subject of energy, about which a great number of questions were asked. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked what was happening in County Fermanagh. The hon. Gentleman apologised to me in advance and said that he had to catch a plane, so we recognise why he is not in his place at present. Many hon. Members are waiting for me to sit down so that they can leave, but the hon. Gentleman could not wait. He asked what was happening in County Fermanagh. A licence was issued a few weeks ago. Exploratory boring is either taking place or will be shortly. We must wait to see whether the traces of gas previously identified are of commercial quantities, which can be exploited. Clearly, there is a prospect there, but my advice is that we should not get too excited about it.
On the other hand, we were sufficiently encouraged by the prospects of taking gas from the Kinsale field to appoint two consultants to examine more closely all the implications of buying such gas. My officials in the Department are involved. We hope that we shall be able to take a further decision towards the end of the year. That depends on whether we get clear answers to the questions.
Hon. Members have queried again whether it might be better to look across the water to the mainland for supplies of natural gas. We examined that possibility in relation to Scottish supplies. It was judged to be uneconomic and was turned down. Kinsale gas might be uneconomic. I have no idea at this stage whether that will be so. At the moment the prospects of obtaining gas from the Kinsale field at an economic price and without enormous cost to the United Kingdom-Northern Ireland budget look better than they did in relation to Scotland. I have noted the point about the possible lower cost of tying in to the Morecambe Bay experiment. That requires more investigation.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was a little ungenerous about what the Government have done about electricity tariffs. I checked to find out the situation when the Government came to power. The

1587
domestic tariff was about 5 per cent. above the highest in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is the point to which we have now brought it again. Of course, it will, by this time next year, be down to the same rate. There has been no difference between the execution and the Prime Minister's statement about her intent. I believe that we have done slightly better than what the Prime Minister suggested. She said that we would bring tariffs more into line and we shall bring them in line with the top rate in Britain.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the source of funds. The £44·9 million will be additional money. That is important for the future. We do not take one subject in isolation but we regard it as part of all the other public expenditures. We have said that the tariffs will be kept down. So long as costs in Northern Ireland are higher, there must be a continuing measure of subsidy.
I turn to the main economic subjects, particularly unemployment and industrial development. The right hon. Member for Mansfield let his sentiment run away with him. In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) there was some contradiction. I do not believe that even the right hon. Gentleman considers that we must keep plant open regardless.
The sad record of what happened during the period of the Last labour Government bears witness to that. IEL Ltd. was the same as ICL, Rolls-Royce and Courtaulds. They had plants employing hundreds and sometimes thousands or more people and they closed during the period of the last Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman realises as well as I that one cannot just put money in to save jobs, particularly when there is no future for them. If he did that he would put at risk jobs in other sectors of the economy. If he did that where there was no prospect of viability fir that company that money would he wasted. Not surprisingly, we heard support for that view from the right hon. Member for Down, South.
Let us look at how the Government tackled the British Enkalon closure. I hope that from what I say it will become clear that the, Government are fully aware of the social problems associated with such closures, of the implications for a community that is so heavily dependent on one factory—a community which has come together and been built around a plant that has been in operation for nearly 20 years. If the Government had been approaching the problem from a purely economic and commercial point of view the amount of money that we would have offered the company would have been minimal in comparison with what was finally offered.
I was asked to make a full statement. Inevitably, it must be brief. The company came to us at the end of last year with the intention of a shutdown. It would be inappropriate to disclose all the steps in the negotiation, as was asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the amount of money involved and those who took part. I had meetings with management, unions, local Members of Parliament, three meetings with the mayor and meetings with other representatives of the council. They all impressed upon me the seriousness of the position.
In the end, we offered the company precisely half of the costs that it said were likely to be necessary to keep the plant in operation for two and a half or three years, during which time it expected to make losses. That figure
1588
included a contribution to the losses, and other related expenditure. The total cost was £17 million. It is on record that the Government were prepared to offer £8½ million.
It goes further than that. The sticking point with the company was that it wanted the Government to take the risk on the loan repayments, to remove its own group guarantee and to forgo the repayment of grants. I must say—and it is a new statement—that in taking into account what money might be put into a company in such circumstances, one must consider what money might be recovered in the event of closure.
In relation to the loan and grant repayments, we are talking about a number of millions of pounds. Those millions of pounds must be added to the amount that we were prepared to offer to discover the cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer. It was a matter of the greatest regret that the company was not prepared to accept the generous offer that we put before it. Since it did not, we have funds available that we would not otherwise have. Although the company had a commercial reason for wishing to concentrate activities in Holland it did not give us any sign of having much faith in the future of that factory. That was evidenced by the fact that it was not prepared to put in substantial sums of money. In those circumstances, we could not go one penny further.
I do not want to raise any expectations that there could be a change in that decision, either by the Government or by the company. If the hon. Member for Antrim, South wishes to talk to me about proposals, I shall listen. However, it would be wholly wrong to raise expectations.
Another company for which we have provided continuing finance is Harland and Wolff. The amount over the years since 1966 totals £170 million. When broken down the figures show that the support for the period to 1979 was about £60 million; for the two years to 1981 it was £65 million, and another £46 million for this year. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford and a great many others should ask whether that should continue. It is a vast amount of money. If we felt that we would be faced with sums of that size into the years ahead we would have to take a different decision from the one that we took in being prepared to finance the company at least for this current year.
Mr. Bradford: Bearing in mind that to provide approximately 7,000 people with unemployment benefit would cost £35 million per year, the figure which the Minister has just given represents almost precisely that figure over the 1976–81 period. Does not the Minister accept that there is much more to be gained by keeping the yard open in the hope that it will take advantage of the upturn in the tanker trade rather than closing it at this stage?
Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's figures are not those which the Treasury uses. The figure would be much lower. It may be that that is the right decision. The company's corporate plan will be considered by Ministers and a decision will be made in due course. At this time we have agreed funding for the current financial year. Let us hope that the market picks up and that better productivity can be achieved by producing ships of the sort that the yard was designed to build. However, that depends on the management. The new chairman is doing a good job, but it is up to the management and the work force to get those costs down, to get the orders and to get the deliveries, on schedule. All those things rest heavily on the yard.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: For the morale of Harland and Wolff, is it not desirable that an early decision be made on the corporate plan? Can my hon. Friend give an approximate date for that, and can he also comment on the diversification report?
Mr. Butler: The diversification review team has put its report before Ministers. The intention was that a public announcement of what it said would accompany the Government's statement on the corporate plan. I do not believe that the review team report will have shown any great opportunity for that yard outside its main shipbuilding activity. As regards an early decision, I do not believe that Ministers will come to conclusions for a little while. On the other hand, it is essential—I hope that this will be so—that damage should not be done, that the company should be able to carry on with its various cost-cutting exercises and that it will continue in the pursuit of orders.
I am left with the main thing that I wish to say. Perhaps it can be summed up simply by saying that the Government share with all those who have spoken and all those in the Province the greatest possible anxiety and concern about the levels of unemployment. We have not shrunk from admitting to the House that we believe that there will still be some increase—certainly, inevitably an increase—in the overall total as the school leavers come on to the register. Equally, there are some signs at least that the underlying trend and the increase in the seasonal figure are slowing down. There are good signs that that is so.
Meanwhile, we have a monstrous problem on our hands. There are young people by the thousand out of jobs. In his opening speech my hon. Friend referred to the increases under the YOP programme. As regards the longer-term adult unemployed the ACE scheme is being well supported and is looking to be fully subscribed. We have to persevere in the pursuit of those special employment measures. I think that all of us are interested in what the outcome may be in the national discussion on the ideas contained in the MSC's new initiative.
At the same time we have to pursue our industrial development policy. I shall make a brief comment on the small business sector. Criticisms of LEDU have been made today. They are not justified. The people concerned
1590
with LEDU are generally doing a good job. Nobody is perfect, but the activity rate at the moment is about twice as high as it was this time last year. Jobs will be forthcoming from that increased activity—not as many as we would like, but it is a healthy part of the industrial economy of Northern Ireland now.
I have been told many times that we must support indigenous industry. I agree. We must particularly seek out those companies in Northern Ireland that are successful and making profits, see whether they have an expansion potential, and put money behind them to encourage them.
Inward investment will suffer from the Province's image, particularly as a result of the violence of the past few weeks surrounding the hunger strike problem. That is a serious matter. I repeat that the damage done to employment in Northern Ireland can be attributed largely to the terrorist activity and, more particularly, to the image that comes across in the media. The Government are working hard to improve the image, but the vivid pictures seen on television and recorded in the newspapers stick too readily in people's minds. We have an uphill task, but we shall persevere to the best of our ability.
The picture in Northern Ireland does not, on first analysis, look at all bright. We have our own difficult problems, but, equally, the people of Northern Ireland have over the years demonstrated an extraordinary resilience and strength of character in the face of adversity. That resilience and strength, backed by the quite proper and favourable proportion of national resources that were put into the Province by the Government's determination to act in solving the problem and the certain evidence of an improvement in the competitiveness of industry, which is the case with so many companies in Northern Ireland, as it is in Great Britain, leads us to believe that when the upturn in the recession comes our industry will be able to expand once more.
Those are the grounds for hope. Meanwhile, we must battle—and battle we will—against the problems of unemployment, and we shall help the young and all those especially concerned. I therefore ask support for the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Local Authorities (Functions and Services)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]
3.47 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I wish today to present the case for the privatisation of local authority services and functions and perhaps to dwell upon the benefits that the pursuit of such a policy will bring to local authorities and to the people whom they seek to represent and serve.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in two ways. The first is for detaining him here this afternoon. The bad news is that he is here; the good news is that the debate was not held last Wednesday morning.
That a case needs to be presented is self-evident, first, because the vast majority of people serving in local government, whether as elected representatives or as paid officials, have followed an historical pattern of behaviour brought about by the nature of local government legislation and practice as placed on the statute book since the 1880s. Secondly, local authority management, in the form of locally elected councillors, has failed to realise the opportunities now available to it.
Local authorities today intrude into our lives in a way that was never envisaged. They can, for example, influence for good or evil the employment opportunities within the area of their management. The intrusion that takes place is in the degree of efficiency and the form of services as provided and the payment by domestic and industrial ratepayers, as well as by the taxpayer at large, of the cost of those services.
The House will not be surprised when I point out that in 1969 only 36·8 per cent. of current and capital expenditure and 48·6 per cent. of current expenditure came in the form of local authority grants from central Government. By 1979, only 47·9 per cent. of current and capital expenditure and 55·5 per cent. of current expenditure came from Government.
The burden of the rates, as we know from our experiences in Camden, Southwark, Manchester, Sheffield and Lambeth, acts as a disincentive to further industrial expansion and leads to the ultimate closure of factories and shops as the burden of rates, rate increases and supplementary rate levy finally pushes small and medium-sized businesses from profit into loss.
The House will not be surprised to hear that in 1978–79 the domestic rate increased by 9·6 per cent. for all authorities in England and Wales. In 1979–80 it increased by 18·5 per cent. and in 1980–81 by 27·1 per cent. Additionally, over the past 10 years there has been an increase in local government employment. In 1969, 2,505,000 people were employed by local government. By 1975 the figure had reached 2,974,000 and by 1980, 3,013,000. Clearly, local authorities today are very big business. In 1969, local authorities' local and current capital expenditure amounted to £6,096 million. By 1974 the figure had doubled to £12,929 million, while by 1979 it had more than quadrupled to £24,444 million. Allowing for salaries and wage costs, especially in the education service, local government remains a costly and, until recently, monopolistic service, funded almost entirely by the twin supports of local rates and the rate support grant.
1592
As local government expenditure has grown, so, inversely, it appears, or it is perceived by the recipients of services, that the services provided have remained constant or in some cases have declined. Local councils should heed that view. Moderate councils that carry out their statutory obligations to an adequate standard as well as the more expensive local authorities in the United Kingdom should seize the opportunity, which until the election of the Conservative Government did not exist, to examine the way in which their services are administered. If they are satisfied that their existing operations provide the best services at the best cost, privatisation should be left alone. If, however, services are not achieved according to that criterion, privatisation should be entertained.
Local councils these days should regard themselves as managers of their local authorities. They now have the power to shape events. Because of the nature of their task, they should perhaps be regarded as socially aware directors of "Local Authorities Ltd.". For those in local authorities today the message is clear. Any saving in expenditure means the creation of resources for other necessary projects. The greater the bureaucracy, and the greater the absorption of costs into the running of that bureaucracy, the less there is for the provision of services needed elsewhere.
Although I should like to argue that there should be a requirement on local authorities to consider privatisation, I must accept entirely that if we support any form of local autonomy a decision should be left to the authorities themselves. I want local authority managers to take on board schemes for privatisation and to accept from the House a direct challenge to inquire and to consider the benefits that privatisation would bring.
Undoubtedly, any hon. Member who advocates a policy of privatisation will be asked what is the extent of the savings and where can they be made. I am reminded, in a press statement from a company dealing with this very subject, that privatisation—an American word—is a process by which local authority services are put out to tender by private contractors. In the United States, savings of up to 40 per cent. have been achieved in many cities by privatisation of refuse collection services. The bill for refuse collection in England and Wales alone is £500 million per year. A saving of at least 20 per cent. of that amount must merit consideration by those responsible to the ratepayers.
As the House knows, ratepayers are becoming increasingly desperate as rate demands reach excessive levels and the quality of local services declines. Local authorities are apparently trapped in a spiral of escalating costs, high labour intensity and declining quality. Any break-out from this dilemma is hampered by local government's monopoly position—supported, as I said earlier, almost entirely by rate and rate support grant income—which removes any incentive to local authority managers to seek greater efficiency in alternative forms and means of providing services.
The only authority in the United Kingdom which has achieved any great success in this regard is the borough of Southend, in Essex. Southend's privatisation of refuse disposal has led to a reduction this year in the rate demand. Almost 80 per cent. of Southend's direct labour force were offered jobs by the private contractor who was asked to take over that service. The people employed by the private contractor receive wages that are 20 per cent. higher than

1593
the local authority's wage rates. The net saving in 1981–82 on Southend's refuse collection bill is well in excess of £400,000.
I remind the House that the failure to grasp the opportunities provided by existing legislation will, if savings can be made, prove a costly mistake to make.
I have been told by my own local authority that it is none of my business to advance the cause of privatisation, but as long as local authority expenditure is funded to such a large degree from the Government, I regard it as right and proper—and, indeed, my duty—to advance a cause in which I believe, and which, if understood and applicable, can act as a factor to reduce the financial imposition of local authority costs upon my constituents, whether in the domestic or the industrial sector.
In the debate about privatisation, the onus is on those who are opposed to it to satisfy themselves that they provide their services properly and that their intentions are carried out at the best level of efficiency and at the best cost. Local councillors should be reminded that they manage big business, and that, for the first time in many years, if ever, they have the right to shape events in a way that their predecessors did not.
I hope that many local councils will listen to the debate and not simply advance the view that reform is all right as long as things remain the same.
4.2 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for raising an issue that I suspect we on these Benches—and I am very glad to see that I am supported by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)— wholeheartedly espouse.
It might be for the convenience of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford if I were to make some observations about what privatisation should be, because there seems to be some idea that what we might be wishing to do is to take away local government services at a stroke and, possibly even more importantly, local authority control over such services, and to place such services outside that control.
My hon. Friends know very well that that is not necessarily the case. We start from the premise that my hon. Friend so eloquently put to the House, which is that when we are faced with an ever-increasing demand for local authorities to be supported by taxation—whether it be at the local level or at the central level—it behoves all local authorities to see that their services are as efficiently produced as possible.
I think that my hon. Friend would also agree that when we are faced, as we are, with the need for restraint on Government support for local authority expenditure, that is the time when every local authority will be looking at the consequences. When faced with the need to reduce their costs, or when faced with cuts, the authorities' first question should be not "Which service can we cut?" but "How can we supply each service more efficiently?" It is in that context that my hon. Friend's case for privatisation is so important.
1594
I commend to my hon. Friend—if he does not already know it—a booklet that was produced by Mr. Michael Forsyth in, I think, December 1980, entitled "Re-servicing Britain". It was published by the Adam Smith Institute and is therefore a publication of some importance. This helps to clarify some of the principles upon which privatisation could be based. One of the first such principles is its very variable nature. I could well be that local authorities would seek to involve private sector activity on a joint or partnership basis, on a wholesale contracting-out basis, or, quite frequently, on a combination that includes voluntary co-operation of various groups in the local authority area. In this publication, which I commend to my hon. Friend, Mr. Forsyth argues that privatisation
"combines public service with private provision, and represents the attempt to blend public accountability and control of standards with the private enterprise disciplines of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and responsiveness to consumer requirements".
That, it seems to me, is the right starting place for discussing the principle. It is interesting to note that although my Department does not, for obvious reasons, keep an entirely accurate and up-to-date record of everything that goes on within local authorities, because we believe, wherever possible, in not intervening in their affairs, there are some very good examples quoted by Mr. Forsyth of the varied way in which the private sector is involved. He quotes the case, which I think will interest the House, of Northampton city council, which has set a lead in the running of its local bus services.
"Instead of merely cutting out the services on routes which its transport department could not make pay, Northampton purchased a minibus, taught volunteers to drive it, and gave them the bus to operate on uneconomic routes. Fares are charged to cover costs, and a fund has been established which will soon have enough to enable the council to buy a second bus."
A second example comes from a county authority much nearer the constituency of my hon. Friend—the Kent county council, which I understand produced a remarkable combination of a private contract and voluntary effort. In collaboration with the personal social services research unit at the University of Kent it set up a community care scheme the basis of which is paying families to undertake good neighbour tasks for dependent elderly persons. Faced with an increasing number of old people needing to be put into care and the ever-mounting costs of caring for those in institutions, the community care scheme succeeded in recruiting motivated individuals to look after people in their own homes.
Those are two examples, very varied in type, that local authorities have already decided to implement and yet, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, there is no more opportune moment than now to discuss privatisation across the whole spectrum, where it could interact to the benefit of ratepayers and taxpayers alike in the provision of local authority services. My hon. Friend is right to quote the massive costs of local authorities, involving expenditure of £20 billion a year. It amounts to about one-quarter of all public expenditure. It is this starting point that is so relevant to the debate that my hon. Friend initiated.
Of course, we in Government recognise that there have to be safeguards in introducing any wholesale schemes for privatisation. Local authorities, after all, are responsible to their electorates for satisfying themselves of the standards of the services that any outside contractor or any other agency of the council will provide. They have to consider the need for continuity of service provision. They naturally have to discuss with the unions the job

1595
implications. The terms of the contract need to be considered carefully. All this is not, in itself, an insuperable obstacle to obtaining a happy blend between local authority good management practice and private sector operations.
Private firms themselves, I suggest to my hon. Friend, should come forward perhaps more vigorously than at present to sell the services that they have to offer to individual authorities. Of course, the greatest stimulus for them is increased demand for their services. But they must themselves help shape the climate of local opinion in which they seek to operate and show that they can provide a particular service, to the benefit of local ratepayers and consumers.
As a Government, we see our main role as encouraging local authorities to consider contracting out as one of the opportunities for making savings. We would consider that at the present time, when restraints on public expenditure from the centre are so obvious to all local authorities, this is surely the right opportunity for a reappraisal.
A major step in this direction has been the provisions on direct labour organisations in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which came into force in England and. Wales on 1 April this year. DLOs now have to bid for a substantial proportion of their work against competitive tenders from the private sector. They have to earn a prescribed rate of return on their capital—at present, 5 per cent. On a current cost accounting basis. Authorities have to keep full trading accounts and publish annual reports giving a detailed assessment of the performance of DLOs. We have thus promoted fair competition and encouraged authorities to consider the contracting-out alternative.
Local authorities should, in the light of their own circumstances, consider the scope for adopting similar arrangements for other activities. The Government are taking steps to help them in this regard by improving the information about existing practices and the scope for alternatives. Here I think that my hon. Friend did a service by pointing out that one of the problems is the lack of information about what is available for local authorities to act upon.
Greater awareness is needed of the areas in which contracting out has been shown to be successful. Greater awareness is also needed of the factors that have to be considered and the practicalities of the contracting arrangements. We have therefore commissioned consultants to examine service delivery and pricing arrangements and the scope for alternatives across a range of local environmental services in England. I think that my hon. Friend will he aware that the range of services provided by local authorities is very wide. Therefore, the range for looking at alternative methods of supplying them could be regarded as equally large. Whether it is parks, gardens and the growing of plants, on the one hand, or highway and housing maintenance, on the other, there is a huge range of services that local authorities can consider contracting out if it is shown to be beneficial in efficient services to their consumers.
The report of this body of consultants, based on a series of case studies in a sample of authorities, will be published later this year. This should help to promote more informed debate and spread experience of the practical considerations involved in contracting out. I shall write to my hon. Friend when we have received the report and studied it.
1596
There are, I believe, obvious opportunities for contracting out refuse collection. My hon. Friend drew attention to the scheme in Southend. There is no intention here to criticise the managers or the men who have run what is, on the whole, a fairly good service for a century or more. I particularly commend two features of the refuse collection service in the United Kingdom. It is comprehensive, with virtually every property in the United Kingdom getting a regular service to and from its door, and it is reliable all the year round. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the need for periodic reviews. Circumstances change. The private waste disposal industry has grown to a very large size. It is now seeking out work in local authorities. It would be short-sighted not to see what it has to offer.
One particular advantage of private sector participation is that it holds out a prospect of exporting the service. Local authorities will never export, however good their service may be. But one sees European and American cleaning and waste management firms confidently bidding for work in the Middle East and elsewhere, and building on a demonstrable record of experience at home. That is a good reason why the Government should seek to encourage that kind of development.
This fits in well with our work in the United Kingdom on mechanised waste sorting and recovery systems. We are among the leaders in developing technology that really works. Southend is the most recent example of contracting out refuse collection. It estimates that it will save £500,000 on a previous annual cost of £2¼ million. As the first authority in Britain to contract out the whole of this service I am sure that many other local authorities will be watching its progress very closely. Dissemination of information among authorities about practical experience is of great value. I particularly welcome Southend's decision to make available for sale documents summarising its experience, so that other authorities can have the benefit of the lessons that it has learnt.
We should also remember that in highways and housing maintenance, contracting out by local authorities is already the norm. Our impression is that much the larger part of highways maintenance, by value, is already carried out by private contractors. The majority of new housing construction and a considerable amount of maintenance is also done by contractors. The recent DLO provisions, which I mentioned, have further improved prospects for contracting out these types of works. In highways construction projects, overseen by county councils as agents of the Department of Transport, compulsory tendering of jobs over £100,000 has long been the rule, and the great bulk of the work goes to private firms.
There may well be more private sector involvement in architectural and other professional services. In Kensington and Chelsea, for example, a private practice has been set up, with the council's encouragement, formed from the director of architecture and other architectural staff. I understand that in Oldham the council has contracted out all its quantity surveying work for many years now. Some other across-the-board services, such as cleaning, vehicle maintenance and catering, may also be worthy of consideration. Southend has also recently contracted out a major part of its office cleaning service, with estimated savings of £30,000 on a total previous cost of about £50,000 a year.
Looking overseas, we can see that the potential for contracting out is wider still. My hon. Friend referred to

1597
experience in the United States. Several local authorities there follow the example of Lakewood, in California, where almost all municipal services are provided either by the private sector or by larger local authorities. In the United States and Europe there is a range of other examples, from park maintenance to the fire service. A paper by my Department drawing together material about experience abroad is available to local authorities on request.
It is worth stressing that there is a variety of other options worth exploring, as well as the wholesale contracting out of an activity. Joint ventures with private firms are one. Agency arrangements with other authorities are another. There is no one model for all situations, and several different combinations can have a role, which is why I found Mr. Forsyth's pamphlet so useful. As my hon. Friend said, there may be areas of service provision from which a local authority may decide to withdraw in the interests of allocating restricted resources where they are most needed. That could create additional openings for private firms.
My hon. Friend is right when he says that the climate is changing. More and more authorities are recognising the importance of a thorough re-evaluation of their priorities.
1598
I was concerned to hear that my hon. Friend's local authority has taken an adverse view of the prospect. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a duty of hon. Members and every local authority to examine provision of services in the search for improved efficiency and better value for money.
In the end, as any local authority will recognise, its ratepayers and electors will determine whether they are satisfied with what the council does. There is no doubt that because of the present level of rates and the fact that supplementary rates are levelled several times during the year electors have decided in many cases that they have had enough. Therefore, local authorities have to be sensitive, to reduce their costs, and to look at their services to see whether they can find other ways of satisfying the markets that they serve.
Privatisation is not the only option available to local authorities, but surely it is the one that merits most consideration. As more information becomes available about its potential scope and advantages I hope that local government will increasingly give it the attention that it deserves. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has done so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock.

INDUSTRY
  Civil Aviation Act 1949
  Civil Aviation Act 1949
  Industrial Building
  Industrial Building
DEFENCE
  Emergency Powers 'Legislation'.
  Emergency Powers 'Legislation'.
  Strategic Resources
  Strategic Resources
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Veal Calves
  Veal Calves
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Staff-Student Ratios)
  Universities (Staff-Student Ratios)
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
  Pupil Numbers
  Pupil Numbers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  USSR (Freedom of Religion)
  USSR (Freedom of Religion)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  British Council (Foreign Students and Visitors)
  British Council (Foreign Students and Visitors)
  International Sea Bed Authority
  International Sea Bed Authority
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Tobacco Industry
  Tobacco Industry
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
PRIME MINISTER
  Expenditure (Rayner Reviews)
  Expenditure (Rayner Reviews)
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Speech)
  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Speech)
  Public Bodies (Ethnic Representation)
  Public Bodies (Ethnic Representation)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Transplants
  Transplants
  Inter-uterine Devices
  Inter-uterine Devices
  Open Access Scheme
  Open Access Scheme
  Bathing Areas (Pollution)
  Bathing Areas (Pollution)
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Vacancies (Halifax and Calderdale)
  Job Vacancies (Halifax and Calderdale)
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Unemployment (North-West)
  Unemployment (North-West)
  Unemployed Persons (London)
  Unemployed Persons (London)
  Building and Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Building and Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Merseyside (Visit)
  Merseyside (Visit)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
  Unemployed Persons (Keighley)
  Unemployed Persons (Keighley)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
TRADE
  Departmental Policy (Achievement)
  Departmental Policy (Achievement)
  Peers (Appointments)
  Peers (Appointments)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Financial Institutions (Control)
  Financial Institutions (Control)
  Textile Industry (Dundee)
  Textile Industry (Dundee)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Disorder
  Civil Disorder
  Armoured Jaguar Police Car
  Armoured Jaguar Police Car
  Metropolitan Police (Vehicle Collision)
  Metropolitan Police (Vehicle Collision)
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Heather (Illegal Burning)
  Heather (Illegal Burning)
  Murderers
  Murderers
TRANSPORT
  School Buses (Tachograph Regulations)
  School Buses (Tachograph Regulations)
  Free Public Transport (Disabled Persons)
  Free Public Transport (Disabled Persons)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Act 1980
  Housing Act 1980
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Bathing Areas (Pollution)
  Bathing Areas (Pollution)
  Woolwich Arsenal (Prison)
  Woolwich Arsenal (Prison)
  Local Authorities (Purchasing Consortia)
  Local Authorities (Purchasing Consortia)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Catering Concessions
  Catering Concessions
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  Local Authorities (Sewage Disposal)
  Local Authorities (Sewage Disposal)
  Beaches (Cleanliness)
  Beaches (Cleanliness)
  House Building (Bricks)
  House Building (Bricks)
  Central London Community Law Centre
  Central London Community Law Centre
  Bricks (Stockpiling)
  Bricks (Stockpiling)
  Empty Industrial and Warehouse Property
  Empty Industrial and Warehouse Property
  MINIS 2
  MINIS 2
  Hydraulics Research Station
  Hydraulics Research Station

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Nursing Levels in the NHS
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange to see the general secretary and other national officers of the Confederation of Health Service Employees in a joint endeavour to raise all nursing levels in the National Health Service.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, Ministers are always prepared to consider sympathetically requests which they receive for meetings with representative organisations. In 1980 my honourable friend the Minister for Health issued invitations to a wide range of organisations to discuss with him matters of concern to the nursing or midwifery professions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. May I point out to him—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: Is the noble Lord aware that there is a serious situation in the nursing profession, particularly with regard to pupil and student nurses? The facts, which have been corroborated by the General Medical Council, are as follows. There has been a serious decline in recruiting student and pupil nurses. If this decline continues it must mean that there will inevitably be a shortage of nurses in the not too distant future. As has been pointed out by Mr. Albert Spanswick of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, with their vast experience they believe that they can make a contribution towards resolving this problem and therefore may wish to put their services at the disposal of the Minister in order to try to improve the current situation.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, when he asks a supplementary question not to give a lecture at the same time? I am very keen to answer any questions which the noble Lord might have but he does not have to make a speech when he asks them. The noble Lord is pushing at a door that was opened on 21st August 1980 by my honourable friend who wrote to a number of organisations, including COHSE, asking them to come and see him. That letter was politely replied to and my honourable friend's invitation was accepted but it has not yet been taken up. My honourable friend the
1486
Minister for Health will be very pleased to see COHSE at any time.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware (he certainly could not remember the occasion) that 51 years ago I introduced in another place a Bill to give a living wage and an eight-hour day to nurses? Nurses then were regarded as spiritual Florence Nightingales not needing much physical sustenance. Is it not the case that, while their conditions have greatly improved, their status is still inferior to that of many other employees, including shorthand-typists? Will the Minister do his utmost to increase the status of the nursing profession?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am not sure that everybody agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I believe that most of us regard nurses as being among the most respected of people. They are frightfully good. They always put their patients first and they have not at any time used their muscle at the expense of patients to get higher wages.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is no excuse for underpaying nurses, who are indeed underpaid at the present time, and is he aware that the nurses have decided by a majority decision not to become involved in industrial action, which is a tribute to their profession? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that so far as nursing levels in hospitals are concerned it is time that someone got rid of the absurd system whereby hospital nursing levels are judged by"beddage"—a term that I utterly detest? Thirdly—and I am sorry to put all these questions to the noble Lord—is he aware that there is in fact a very serious shortage of nursing tutors and that it is no good recruiting pupil and student nurses unless teachers are available to teach them?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, had to say about the shortage of tutors. I am quite prepared to believe that what he said is right; I did not know it, and I will certainly write to the noble Lord. However, his suggestion does not seem to conform with the fact that the number of nurses has been steadily increasing. During the course of the past year the number of nurses has increased from 353,000 to 363,000 in whole term equivalents. The number who completed their course of training was higher than it has ever been before, and hence the increase in recruitment. But I am interested in what the noble Lord has said and I will write to him about the matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his encouraging reply, for which I am most grateful, will be warmly received by the nursing profession, and that perhaps the few minutes we have just spent on considering this subject may have made a great contribution to the future of Great Britain's National Health Service and to the nursing profession in particular? I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following upon what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Molloy, will the noble Lord opposite pass on to his noble friends who are dealing with the British Nationality Bill at this moment a reminder of the immense debt that we owe to Commonwealth citizens who come over here to join the nursing profession?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall be very happy to do so.

Overseas Aid Programme
11.9 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider overseas aid as an investment in Britain's economic recovery and how many British jobs have been lost by the Government's cuts in such aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, our statement on the review of aid policy in February 1980 acknowledged that commercial and industrial benefits can flow from our aid programme. But our economic recovery depends on the application of the more general set of policies which we are pursuing—the clear objective of which is to bring inflation under control, to keep within our means and thus form a sound base for economic growth. We have made no official estimate of the relationship between aid spending and employment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware, and would he accept, that the purpose of this Question, which it has taken me three attempts to ask, is to give the Government the opportunity to deal with a very serious issue of economic philosophy and economic practice; and would he agree that the overseas aid given by this and other countries is of great benefit to both the industry of the donor country and the employment of the donor country? Would he either agree or deny the figure that was given in another place some months ago, that the cuts in overseas aid so far perpetrated by this Government have cost 15,000 British jobs—that is, jobs in this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said, the calculation that is necessary to arrive at the sort of figures that the noble Lord has suggested is a very complex one, and we do not think the result would necessarily justify the high level of expenditure that would be entailed. It is of course true that every aspect of public expenditure leads to some form of employment, directly or indirectly; but, as I have said, it is not possible to make a precise calculation without a great deal of difficulty and expenditure.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the attention of the noble Lord been drawn this morning to the result
1488
of the Warrington by-election and the spectacular support for Mr. Jenkins, who supports an expanded programme of overseas aid, and is this not a reflection of public opinion on this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I would accept that the result of the Warrington by-election was determined only by our aid policy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I press the Minister one stage further? Do the Government accept that overseas aid is a part of their strategy for British economic recovery, and will he deny the widespread belief, which is shared by many of his noble friends behind him, at least, that overseas aid is some form of charity or hand-out, but is rather an investment in the recovery of the economy of this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to forget that we actually spend about £1,000 million a year on the programme which he describes.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, will the Minister agree, as a matter of economic philosophy, that some aid may be regarded as an investment and some not?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, certainly we examine each and every aid disbursement in a critical way, and endeavour to minimise those from which the least benefit flows.

The Stock Market: "Dawn Raids"
11.16 a.m.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult the Stock Exchange Committee about what means, if any, can be devised to put an end to the so-called "dawn raids" on shares, carried out in secret, which injure existing shareholders, and thus prevent companies from carrying out one of their primary functions, which is to protect their interests.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the regulation of the stock market lies in the hands of the Stock Exchange Council and the other self-regulatory bodies. The Council for the Securities Industry promulgated rules on this matter in December 1980. They apply to substantial acquisitions of shares in listed companies, and they appear to tackle the problem constructively and sensibly.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that there is a certain section of opinion in the City of London which thinks that some legislation might be necessary in order to enforce the decisions of the Stock Exchange Council? They are not quite happy about the present situation, and will he have further consultation with them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, it is of course our policy to rely on the self-regulatory mechanism wherever that is possible, but wherever there is a clear failing or shortcoming in the self-regulatory mechanism we are always ready to consider what we can do by way of legislation, if that proves necessary. Indeed, there is of course a Companies Bill going through Parliament at the present time, in which there is reference to some of these matters.

Nuclear-Free Zones
11.17 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that over 60 local authorities have declared their areas to be "nuclear-free zones" and whether they will respect the decision of the elected representatives of the people of these areas.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand that resolutions along these lines have been passed by about 70 local authorities. As the elected Government we are responsible for national security, and we will continue to take any steps which we consider necessary to maintain this, including all those activities related to the deployment of nuclear-capable forces as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's deterrent strategy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is the official policy of the Labour Party that local authorities should reject the pretence of civil defence against nuclear war, and should oppose nuclear weapons being deployed in their areas? Will he encourage his Government to think again about their policy on this matter having regard to the considerable doubts that there are among many people about his Government's nuclear weapons policy, not excluding leading military figures?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am delighted to be informed of the present socialist policy on nuclear weapons. Of course, ever since the last war successive Governments of both parties have employed nuclear arms, including an independent deterrent. It is Her Majesty's Government's intention to continue this policy, and I should be very sorry, should the party opposite ever return to office, if they go back on what they did during their last term.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government not agree that even more important than having 60 British local authority areas declared nuclear-free zones would be if we could have 150 or so independent nation states, members of the United Nations, declared nuclear-free zones?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that is indeed a very nice idea, a very nice scenario; and, of course, through
1490
the United Nations we are working continuously on disarmament.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree—if he does, would he not also agree that it is important to make clear—that in the event of a nuclear attack upon this country those carrying it out would be most unlikely to respect the wishes of the elected representatives in these rather bizarre nuclear-free zones?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am quite certain that what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, says is correct. Perhaps one may also draw to the attention of the House that it is only 70 local authorities out of a vast number in the country which have so far passed this resolution.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in the presence of the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, is my noble friend aware that it is disturbing to many who have seen the Questions Order Paper in another place deteriorate to the point of being a farce, that in your Lordships' House the same trend is allowing us to get into that situation? Questions which, with one exception, are based purely upon party political ploys are not in accordance with the dignity of this House and many of us hope that that will not continue.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's question is concerned, it is not up to me to comment on what takes place in another place. So far as his second point is concerned, I hope that the House will keep to free speech so long as it can.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I endorse what the noble Earl has just now said? I believe that my colleagues have every right to put down Questions on matters which are of great concern to all of us.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on the question of free speech, can the noble Earl say how many local authorities in the Soviet Union have passed resolutions similar in nature to that referred to in the Question?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think that it will matter very much how many have.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that our electoral system is such that these elected representatives of the people are most unlikely to obtain the votes of more than 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the electorate and cannot therefore be said to be speaking for most people in the local authority areas? Can my noble friend say off-hand how many nuclear-free zones have been declared in the Soviet Union?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, off-hand I could not; but I have taken the gist of my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, arising from an earlier reply of the Minister, when he said that only 70 local authorities had adopted this attitude, is he aware that

1491
the last local elections returned local authorities, including the Greater London Council, which have taken this view and probably represent a majority of the people of this country?
The Earl of Avon; My Lords, the main point here is that very few of the local authorities have the relevant information to make the decisions that they are making, which must be in central Government's hands.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that any declaration, however well intentioned and however pious, is no substitute for a sound defence policy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if I may bring the House a little nearer to agreement on this point, would the noble Earl agree that this is a subject of immense seriousness which ought to be examined in detail by this House from time to time?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree that this is a serious subject. I should like to reiterate once more that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide on the measures necessary for defence of the country, and it is quite impracticable for local authorities to be involved in the decision where elements of our forces should go.

Education Bill
11.24 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Provision for children 16 to 19.
("—(1) The local education authority shall have a duty to inform itself of—

(a) all persons between 16 and 19 years whose special education needs are identified at that time, but about whom no statement has previously been made;

(b) all persons aged between 16 and 19 years about whom a statement has previously been made under section 7

and shall provide an award in respect of such persons attendance at such institutions of full or part-time education as shall be recommended.
(2) An authority shall not be relieved of the duty to make such awards by paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1980 where statements have been made about their special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 49, I should also like to speak to Amendments
1492
Nos. 50, 52, 53 and 69A. These amendments all have to do with young people between the ages of 16 and 19; that is, post-compulsory school age. The Minister said at Second Reading on 23rd June (at col. 979 of Hansard):
"The Government have acknowledged that it is not possible to extend any of the provisions in the Bill to the further education sector until the whole legal basis for the provision of further education has been reviewed and decisions taken on any necessary legislative reforms".
Even so, I am not happy that there is no provision in the Bill and I should like to remedy that. These new clauses are probing amendments to raise the issue.
Post-sixteen education or training, one of the priority areas or Warnock, has been completely excluded from the Bill. There is considerable concern among voluntary organisations about handicapped school-leavers, particularly at a time of high unemployment. Often owing to delayed intellectual development, missing out on schooling because of medical treatment or the development of a handicap, education is needed beyond 16 but not necessarily in a school. At present, the LEA does not have a duty to provide for SEN children except where the young person is registered as a pupil of the school. There is a great deal of concern about handicapped people being discharged from special schools and ordinary schools with no provision then being made or being sent to adult training centres and day centres where there is no educational training. Those of us with experience of educational sub-normal schools, both (M) and (S) know that the children slip back in the holidays when they are missing their educational provision if the parents are unable to keep it up, and that is often very difficult for them to do.
Honourable members in the other place were informed by the Government that LEAs have powers to make teachers available for adult training centres under Section 41 of the 1944 Act, and powers to make educational provision at ATCs under either the National Health Service Act 1977 or under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. However, in many areas such educational provision is not being provided often because of lack of co-operation between the Social Services Department and the Education Department and we hope that the Government will accept the recommendation in the consultative document The Legal Basis for Further Education which would turn this power into a duty, and in the meantime pass our Amendment No. 51.
I am pleased to see that the consultative document in paragraph 19 says that it should be the duty of an LEA to ensure suitable provision for over 16-year-olds in accordance with the aptitude, needs and preferences of these young people in school, in institutes of further education or to secure suitable provision elsewhere; that is, in another LEA or otherwise.
I should like to quote from a small passage from The Legal Basis for Further Education. Page 13, paragraph 19, says:
"As far as is possible, there should be no statutory bias towards one form of provision or another. in order that the most effective arrangements can be made in any particular circumstances; and, above all, any uncertainty in the present law (see paragraph 3 above) which might seem to oblige an authority to make provision in schools rather than further education should be removed. This implies that, in relation to

1493
this age group, any new further education legislation should be deliberately constructed to be on all fours with the requirements of post-compulsory schooling so that the legal provisions are, and can be seen to be, even-handed and complementary".
This is why in my Amendment No. 52 subsection 6(a) I refer to school or further education establishment. While not wishing to pre-empt the consultative process, there are several issues relating to special educational needs brought up by the document which may give rise to concern. For example, the consultative document recommends that there be no provision for making formal statements for people in further education (as there is in the Bill for school pupils) but:
"where a person who has been the subject of a statement while at school, the LEA should be under a duty to have regard to the need expressed in it, and, if it is not the same LEA that made the statement, have a right to see the latest statement made".
That is in paragraph 13.1 of the annex. if the statement is discontinued, what means will there be of ensuring that appropriate education is actually provided? This of course also raises the issues of discontinuing and destroying statements.
Secondly, the document recommends that if there is no previous statement the student or his parents should have a right to ask for an assessment of the student's special educational needs before further education is arranged for him, and the LEA should be under a duty to carry it out unless the request is unreasonable. It is for consideration whether the student should be given a specific right of appeal to the Secretary of State if his request is declined.
Again there do not seem to be adequate safeguards here. Parents and the young person should have an absolute right of assessment and appeal. I should also like to see more acknowledgment of the right of the young person to have his or her views taken into account, as provided for in Clause 4 of the Education (Scotland) Bill. That is provided for in my Amendment No. 52, which is taken very largely from the Scottish Bill.
Thirdly, the issue of mandatory grants for young people with special educational needs needs to be thoroughly discussed. With the present cuts in expenditure, disabled students are just not getting on to the courses and receiving the further education and training they require if they are to have any possibility of employment. The legal basis document, 1 am glad to say, recommends that no fees should be charged for those in full-time or part-time further education, beginning courses up to their 19th birthday. It is in my view a wicked anomaly that they ever have been charged there, when they are not in schools. My Amendment No. 49 covers this point and also covers those who might need a grant for home tuition, for correspondence courses or for the Open University.
To sum up, we want a compulsory appraisal as in the Scottish Bill—Amendment No. 52. We want young people to be properly advised in good time about what educational training they should have after the age of 16 following the end of compulsory schooling, whether in school or a FE establishment. We want the young person to be a party to any decision made if he is capable of making such a decision. This applies to the assessment and making of statements as well as educational provision. A strong argument in support of this is the existing law under the Family
1494
Law Reform Act 1969, Section 8, which provides for minors who have attained the age of 16 being capable of giving effective consent to medical treatment. We want there to be a possibility of maintaining a statement.
As I have said, these are probing amendments and it would be necessary, if these go into the Bill eventually, for there to be a definition of "young person". That is provided for in Clause 20—Amendment No. 69A. There would have to be consequential amendments to Clauses 5 and 8. Those were printed in the Marshalled List earlier but I did not move them on the earlier Committee day because I wanted the main debate to be on these new clauses. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support the noble Baroness in this amendment and in the series of amendments she has moved. She has touched upon a very important point indeed. May I say, thanks to the initiative of some Oxfordshire parents who belong to the National Society for the Mentally Handicapped, who threatened to sue the Oxford Education Authority for failing to provide education for young people between 16 and 19, that the right to their having such education was brought to the forefront. I would say, in tribute to the Secretary of State, that he supported those parents at once as soon as the point was brought to his notice, and I should like to express our gratitude to him for that. But it is not quite enough, in the context of this Bill, for that right to be acknowledged under the Education Act 1944 and then to leave the rest to chance.
The noble Baroness has put forward a procedure which does not leave the matter to chance but ensures not only that education is provided when there is a right to it but that those for whom it should be provided are brought to the attention of the local education authority, so the thing is properly buttoned up. I have often felt that we do wrong in going into too much detail in our legislation, but there are times when it seems to me that it is unavoidable at least to write in enough to establish people's rights and to ensure that public authorities perform their duties. Therefore, without committing myself to the drafting put forward by the noble Baroness, I should like to support her.
While mentioning drafting, there is one very awkward point which must be dealt with; because if we turn to Clause 20 on page 13, towards the bottom of the page we find in the definition of"child"—and the noble Baroness touched on this point—what could turn out to be a very frustrating provision which completely alters the law as it stands under the Education Act 1944. It could alter the law and its application for cases of this sort. It reads as follows:
"… 'child' includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 years"—
So far so good, but then we have these words—
"and is registered as a pupil at a school".
If those words are kept in the Bill, the amendments of the noble Baroness could have very little effect.
Baroness David: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I do not know whether he realises what my Amendment No. 69A says, which would go into Clause 20. It says:

1495
"('young person' means a person over compulsory school age who has not attained the age of 19 years.)".
It may be that that would not cover his point, but I was not quite sure whether he had noticed what was said.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness because I had not realised—I think, quite frankly, she was speaking a little bit faster than my brain could accommodate the matter—that that amendment was part of her scheme, but now that she has drawn it to my attention I think it would be an alternative way of doing what is necessary and therefore it may be that the way I suggested becomes unnecessary. This is a drafting matter on which we would welcome the views of my noble friend Lady Young. But, leaving aside the drafting for the moment, I think that in principle the noble Baroness, Lady David, has made an important proposal which deserves the support of your Lordships' Committee.
Baroness Young: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has moved Amendment No. 49 and spoken to a number of other amendments, all of which cover the 16-to-19 year olds. She is quite right in saying that is an important part of their lives. It is a matter to which of course the Warnock Committee drew attention, and I understand and respect her views and those of my noble friend Lord Renton on these matters. I was very glad she said that in fact these were probing amendments to obtain the Government's intention on this, because as she will know, it is a matter which was very fully discussed in another place. However, it is right that we should look at this in this Chamber.
Perhaps I might begin by explaining the present position and say that for 16-to-19 year olds who are still at school the local education authority will have a duty under the Bill to identify those with special educational needs, and all the provisions of this Bill will apply to them. Those who have left school are not covered by the Bill. The local education authority will still have responsibilities towards them and they will be obliged to take account of any demands for further education, as they would of a demand from any non-handicapped person or any child who has not got special educational needs. Those responsibilities derive from the 1944 Act and are not being changed at present.
However, as the noble Baroness will be aware, particularly as she has quoted from our consultation document on the legal basis of further education, the whole question of the legal provisions regarding further education is under review by a working group of officials from central and local government. Their report has been published and is the subject of widespread consultation. In the circumstances, we feel that it would be premature to impose a specific requirement at this stage because, although this is an important group of students, we would be imposing it in advance of decisions that we are about to take on further education more generally.
The noble Baroness raised quite a number of specific points which are covered by her different amendments. I hope very much that she and my noble friend Lord Renton, and others who are particularly concerned
1496
about this matter, will take the opportunity of the consultation document to make quite plain their view about these matters, because this is something that we want to know. Her Amendment No. 52 covers a great many very detailed proposals, and she will know that these are all the kind of matters about which we should like a view on our consultation document, and of which we would wish to take account.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I said again that it is our firm intention to make regulations as to the frequency of assessments under Clause 7(7), and to stipulate that a reassessment must be undertaken no more than two years before a child is expected to leave school. It will be important to tie this requirement to the anticipated school-leaving date, rather than to the child's 16th birthday, as required by the clause. Much can happen in a child's development between, say, the 14th and 17th birthdays, and we therefore need to consider how best to achieve as late a reassessment as possible in the child's school life, while avoiding the possibility of a child slipping through the net because he was expected to stay on at school but suddenly decided to leave.
On the noble Baroness's last amendment. No. 69A, on definition, which, clearly, would be necessary were the preceding amendments to be carried, the definition of a "young person" as so drafted would have been required in this legislation only if the provisions of the Bill had extended to young persons not at school. Of course, it is precisely because it does not extend to them that the definition is drawn in this way. Once again, I do not wish to suggest to the Committee that the Government think the present position is the right one. We have our consultation paper out entirely because we have to look at the whole of the legal basis of further education, and the children covered by this Bill are among those about whom we particularly wish to get the views of all interested parties I can give an assurance to the Committee that the Government will fully take them into account.
I hope that from what I have said the Committee will realise that I cannot accept the amendments, although I understand the reason for putting them down and I recognise that this is a very important area. I cannot accept them because of this consultation document and because of the uncertainty about the legal basis of further education, and it will be necessary to put this right before we can move on this other matter. But, again, I hope that those who are interested in this matter will not hesitate to write in with their views.
Viscount Ridley: May I add a word in support of my noble friend Lady Young on this matter, on behalf of the Association of County Councils? As has been said, this document on the legal basis of further education needs to be studied further before legislating in this Bill. I do not think there is any argument about the spirit of the amendment; it is merely a matter of timing. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether there is a possibility of legislation on this subject in the next Session?
Baroness Young: It would not be right for me to give any kind of undertakings about when legislation might occur. But I can assure my noble friend Lord

1497
Ridley, and other members of the Committee, that we are very mindful of the concern about this matter. It is a serious matter for the whole of the educational service—for other students, quite apart from students with special educational needs—and there will certainly be no unnecessary delay at all on the matter.
Baroness Gaitskell: I want to add only one sentence. Since there is so much concern about the matter it seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, implied a further sense of urgency is really very necessary. It is not something about which we can wait for long. It is extremely important at this time for our young people. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will bear that in mind.
Lord Renton: If my noble friend is right, that the Bill does what we want it to do, then one would perhaps be willing to be patient and not amend it in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, and might be willing to wait until the Government have made up their minds about this document on the legal basis for further education, and have made such further legislative provisions as are needed. But that is a fairly big "if". Speaking for myself, I shall want to consider very carefully between now and Report stage what my noble friend has said. I hope that she is right, because it would seem that we would have to wait some time before action were taken upon this document.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Ridley attempted to persuade my noble friend Lady Young to say when we might get legislation. But in the reality of parliamentary programmes, it does not seem that we would get it even in the next Session. We might have to wait two or three years for this. Meanwhile, the system, which we hope will be established and will be a good one under this Bill, will have got under way. I only hope that there will not be a gap in the arrangements. But I shall read my noble friend's speech very carefully.
Baroness David: I am very grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and for the qualified support from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and for the care which the Minister has taken in responding. I am quite prepared to believe that there are some drafting errors, although almost the whole of Amendment No. 52 and, certainly, the whole of Amendment No. 53 are taken from the present Education (Scotland) Bill. I am aware that local authorities have to pay attention to the demand from 16 to 19 year-olds, but this does not mean that they always provide what is wanted.
The Minister said that it was premature to put in a specific requirement. I must admit that I am still not happy to have nothing about that age group in this Bill. We may have to wait for more than a year or so before there is legislation. Even if we put something into this Bill and there was legislation in the next Session, it is possible to repeal. I notice that in the repeals schedule there are three sections of the 1980 Act which are repealed, and this is only 1981. I shall, of course, read very carefully what the Minister has said but, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am not entirely happy about leaving the situation. I may well come back at Report stage with slightly different
1498
amendments covering this area, but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
11.48 a.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Adult Training Centres.
. A local education authority may make available to any adult training centre the services of any teacher who—

(a) is employed by them in a special school or in an ordinary school having one or more special classes; and

(b) has agreed to provide his services for the purposes of the arrangements.").

The noble Baroness said: I have already touched on this amendment, which deals with a local education authority putting some educational input into adult training centres. There has been a lot of enthusiasm for this amendment from a great many different areas and, although I know that the Government are against it, I am still very keen to have it in. I should just like to say something about the National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped. They produced a pamphlet in 1977 entitled Day Services for Mentally Handicapped Adults, which suggests that adult training centres—I shall refer to them as ATCs in future, in order to save time—should be renamed social education centres and should adopt a more positive and carefully planned educational structure. Education, in its broadest sense, should enable them to develop their own personalities and abilities and to become aware of, and able to participate in, what is going on around them. Development cannot be left to chance. It must be consciously fostered.
The pamphlet defines education as everything which helps an individual to learn and develop and argues that this process should be encouraged in all mentally handicapped students. Not all but many handicapped people enter ATCs from school and they continue to require teaching above the age of 16. Many are a long way below their full learning potential and need further help in several aspects of education; for instance, social skills, basic literacy and numeracy and vocational training. Outside educational support should be sought.
It is suggested that the initial point of contact with the local education authorities should be the county adviser for special education whose knowledge of available provisions should be fully exploited. The centres should also seek advice on particular subjects, such as reading (where the adult literacy scheme might be able to help), drama, music, art, physical education, language and communication. The local educational authorities' advisers for visually and hearing impaired people should also be used, where necessary.
In short, a strong educational input is needed. We may not be able to do at once all that that particular document published by the mentally handicapped group suggested, but certainly we can make a start by asking the local education authorities to make teachers available from the ATCs. The AMA support this. I am not going to be convinced by the Government saying that this can already be done. I want it to be written into the Bill.
I was interested in the document which the Association

1499
of Directors of Social Services put out after the special needs document was published. They referred to paragraph 53 of the special needs White Paper and said that they dislike the Government's rejection of the Warnock Committee's recommendation that local educational authorities should be made responsible for a specific educational element and for saying that it is not practicable. Those are the words of the White Paper. These centres will be run efficiently only if they are run under single direction. That again is from the White Paper. Neither of these statements is supported by any evidence, the directors say. They go on:
"A number of progressive authorities—for instance, Liverpool —have introduced qualified teachers from the local education authorities into day centres for the physically handicapped with very real advances during the last few years, and many parents of mentally handicapped young persons are keen and anxious for such a development".
It may well be that under the present legislation this can happen but I do not believe it will happen so readily if this is not written into the Bill, and this seems to me to be a very appropriate place to have it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: On this occasion I wonder whether the noble Baroness is on good ground. As I understand it, the Government have already made it clear that local education authorities have the power to make teachers available to adult training centres. The burning question is whether there are enough teachers in general who are trained in giving instruction to the handicapped of various kinds so as to fill the various places that will be needed. But certainly the power is there.
Baroness Young: As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, this amendment was tabled in another place and was discussed there. I am glad that it has been retabled because it provides me with an opportunity to place on record what is a rather complicated legal point. I think it needs to be understood in this House as well as in another place and outside Parliament. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Renton.
The Government readily accept that local education authorities should have adequate powers to make teachers available to adult training centres. When this question was considered in another place the Government undertook to introduce a suitably worded provision to that effect. When that undertaking was given we understood that a local education authority's powers to make teachers available to adult training centres stemmed from the provisions of Section 41 of the Education Act 1944 and might depend on the detailed contents of each local education authority's scheme for further education. This, however, is only part of the story. Local authorities also have powers to make educational provision in adult training centres under either the National Health Service Act 1977 or under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. So in fact local authorities have powers that are contained in this amendment which the noble Baroness has tabled.
Adult training centres are run by local social service authorities under Section 21 of and paragraph 2(1) of
1500
Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. Under this provision the social services authority already, therefore, has the power, subject to the appropriate approval from the Secretary of State, to make facilities for training available and to pay for persons to give training. What I think in this case, as in other matters which we have debated, will be the effect of this Bill when it becomes an Act is that once again it will force local education authorities and others to look at all these provisions. Inevitably they will look, as they must under the Bill, not only at the provisions for children who are still of compulsory school age; they will also look at other provisions to see how they are working.
I take entirely the point made by the noble Baroness. I think it is important that there should be this educational element; I do not believe that there is any disagreement among us on that point. There is the power to make this possible under existing legislation. What I think is required, as in so many of these cases, is the ability to make it available as this becomes possible. I believe that one of the consequences of the passage of the Bill is that this area will be looked at, as will others. I hope very much, because I believe that the amendment is unnecessary, that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Viscount Ridley: Is not the purpose of the amendment met by Clause 3 of the Bill? I regret that I was unable to be here when that clause was discussed in Committee. However, I think that the point is covered by Clause 3, as agreed to.
Baroness Young: Clause 3 covers provision otherwise than at schools. The noble Baroness's point, which I think is directed particularly at adult training centres, is a matter which she raised, I think I am right in saying, in the original debate which we had last January. At that stage I was unable to give an answer because we had not got information about the other relevant Acts of Parliament. It is a separate point from Clause 3, which is concerned with education at home and with education in hospitals. It is an important point, but I believe that the present law allows it to be met.
Baroness David: I am not surprised by the reply from the Minister, although I am disappointed. Having myself seen what a tremendous difference the educational element can make in an adult training centre, I feel that is vitally important. However, as I have not had much support from the Committee, I shall withdraw the amendment. I do not guarantee, though, having thought again, not to bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Duty of health authority to notify parents etc.]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8, line 14, after ("authority") insert ("or a local authority").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. Frankly, I am a little puzzled as to why the obligation

1501
which is placed upon "authority" in Clause 10 is limited to the health authorities. The functions which precede Clause 10 of the Bill are to be performed mainly by local education authorities. It so happens that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 10 are matters which I think will be within the knowledge of local education authorities or of social services departments. At any rate, it will be within the knowledge of local authorities rather than health authorities. And local authorities will nearly always be closer to the parents than an area health authority. Indeed, sometimes they will be closer to the parents than a district health authority.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that if these rather important obligations are to be placed upon authorities it would sometimes be appropriate for the local education authority or the social services authority to discharge those functions. This is really a probing amendment and if my noble friend thinks that there is a good point in it she might care to consider it from the point of view of drafting and also that of substance. I beg to move.
12 noon
Baroness Jeger: I should like to speak briefly in order to support the noble Lord on this amendment. I am sure it is absolutely essential for the successful carrying out of this Bill for there to be the closest co-operation between the social services and the education and health services. It seems to me that we shall be losing an opportunity of encouraging the closer integration of the services. I have myself seen from the town hall level, how, with the best will in the world, officers in different departments working to different budgets, even though they may meet for case committees, do not always maximise the potential help available because of these divisions. Therefore, I think if we can somehow get across the joint responsibility of the other authorities and not leave this clause as it is, apparently relating to the area or district health authority only, it will be beneficial.
I should also like to ask the noble Baroness if there is any way in which she could more closely identify the officer with whom contact is to be made. The words "area or district health authority" do not seem to me sufficiently to pinpoint the responsibility and, as officials and parents are trying to learn how to use this Bill, I am wondering whether she can give any advice on that point also.
Baroness Faithfull: In order to save time and not to go over the same ground again, I wonder whether, under this amendment, I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 59, in which it is recommended that as well as notifying the local education authority, the local social services department should also be notified.
I seek to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Committee to the administrative structure within local government and I think that has been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. As your Lordships must know, I regretted very much that the terms of reference of the Warnock Committee did not include the needs of families of children with learning difficulties as well as the children themselves. A child spends seven hours in school and 17 hours at home. Therefore, the child must be seen in the setting of his family
1502
and the setting of his school. As the local government structure stands at present there are two departments involved in the needs of children with learning difficulties—the education department and the social services department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved an amendment concerning the adaptation of school buildings. For some physically handicapped children there also need to be adaptations to the home, which must be carried out by the social services department under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Therefore, it is essential that the social services departments also are notified by the health authority of children with a physical disability.
With regard to the services for children under five, I am not clear to which department this responsibility would fall under this Bill. Nursery schools of course stand referred to the education department but day nurseries and day centres stand referred to the social services department under the Health Services and Public Health Act. The hours of day nurseries enable mothers to go out to work or assist those mothers who are unable to cope with their children. The pre-school playgroup movement, which does much for handicapped children, is funded both by the Department of Health and Social Security and, to a lesser extent, by the Department of Education.
There is the question of holidays for children who are impaired and handicapped. These are usually arranged by social services. Finally, there is the area of counselling for parents. Is that the role of the education welfare service or is it the role of the social services? I am sure the Minister will say that the relationship between the two local authority departments and their overlapping roles must be worked out by the local authority, but at some time the structure and relationship and role of the two departments, for the sake of the parents, will have to be more closely defined.
For the social services department to receive a copy of the notification sent to the education department of children with learning difficulties will cost nothing and may help the parents, and will probably bring together the relationship between education and social services in this difficult area. Therefore, I would submit that both the social services and the education department should be notified by the health department. I have spoken to this amendment now because it is in the same area and I hope to save the time of your Lordships.
Viscount Ridley: Although I do not object in principle to the amendment which has just been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to which we seem to have moved, I wonder whether it is right that this sort of Bill should legislate as to how a local authority's committees should work together. Only in the case of inner London are social services departments and education departments not in the same authority and my own experience is that liaison between the two is—as it should be—extremely close nearly all the time and, however desirable, I do not think that this is the sort of thing about which we should legislate. It seems to me that we are interfering too much in the functions of local authorities.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I did not intend to intervene in this debate at this stage but I feel that I must make one point. There is a lack of liaison between the various departments and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, there should be this coming together, to which my noble friend also referred. In this Bill we are trying to work more closely together and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she replies, will see that there is this lack of liaison. They should work together as one team.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Faithfull, in her remarks on the two amendments. I feel very strongly that households in which someone is disabled deserve the clearest possible directions as to where to get the information and counselling they require. They need streamlined channels through which to work and any spare capacity that is available for help and ingenuity is badly needed at home. Life for those families can be very confusing already, without receiving inquiries from, possibly the wrong department, and from more than one department. We should hope for the maximum information to be obtained from one clued-up source, because too often people find themselves having to tell the same story to several officials, each of whom can only deal with part of a problem. That is not much fun when the question being dealt with is the delicate and personal one of a young disabled child. It will indeed be helpful if the education and social services departments will collaborate more than they do in practice—to the very fullest in fact—on this particular point.
Finally, I am afraid I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ridley; co-operation does not always take place. I support these two amendments which were so ably spoken to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Baroness Young: My noble friend Lord Renton in moving the original amendment has drawn attention to what I think we would all agree is a very important point; namely, the need for co-operation between local authority services. I would like at the outset to give an assurance that this is a matter that we believe is best dealt with in post legislative guidance and a matter to which we will draw everyone's attention. However, as my noble friend Lord Ridley quite rightly said, with the single exception of the ILEA, social service and education departments form part of the same local authority. The effect, therefore, of this amendment would be to require a local authority, which includes the local education authority, to inform the local education authority of the existence of a child with special educational needs. As my noble friend Lord Ridley said, outside of Inner London this amendment would not have any meaning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me a quite specific point about the meaning of the "officer of the authority in Clause 10 subsection (b). As I understand the position, after the re-organisation of the health service, there will be a co-ordinating doctor, akin to the specialist in community medicine, who deals with child health. It will be this doctor who will pass information from the health authority to the local education authority. The clause as drafted will cover any officer of the local authority who may come into contact with the child.
Baroness Jeger: May I intervene for a moment to get this absolutely clear? Would it not be better to put into the Bill"with a medical officer of the authority", because as it stands it could be a clerk or any non-qualified person who would have the duty.
Baroness Young: I think we must remember that at this stage we are talking about primary legislation. This clause has been written into the Bill since the Bill was originally published, following upon debate in another place. We think it is an important new clause, covering very important new principles. I think we have to allow in primary legislation for the judgment of those in the hospital services, local authority services and social services, to allow them to use their judgment about the appropriate person. I am quite sure that the effect of this would be that the information would be passed on by someone who was responsible for the assessment, not somebody who may perhaps have typed the letter. I think that is a very important distinction, and I am quite sure the hospital authority would regard it as inappropriate for other than a properly qualified person to pass on the information.
Perhaps I might now turn to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. We understand the intentions of the amendment, but of course we have before the Committee an education Bill. We have accepted this new clause, which will ensure that local education authorities receive early notice of children under five years of age who are likely to have special educational needs. We do not feel it would be an appropriate use of the Bill to ensure that a child with a disability or handicap is brought to the notice of all the services which might have a part to play at some stage. I believe the noble Baroness would recognise that social workers clearly have a most important and valued role in support of some families with a handicapped child, but they will not necessarily have a role in all cases where children have special educational needs. Therefore, this is an area once again where we need to take a commonsense pragmatic approach, which I believe will ensure that real co-operation will take place where needed.
The noble Baroness also raised a number of other points, about adaptations for housing and so on. Could I just confirm that social service authorities have responsibility for identifying, assessing and advising on the housing needs of individual disabled people, including adaptation of their homes, in collaboration with health authorities. This responsibility covers all people of whatever age, and it therefore covers children under five years of age. Social services also have duties in respect of meeting the need for aid and adaptations in the homes of individual disabled people where satisfied that they are necessary for their safety, comfort or convenience. The Government accept the importance of good communication between different departments, but we believe that the Bill as drafted makes this point, and it would not help or add anything to the legislation to write in more detail than is already in the Bill. I hope with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: Speaking for myself, I am convinced by what my noble friend has said, so far as my own amendment is concerned. She has persuaded me

1505
that it is not necessary and would not be of assistance. I would not dare to express an opinion on the small controversy that exists between the two noble Baronesses, both of whom are noble friends. So far as my amendment is concerned, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 8, line 14 after ("authority") insert ("or family doctor").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, and perhaps I may speak to amendments Nos. 56 and 57 at the same time. The purpose of this amendment is to try to make clear the part that the family doctor is supposed to play in carrying out the requirements of this Bill. I am sure we are all aware that it is the family doctor who is traditionally the first point of contact when there is anxiety about a child's health and wellbeing.
I raised this point in a previous amendment, but I am sorry to say that I am still unclear as to the intentions of the Government in this matter. I am trying to look at the thing from an ordinary surgery point of view, where the mother brings a small child to see the family doctor. He is usually, in my experience, very busy. If he feels that he needs further help, then the usual point of referral is to the consultant at the nearest hospital. At what point in this chain is the provision of this clause—the duty under this clause—to be brought into effect. I want to know whether the BMA has been consulted, whether hospital doctors have been consulted as to their acceptance of this very new and additional responsibility. All the family doctors I know claim that they already have far too many letters to write. The proposal that they should write some more must be clearly justified to them in the interests of their patients, and I am sure that every doctor is guided primarily by that condition.
When I asked the noble Baroness on 6th July what exactly was to happen, I said, in col. 553:
"Is the family doctor to get in direct touch with the education authority and not go through the local area health authority?"
That is, when he is dealing with the child who may be helped by this Bill. The noble Baroness replied:
"No. What would happen would be that the family doctor would tell the parents of his suspicion that the child had some special needs, and the parents would trigger off the mechanism. They could ask for an assessment."
I am not happy about that explanation, because with great respect—and I know the vast majority of parents are only too anxious to do anything that is suggested to them to help their child—there could be serious failures in this direction. The family might move. Parents might not be very literate. It may be a divided broken marriage with all sorts of distracting tensions that do not always put the child first, and I know of such very sad cases. I know of cases of mothers being given a letter to a hospital and not taking the child. I know that those are exceptional cases, but we cannot ignore them.
If the only responsibility of the family doctor in this connection—the family doctor to whom we are saying for the first time, "You are involved with the educational needs of children under five—is to tell the parents that they have something called a right of assessment, then I do not honestly think that it is good
1506
enough. We shall not know whether the parents follow it up. The family doctor may be so busy that he has never even heard of this Bill. After all, doctors get enough to read without reading legislation passed in Parliament. Therefore, we could have a serious gap in the provisions that we are trying to make.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure me. But we are all deeply concerned that the family doctor who is the closest person to the people concerned, who knows the family as a whole and who knows the parental difficulties and strains, as well as understanding the clinical problems of the child with whom he is dealing, should be fully integrated with the provisions of this Bill. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some further information. I beg to move.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before my noble friend responds, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, whether she is really right about the family doctor. In the type of circumstance which she has described I should have thought that the family were probably patients of a group practice where pieces of paper would move around, rather than there being one individual doctor looking after one individual family. I do not believe that, in many of the conurbations, the individual set-up which we used to recognise 20 years ago is, in fact, in practice. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could help me on that point with her vastly superior knowledge of the matter?
Baroness Jeger: Of course there has been a considerable increase in group practices and we are all very pleased about that. Indeed, it was referred to in the Warnock Report. But within many of the group practices and partnerships people do register with one particular doctor and I think that the use of the words "family doctor" is still relevant whether he is in a group practice or in a partnership or working, as some do, individually. I am sure that I would be out of order if I went on to a further examination of the organisation of the National Health Service. I have used the words "family doctor" because I think everybody understands what they mean.
Baroness Gaitskell: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Jeger on this matter. It seems to me that where you have a family doctor who is kind and understanding and who knows the family, there can be nothing but good in consulting him about education for the unfortunate children who have any kind of disability. It seems to me that there can be nothing against that point of view. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. If a family doctor is any good he will be good as regards this matter, and many of them are very good indeed.
Baroness Young: I hope very much that I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, the assurances for which she has asked. I should like to say on this matter that district health authorities will be asked in guidance to ensure that general practitioners in their districts are aware of the importance of informing parents of their right to request an assessment. We cannot, in any case, place doctors under duties which

1507
could run counter to their code of conduct in respect of doctor/patient relationships. So there is a very practical reason why we cannot write this into the Bill. But in guidance we can try and make sure that parents know of their right to call for an assessment should it be needed. Also—and I believe this to be very important—as I am sure many of your Lordships will appreciate general practitioners have a contractual relationship with the health service and it is not possible for us to place duties on them by means of this legislation.
However, I should like to give an assurance and perhaps I am stating the obvious in stating it now, that although this is an education Bill we, of course, consult with all our colleagues in Government because it is a Government Bill. Therefore, there will have been consultations before the legislation and there will be full consultation with the BMA and others before guidance is issued following this Bill.
There might be one other further point of reassurance that I can give and that is there is already in most areas a possibility for comprehensive assessment of very young children which is often carried out by a district handicap team who have identified a child as having a handicap. That assessment process includes a considerable social services input including both the hospital social work department and the local social services department. The establishment of district handicap teams was recommended by the Court Committee on Child Health Services in 1976. The role of these teams is to bring together representatives of health, education and social service for the purpose of providing a multi-disciplinary assessment and support service for handicapped children and their families. The Department of Health and Social Security has encouraged the establishment of district handicap teams by the issue of a circular and the indications are that good progress is being made. That information is quite helpful in relation to the last series of amendments that we debated and also for the recognition that there are a number of parts of the health service which are directed to identifying and helping children under the age of five.
As I have already indicated, the district health authorities will be issuing guidance to family practitioners following this Bill to make them aware of their responsibility to inform parents of their right to ask for an educational assessment where their child has been identified as having a handicap or as possibly requiring some special education. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will wish to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I am sorry but I must disappoint the noble Baroness because I do not really feel that she has answered all the points that were raised. For instance, I still do not know what is to happen to the child who goes from the family doctor to the hospital consultant. I think that throughout this Bill we are getting too much guidance and too little law. Time after time we have raised from all parts of the Committee very serious questions about the Bill only to be told that it will all be put right in guidance. The noble Baroness has done that again this morning. In fact she says that in the guidance they will make sure
1508
that parents know their rights to ask for an assessment. That is not the real world. Is every parent of a handicapped child sitting around and suddenly writing off because he or she has heard something in the newspapers about the right of an assessment? It does not work that way.
If the parents' rights are to be put into something called guidance, how does the guidance get to the parents? I can understand that the guidance can go to the BMA —and as I mentioned previously I am concerned about hospital consultants as well—but how on earth are harrassed parents in these difficult situations supposed to get this guidance delivered? That is a question which I cannot answer myself and I do not think that the noble Baroness has answered it. Therefore, I would like to test the feelings of the House by dividing.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to make two points because I think that there is a basic misunderstanding about this amendment. If she reads Clause 10 she will see that it is designed to identify children under the age of five who might have special educational needs. She says, "How will the parents know?". She is right in saying that almost certainly the first person to tell the parents will be the family doctor. The family doctor will be informed because the district health authority will draw his attention to the need to inform the parents. But in an Education Bill it is not right to put an explicit obligation on family doctors, which, of course, is a matter for the Health Service. I think that this is an important point to recognise.
Baroness Jeger: As regards that, I should gladly have withdrawn my amendment if the noble Baroness had accepted the underlying anxieties and had promised to do something on Report or at a later stage to cover these points. She said in one connection that there was this problem of confidentiality between doctor and patient, but that must apply equally when a school doctor or a hospital doctor is involved with a patient. Yet that does not seem to me to come into consideration. I am sorry, but I must press this amendment to a Division. I beg to move.
12.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Gaitskell, B.

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Banks, L.

Gosford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hampton, L.

Bishopston, L.[Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Collison, L.

Ingleby, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L

Jeger, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Leatherland, L.

1509

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,B.

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McCluskey, L.

Underhill, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

oram, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lawrence, L.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Loudoun, C.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blake, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cathcart, E.

Mancroft, L.

Chelwood, L.

Marley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Melville, V.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Derwent, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Radnor, E.

Dundee, E.

Reigate, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Richardson, L.

Elles, B.

Ridley, V.

Faithfull, B.

Robbins, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochester, Bp.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Gormanston, V.

Selkirk, E.

Haig, E.

Soames, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hives, L.

Teviot, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
12.39 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 8, line 19, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, which looks simple enough, and indeed is. It is merely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 60, which is the amendment of substance. May I suggest that it might save time and be convenient if we were also to discuss Amendment No. 60 and Amendment No. 60A, which is the Government amendment on the Supplementary List, because they all cover the same ground?
This matter of giving parents support after identification of the child's handicap is a very vital one for the parents. This matter was discussed at considerable length in the other place, when the need for notification to the parents of suitable support organisations was approved by all parties, and the Government promised to consider the matter further. That is why we now have Amendment No. 60A before us today. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lady Young, for tabling amendment No. 60A and for thus letting us know at
1510
Committee stage, rather than later, how the Government feel about this matter.
Frankly, there is not very much difference in substance between the Minister's amendment and my amendment. But, with humility, I venture to say that the drafting of my amendment is very much more simple. Her amendment adds a new subsection (2). It creates a rather strange situation. Whereas the clause itself begins:
"If an area or district health authority",
the new subsection proposed by the noble Baroness would also begin:
"(2) If, in a case falling within subsection (1)".
I wonder if we may go into this point, although not at great length because it has been covered so fully in the other place. I believe that one should place on record what the position is and the need for something to be done.
In the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children a survey was carried out of 606 families—some of them were one-parent families and some of them were two-parent families—in order to establish how old a handicapped child was before the family joined the society. Only 4 per cent. of the families said that the child was six months old or younger; 6 per cent. said that the child was aged from six months to one year; only 27 per cent. said the child was between one and five years of age; and in 41 per cent. of the families, the child was between 5 and 16 years of age. In 18 per cent. of the families the child was more than 16, and 4 per cent. of the families were counted as "Don't knows".
That means in effect that very few parents sought support of the National Association for Mentally Handicapped Children at any rate before their mentally handicapped child was some years old, and not until a long time after they discovered that the child was mentally handicapped. Quite frankly, we in the society were rather shocked by these figures. The survey was conducted by the Government sponsored Policies Studies Institute, and so it was a reputable survey. I hope that I do not have to persuade your Lordships that it really is desirable that parents should be notified of a suitable support organisation. The question is, how should this need be met?
Fortunately, we in this county have a splendid range of voluntary societies at national and local levels which cover a wide range of handicaps. They include the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, and various other forms of physical handicap are covered in addition to what is done by RADAR. For example, there are special voluntary organisations dealing with spinal injuries, and there are present Members of your Lordships' Committee who know so much more about them than most of us do. Multiple sclerosis and other forms of physical disability are also covered by specialised voluntary bodies.
I should just like to say a word about MENCAP. This organisation covers the whole of England, Wales and Northern Ireland with over 500 branches. The branches are run by our local volunteer members but we also have 12 regions—Northern Ireland is one of them—where we employ salaried trained staff, administrative and otherwise. Generally speaking, in the

1511
case of each handicapped child whose parents are anxious to get support we would be able to help within our present organisation. May I say, since my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel is present in the Chamber, that MENCAP is not making a takeover bid for Scotland, because Scotland has excellent arrangements of its own.
We know that in addition to the various voluntary bodies, government departments and other organisations can also give support to any case in which the existence of a local support organisation is not established. It is for that reason that I very much welcome an improvement to both the Government's amendment and my own, represented by Amendment No. 61, in the names of Lady David, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lord Banks. Amendment No. 61 refers not only to voluntary organisations but also to government departments and other public bodies as well. This amendment has the further important advantage that the parents of handicapped babies would have to be notified twice; once upon identification and again after six weeks, in writing. I wish I had included the words "in writing" in my own amendment.
I should have thought that this was not a matter into which we should rush to a conclusion on this occasion. I believe that even my noble friend Lady Young may wish to consider further her own amendment, partly from the drafting point of view, but also to see if she feels that she could go some way towards meeting the points of substance contained in Amendment No. 61. We should not rush into this, but we should carefully consider the matter and return to it again at Report stage. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support this amendment. MENCAP's experience has been that after parents have been notified that their child is handicapped, stress and unhappiness has been greatly reduced by the early provision of helpful information, advice and counselling from various organisations.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In giving support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Renton I can only follow the comments which I made at Second Reading. I was rather taken by my noble friend's amendment in the sense that it has the great virtue of simplicity, with the exception of one part of the wording which refers to:
"the nearest suitable support organization".
This implies that in acquainting parents with their child's handicap the local authority may put a seal of approval on an organisation. I do not necessarily believe that a local authority should say "This organisation is good" or, obversely, "This organisation is bad". I believe that it is the duty of the local authority to inform parents of the existence of organisations.
While my noble friend has spoken rather particularly of the better known and the national organisations with branches up and down the country, when I was speaking at Second Reading I was concerned with the less formal groups of parents who have not perhaps achieved a national status but have found consolation and benefit in joining together to discuss their problems. When I looked then at the Government's Amendment
1512
No. 60A I shared the view of my noble friend in that it starts with this unhappy word"if". That does not imply to me any obligation at all.
In that amendment, as in Amendment No. 61, we have the expression" the authority are of the opinion", and in Amendment No. 61"which in the opinion of the authority". I do not believe that it is to be left to a matter of opinion. I believe it should be quite clearly set down that the authority have a duty to advise parents of handicapped children of organisations and bodies, whether they are governmental, national, or informal, which are available in the area that may give help. After all, the organisations, whether they are formal or informal, have their own duty upon themselves to say "Yes, we can help" or "No, we cannot help you". That is where I think there should be some change over these three to embrace that kind of situation.
Lord Banks: When we discussed this matter on Second Reading I expressed support for the principle which lies behind this amendment and also behind Amendment No. 60A and Amendment No. 61. I reaffirm that support today. But an amendment in similar terms to Amendment No. 61 was moved by my honourable friend Mr. Clement Freud in another place. I still prefer the wording of that amendment because of its comprehensive nature, to which attention was drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I attach a certain amount of importance to the fact that Amendment No. 61 provides for the notification to be done twice at an interval of six weeks, the reason being that the parents may well not be in an emotional state that they take in on the first occasion when they have just had the handicap confirmed the significance of the information about the support organisation, but six weeks later it comes again when they are more adjusted to the situation and ready to take advantage of such help and assistance as is available.
I welcome the fact that the Government have tabled an amendment to incorporate the general principle, but it seems to me that it is lacking in certain respects. It of course limits the operation to educational need, and it may be said that since this is a Bill dealing with education it is right that that should be so. But then there would still be a need to place the duty on the health authority to consider needs running wider than the purely educational. The reference to two notifications is of course not included in the Government amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out, and the Government departments and public bodies are not included either, nor the necessity to put the notification in writing. I was interested in the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made that perhaps we could still see whether from these three amendments we could incorporate elements that would provide a more satisfactory amendment than that which at the moment is proposed by the Government, welcome though it is.
Baroness Young: The Government brought forward this amendment, as I promised at Second Reading, following an undertaking that we gave in another place, that we would table an amendment in these terms, and that we have done. I must confess that I was hoping that it would have received a welcome on all

1513
sides as we are meeting a point that was asked for. It is a matter of regret that it did not appear on the Marshalled List, although tabled some days earlier, but I am glad at any rate that it appears on the supplementary list and that everyone had an opportunity to know that at the first possible opportunity we had tabled this amendment.
Its effect will be to require area or district health authorities to inform the parent where they are of the opinion that a particular voluntary organisation is likely to be able to help the parent in connection with any special educational needs his child might have. The discussion which took place in another place was of course concerned with voluntary organisations quite particularly, because of course the statutory organisation will be aware. So that it is important to identify the need that we were trying to meet.
As the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, made clear we are very aware of the support which voluntary bodies and organisations can give to parents. We recognise that this support can be particularly helpful for parents who have newly discovered that they have a child who is handicapped. We recognise that this is an important point, and we were therefore glad to table an amendment to meet this particular point.
It is always probably rather dangerous for Members of your Lordships' House who are not lawyers to talk about drafting. I will of course look at the amendment in the light of Lord Renton's remarks, but perhaps I might say to him that it would be difficult for the Government to accept his amendment. First, because it refers to "support organisations", which I am advised is not a suitable term to cover what at any rate everyone had in mind in another place and I thought in this place, because "support organisations" embraces both statutory services as well as voluntary bodies.
Secondly, because the Government believe that health authorities should be given more flexibility than this particular amendment would allow to meet individual circumstances. Parental needs will differ, as will the appropriateness of a particular local voluntary organisation, and we believe we should not be requiring health authorities to give parents information which might be irrelevant to their needs, or which might raise their expectations falsely in some particular way or other.
I believe that it is important to be flexible in all these matters. One of the aims of the Bill has been to get away from the rigid categories of handicap, from the rigid categories in which everything was determined in previous Acts of Parliament, and to try to implement in a legal framework the Warnock concepts. This we have tried to do. This particular amendment I have tabled has been at the request of many noble Lords and indeed many honourable Members in another place who were concerned that parents should be put in touch with voluntary organisations when they had first discovered that they had a handicapped child. This is something we accept entirely, and our amendment does that, and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Renton: Would my noble friend care to comment on the point made in Amendment No. 61, and I think mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about the desirability of a second notification?
Baroness Young: In all this—I think it is a point that will come up when we discuss the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy—I entirely see Lord Banks' point that parents may be so unhappy at the stage when they first hear this that they may not fully understand it and may wish to come back. That is why we think the very formal approach of putting all this in writing and then repeating it in writing at a later stage is not really as satisfactory as someone speaking to them and discussing it with the necessary information. I hope in that way that we would in fact meet Lord Banks's point, which I do take.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for suggesting that we have a general discussion. I wish to stress straight away that I am delighted that the Government have tabled an amendment following the assurance in another place to try to do something on these lines. I had intended to say that I would be bold enough to suggest that Amendment No. 61 perhaps did a little more than either the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, or the Government's amendment, but after Lord Renton's splendid speech I hardly need say anything in favour of it.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there should be a duty, in respect of Amendment No. 60A, to inform and that it should not be left to the opinion of the authority whether to inform the parents that the child may have special educational needs and draw their attention to a particular voluntary organisation. The Government amendment specifies
"advice or assistance in connection with any special educational needs that the child may have".
I presume that wording is necessary because the Bill is about special educational needs and that it would be interpreted in the broadest sense possible. I am thinking, for example, of the very successful MENCAP parents' support group in Southend. Apart from initial early visiting if the parents wish, the parents come together for monthly meetings to discuss, for example, day-to-day problems, the importance of play, the use of toys and family management, and in particular the problems of siblings; the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has often talked about the importance of the family. I hope the Minister can confirm that any help the relevant voluntary body could give in relation to the child and the education of his family would be interpreted as being "in connection with" his special educational needs.
The two points in favour of Amendment No. 61 have already been discussed at length; first, that the parents are to be informed of the whole range of statutory as well as voluntary services available—and I think Amendment No. 60 was more widely drawn in an attempt to cover that as well—and, secondly, that the authorities are to inform the parents, again in writing, after six weeks—as the Minister said, in some cases parents are too shattered to take things in initially. She said that perhaps it was better not to be informed just in writing, so perhaps it could be in speaking and in writing.
Baroness David: The Government amendment refers to "a particular voluntary organisation". What is the reason for that? Supposing there is no branch

1515
locally of the particular handicap that might be suitable to the parents of the child concerned. Would they be referred to the national body? What is the purpose of talking about" a particular voluntary organisation"?
Baroness Young: I can clear up that point immediately; it may be that there is not a local branch of a particular national organisation, and therefore it would be right to refer the parents to the national body itself. The amendment has been drawn in these terms for there to be a degree of flexibility. It would be difficult to ensure that every health authority would keep a comprehensive library up-to-date of every voluntary organisation and all its local branches. That is the sort of practical difficulty of which one must take account when drafting legislation, and that is one reason why our amendment is drawn in the terms it is. It would enable the health authority to put the parents either in touch with the local branch, where appropriate, or the national branch, or if there did not appear to be an appropriate organisation at all, then following the discussion with one of the members of the district team or with the health visitor, the parents may be given some other advice, so the amendment has been drawn in these terms to be as flexible and, we hope, as useful as possible.
Lord Renton: I am grateful for the support which has been given to the general principle underlying my amendment and the others. I am sure that untold parents in years to come would be grateful for that support if they knew because they will need support themselves, and as this is the 34th anniversary of my wedding, I would say as a parent that I too am grateful for that reason as well.
My noble friend Lady Young said there was no need to refer to statutory organisations, local or central Government bodies, because they already had a responsibility. Too true they have, but will the parents always know they have that responsibility? Will they always know to which of the various authorities they should turn for support? I very much doubt it. That was why, when in Amendment No. 61 that point was specifically spelt out, it seemed worthy of the Committee's attention. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas about the possible unsuitability of the word "suitable" in my amendment, which makes me lean towards Amendment No. 61 still more.
What are we to do? This is not a confused situation and I respectfully suggest that I am given leave to withdraw my amendment; that noble Lords should be persuaded to support the Government amendment for the time being; and that we should all come back to this on Report with two hopes in view, first that my noble friend Lady Young will consider both the drafting and the substance of the Government amendment and, secondly, that all of us will think of ways in which we too may possibly improve it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Drumalbyn): My Lords, is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Several noble Lords: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: Referring to the other amendments and bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it seems to me that there are varying views about the Government amendment. If there is to be reconsideration of the matter, I do not think we should give token approval to the Government amendment but that the Government should withdraw it temporarily—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Order. I am afraid that we must now pass to another subject in Amendment No. 59, and it will be open to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to make his remarks after that.
Lord Renton: I do not understand how that has happened. We could not pass on until I had withdrawn Amendment No. 58, and I was only just asking leave to do so.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I though I had put the Question and that permission to withdraw Amendment No. 58 was given. The procedure is that we next discuss Amendment No. 59, and then the noble Lord will be able to withdraw No. 60, if that is his wish.
1.8 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 59:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert ("and social services department").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Renton drew attention to the fact that I had two friends in your Lordships' House, the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and that I disagreed with them. They are still my friends, but I still disagree with them.
My noble friend Lady Young said this was an Education Bill. I agree it is, but I say and will continue to say that without the right home conditions it will not be possible for the child to be educated in school; that is, unless the home conditions are such that the child can continue to live there. Indeed, on Second Reading—the reference is at column 486—the Minister spoke about a spina bifida child. If a serious spina bifida child is to go to school, it must equally have the home adapted so that it can stay at home as well as go to school. However good the school, if the home is not equally adapted, the child will not be able to remain in the community.
Administering the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—I have administered it over a number of years—is very difficult and time-consuming. Home adaptation for a child takes a long time, and I think it quite necessary that in order to carry out its duties the social services department, as well as the education department, should be notified about handicapped children by the health department. If the community health physician dealing with handicapped children notifies the education department, that department then has to notify the social services department. That would probably happen in a very good authority, but often it does not happen. If the community health doctor simply sends a duplicate copy of the letter to

1517
the social services department that is not encroaching on bureaucracy, but is simply making for greater efficiency.
The social services departments have to plan nurseries and day centres. If they do not have the figures and other necessary information at an early stage—and I stress that it must be at an early stage—they will not have the wherewithal to plan services. It would seem a simple matter for the health people to send a letter to the social services department at the same time as the education department is notified.
I should like to consider further what the Minister has already said on this matter, and to read Hansard tomorrow. So for the time being I shall not move the amendment, but will consider the matter again at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
1.12 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert ("and (c) inform the parent of the name and address of the nearest suitable support organisation which deals with the child's specific handicap").
The noble Lord said: In order to give the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, an opportunity to say something I shall formally move this amendment, but I shall not speak to it, and I shall withdraw it as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for kindly giving me the opportunity to be in order. I had thought that the debate on the other amendment was continuing. I was fascinated by the debate on Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 60A. Obviously there is considerable support for Amendment No. 61, on various grounds, some support for Amendment No. 60, and marginal support for Amendment No. 60A. I feel that if there is to be a reconsideration, the Government could easily take back their own amendment and discuss with their officials and advisers the substance of the other two amendments. The Government could then come forward on Report with a Government amendment which should more or less satisfy all points that have been expressed. I think that that would be a tidy way to deal with the matter, and I am trying to save the Government embarrassment, which of course is a very praiseworthy effort on my part.
Lord Renton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) If, in a case falling within subsection (1) above the authority are of the opinion that a particular voluntary organiisation is likely to be able to give the parent advice or assistance in connection with any special educational needs that the child may have, they shall inform the parent accordingly.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move my amendment. I must tell the Committee that I am really not in a position to withdraw it. The Government have very carefully considered this matter, because they recognised that there was a very real point to be met. They have brought forward an amendment which they have considered most carefully. I would remind
1518
members of the Committee that the amendment has been tabled now for some days, and that I took the opportunity to meet noble Lords so that we might discuss any points of concern, and none of these points was raised on that occasion. I recognise that it is appropriate to raise points at the full Committee stage, but if we are really talking about what I think we all agree are very serious matters regarding the conduct of the business, I think it not unreasonable that I should now feel that I cannot withdraw the amendment for further consideration. However, I shall try to clear up one misunderstanding about it.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that there is not a duty on the health authority. There is a duty on the health authority to get in touch with a voluntary organisation if it feels that the organisation is the appropriate voluntary organisation to help parents. This seems to be a clear-cut responsibility. The discussion in another place centred on voluntary organisations. The Government have fulfilled their obligation, and I think it would be quite wrong for me to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to say one or two words on the amendment, because I presume that if it is accepted, Amendment No. 61 cannot be called—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 61 could be discussed along with Amendment No. 60A, but Amendment No. 60A has been moved.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I hope it will be in order if I say a few words at this stage. I am sorry that the Minister does not feel that she can withdraw the amendment for the time being for consideration and then try to come back with a more effective and more acceptable proposal. As I said earlier, I very much appreciate that the Government have brought forward the amendment. I think the Minister will recall that when we had the meeting that she very kindly arranged I had not seen the amendment. It was only later the same evening that I studied the amendment and realised what I believe to be its implications. Can the Minister say whether there will be the broadest possible interpretation of the child's special education needs, as I asked earlier?
Baroness Young: I have no reason for supposing that there will not be. The suggestion is, for some reason that I do not quite know of, that the health authorities will take the narrowest possible interpretation of their duty and make for the maximum difficulty with the parents. I ask the Committee to consider the reality of the situation. After all, we are discussing what is a very distressing position. We are discussing parents who are very distressed because their child has been born with a handicap, and I am quite sure that the health authorities will want to do their best for the parents in relation to this Bill, as they do in other matters. Why should the health authorities not do that? What they cannot do is to put the parents in touch with the local branch of an organisation when in fact it does not exist. That is the reality of the situation regarding voluntary organisations. They do not necessarily have branches in every part

1519
of the country. Parents can be put in touch with the national organisation. I believe that that will be done, and I believe, too, that this point will be interpreted in the way that the noble Baroness wishes.
Baroness David: I hope that the Minister does not think that we are not grateful to her for having called the meeting the other day, since we are extremely grateful. It was very useful indeed. She kindly handed us the amendment, but I do not think that we really considered it in any detail, nor indeed along with the other amendments that were down on the same subject. So I am sorry that she will not withdraw it, but if she insists on moving it now, then at any rate we can endeavour to amend it at the Report stage.
Lord Renton: The last remarks of the noble Baroness are very important. We should keep this matter open. Speaking for myself, I never saw Amendment No. 60A until this morning, and so I hope that my noble friend does not think that we are in any way being churlish or ungrateful. She is right in asking us to add the amendment to the Bill now, but I say that entirely without prejudice to our returning to it on Report, and proposing amendments to it. I say yet again that she might well wish to consider whether her amendment is as perfect as it should be.
Lord Banks: I wonder whether I could say, very briefly, that I, too, welcome, as indeed I said a few minutes ago, the fact that the Government have brought this amendment forward, even although I prefer, for the reasons I gave, Amendment No. 61. I had not myself—and it may well be my fault—seen the amendment that we are now discussing until this morning, and this seems to have been somewhat similar to the experience of other noble Lords. That is the reason why we feel that perhaps some further consideration should be given to it, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that can still be possible at Report even though this amendment is accepted in its present form at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
1.22 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) if an area or district health authority, in the course of exercising any of its functions in relation to a child aged from 5 to 19 forms the opinion that he has, or probably has, special educational needs, that authority shall notify the local education authority of its duty to provide full-time education under section 3 of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to try to ensure that children in hospital, or at home after being in hospital, are not missed and will get the appropriate education for their needs. Education while in hospital is the right of every child over the age of five. In England and Wales it may be provided either in hospital special schools, under Section 9(5) of the 1944 Act, or in other ways, under Section 5(6) of the 1944 Act, which enables an LEA to provide education otherwise than at school.
The nature of the educational provision in hospital is the product of the individual hospital, its patients, methods, history and geographical position. On any one day there may be in hospital over 18,000 children aged between 5 and 19. There are no recent figures to indicate what proportion of these children receive education while they are in hospital. NAWCH, the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital, in their survey of hospital facilities of 1973, estimated that fewer than two-thirds of the wards admitting children provided any educational facilities.
There is a further group of children who are not receiving any education because they are dispersed in adult wards and their presence is unknown to the responsible education authority. Many of these children may be studying for public examinations, like the boy from York who this year was preparing for A-levels. No educational provision whatsoever was made during his six-week spell in hospital in Oxford despite representations by his parents.
In conjunction with the Thomas Coram Research Unit, NAWCH is investigating the provision of education for children in hospital, whether in adult or children's wards. Changes in the pattern of paediatric care have resulted in many children being admitted to hospital for short periods on a recurrent basis, rather than having to spend a long period there on a single occasion. When such children are discharged from hospital they may still be unable to return to school, like the 10-year-old boy in North London who was receiving treatment for a multiple fracture and was absent from school for almost four months. During each of his hospital stays he was taught by the hospital teacher, but while he was at home no provision was made for his continuing education.
NAWCH's experience indicates that many parents do not know that their children are entitled to receive education in hospital, and more particularly when they return home but may not be fit enough to go back to school. All such children and their specific circumstances are, however, known to the health authority which is providing their medical care. No one within the authority, however, has the specific responsibility to bring these children to the notice of the relevant education authority, nor to inform their parents that education is available. In such circumstances it is quite possible for children to have no education for weeks, or even months. In the absence of the relevant information regarding the possible availability of an educational facility other than in school, parents are thus prevented from fulfilling their statutory duty of ensuring that their child receives education.
The Warnock Report devoted a whole section to education in hospital and recommended:
"Arrangements should be made for all children to receive education as soon as possible after their admission to hospital".
With regard to home tuition, the Warnock Report states:
"When a child has been discharged from hospital but is unable to return to school, the hospital and local education authority should invariably collaborate in good time to ensure that he continues to receive a suitable education without a break".
While recognising that this Bill does not alter duties imposed on parents and local education authorities by the 1944 Act, this amendment is an attempt to ensure that the provisions of this Act are fully implemented.

1521
If the Minister is unable to accept this amendment in its present form, can there be some assurance that the issue raised will receive full consideration and that relevant legislation will be formulated to take account of it? I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I fully understand the point that the noble Baroness has raised. Where a child has been admitted to hospital for treatment and is then discharged in order to receive further treatment at home or to convalesce before returning to school, it is important that he should receive education if he is well enough to receive it; and as a matter of good practice the school at which the child is registered should establish links with the child and the hospital staff, and also with the parents, and should be made aware of his discharge. It is then the reponsibility of the school to inform the LEA of the child's position (if indeed he is expected to be at home for any length of time, and not simply a matter of days) in order that the LEA may exercise their power under Clause 3 of the Bill to provide home tuition in conjunction with the school.
I recognise, too, the desirability that there should be education for the child while he is in hospital for a short time. I believe that the parents have a role to play in this area, although I can understand that their anxieties about a child's health may override their concern about his education. However, I believe that it is very important that there should be a strong link between the school and the hospital, the medical and the teaching staff, so that the child's education may be maintained, and the parents and the LEA.
In view of what the noble Baroness has said and of her concern, I will certainly ensure that guidance on this matter is included in any guidance that we issue after the Bill, and that it will deal with the whole question of communication and co-ordination between the services responsible for a child who has been admitted to hospital, both during the period of time when the child is in hospital and the period of time when the child has been discharged from hospital and may be convalescing at home. Both, I think, are important, and I will give that assurance on that point.
Baroness David: Having aired this, which I think is a real problem, and having had those assurances from the Minister, I will withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Special schools and approved independent schools]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I am seeking to delete this subsection because we believe that this clause is too restrictive and reduces the rights of a parent. The educational placement of a handicapped child is often based on a variety of factors, and it is often difficult to match the school precisely with the needs of the child. It seems a rather cumbersome machinery for a parent to appeal to the Secretary of State for a transfer, particularly if the parent has found an alternative
1522
placement. The existing school attendance laws are sufficient, and there is consequently no need to single out disabled children and others in special schools. The parents of disabled children in special schools should be under the same obligation as parents generally, and should not be discriminated against, as they are in this subsection.
The Secretary of State, in a letter to Alf Morris, said that the purpose of this subsection was to deter the bad parent from taking precipitate action to withdraw his child from a special school against the child's best interests, and this may be the Government's argument; but I do not think that we should legislate for the few bad parents. Most parents are only too anxious to do what is best for their children and in their interests. I propose that we delete this subsection. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Subsection (2) is a re-enactment of Section 38(2) of the 1944 Act. The point that the noble Baroness has raised is that we are making an unacceptable distinction between the parents of children at special schools and other parents. I deeply regret that anyone should believe this is so and hope I can persuade noble Lords that our reasons for including this provision in the Bill are solely in the interests of the child and to protect the continuity of his special educational provision.
We should first remind ourselves that where in future a child is registered at a special school he will have been through a process of careful assessment, and will have a statement of his special educational needs and of the provision proposed to meet these needs. The placement will be with the parent's agreement or, where it is not, the parent will have been made aware of his right to appeal under Clause 8 before the child's admission. Bearing all this in mind, I think it is desirable that a parent should only withdraw a child from a special school, where he is settled and receiving the special educational provision he requires, after the LEA has had the opportunity to consider and judge the parent's case for withdrawal. It may be that the child's needs have changed and that, following reassessment, there are grounds for the LEA to cease to maintain or alter the statement made for the child; or it may be that the parent proposes other arrangements—perhaps private—for the child's special educational provision. It is, of course, important that the LEA satisfies itself that these arrangements are suitable. The parent has access to the Secretary of State if he is unhappy with the LEA's decision to refuse consent.
It is by no means the intention of this provision that a parent will be prevented from pursuing a sincere wish for an alternative placement for his child, or to enable the LEA to ride roughshod over the parent who has genuine grievances about his child's special school. The LEA must clearly find out why a parent has withdrawn his child from school or failed to let him attend regularly, before making any decisions about their further action. I understand that the existing provision in the 1944 Act has not occasioned any problems but has been useful with bad parents in deterring them from taking precipitate action against the best interests of their handicapped child. The provision has the advantage in such cases that the LEA can take immediate action under Section 39 of

1523
the 1944 Act where a child has been withdrawn by his parent, whether formally or by dint of letting the child's attendance lapse, without indulging in lengthy school attendance order procedures which might otherwise be used by the bad parent to damage, perhaps unwittingly, the best interests of his handicapped child. The existing provision has been very rarely used, but I should not like to see it removed from this Bill.
I hope that with what I realise has been a very full explanation the noble Baroness will understand why it has been written into the Bill and why circumstances that will surround the decision about the choice of school for a child with a statement will be particular to that child and therefore this would be an appropriate provision within his interests. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): May I say a few brief words in favour of this amendment? All the voluntary organisations and also the Advisory Centre for Education are very much in favour of leaving out this subsection because they feel that it is discriminatory. I should like to ask the Minister whether she does not feel that we ought to move forward from the 1944 Act, which was drawn up at a time when the policy was that if you were handicapped you should go to a special school, where possible, and only to an ordinary school where that was not possible. Now the whole process is reversed.
Baroness Young: Of course, I recognise—and I hope the noble Baroness does—that this Bill is a great advance or the 1944 legislation. We have done everything that we can to ensure that the parents are involved at each stage in all these procedures, including the appeal to the Secretary of State.
One has to recognise in legislating that whereas I am quite sure the overwhelming majority of parents will be fully involved in the arrangements and will be satisfied and will be doing all that they can to ensure that their child has the best education that is possible for it, inevitably there will be some parents who will not take this view. We have only to read accounts put out by other organisations, such as the NSPCC, to recognise that unfortunately there are such things as bad parents. It is simply a long-stop provision in those cases. It is not to be entered into as a first resort—on the contrary, I would hope very much it will not to be used at all. The evidence is that it has been used very little. One has to face the fact that we have handicapped children who may be handicapped children with bad parents, and, in the interests of the children, this provision should stay in the Bill.
Baroness David: The arguments are what I expected. I cannot say that I am very happy with the Minister's answer. I shall not withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
1.36 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("; and
(c) the school undertakes not to permit teachers to administer corporal punishment to the child.").
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 63A and 63B together. The purpose of the amendments is to ban the use of corporal punishment of handicapped children in schools. Putting it like that it sounds almost incredible that it has not been banned before and it is intolerable that there should be a need to ban it and that corporal punishment should still go on. It is absolutely incredible that there should be any opposition. Yet all these statements are true.
Perhaps I should make my personal position plain. I am opposed to corporal punishment on anyone on almost any occasion. I say "almost" because I do not believe that there are many rules except general ethical ones which are valid for every occasion everywhere. The general rule in this case is so near to generally applicable that it would be right to make it the law as it is in every European country with the exception of Ireland. If there is a strong case for banning corporal punishment in schools generally, there is an overwhelming—almost irrefutable—case for banning it against handicapped children. The fact remains that corporal punishment is used against handicapped children. Of course it is not used on a large scale. I would not wish in any way to try and exaggerate what the problem is. But there is much more than enough.
For instance, Essex which, like some other local education authorities, produces to its great credit statistics—and I am not holding Essex up to pillory it, I am just taking an example—recorded 23 canings in special schools in 1979–80. I have details of individual cases of handicapped children being corporally punished in distressing circumstances. I do not intend to harrow the Committee with them. I shall just assume—rightly—that all of us have imaginations, that we know that this practice goes on, that we all deplore it and all want it to stop.
We know that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is against it. She said in the special Standing Committee in another place:
"I believe that the use of corporal punishment of handicapped children is wrong".
If it is wrong, surely it ought to stop. If it ought to stop, it is probably our duty here and now today to stop it as soon as we have the opportunity.
Having said that, and having claimed, I hope not wrongly, that there is general support for the principle I have put forward, what are the objections to the particular amendment? If there are any no doubt they will come out in the debate, but I have been able to identify a couple. First, there is the old one which came up in the general debate on corporal punishment, about leaving it to the discretion of the professional expert, the teacher. The teacher, so the argument goes, is a trained professional and deeply aware of the problems of the children. No rule, I concede, is absolute and it can best be left to the teacher's discretion to choose what kind of punishment is needed.
I have spoken on education in this Chamber for 12 years now and have a high regard for the teaching profession as a whole; but the record shows that there is a small minority who, confronted with overwhelming pressures—and in this particular case let us remember the overwhelming pressures that there are on teachers

1525
in dealing with handicapped children—are not able to cope, who do make the wrong decisions and the wrong judgments and who would be helped by a ban on corporal punishment. It is a sad but understandable situation, and I think it is our job to see that the sadness of the situation is not taken out on the children, and particularly on handicapped children. That is the more general argument.
The second argument I have come across against this amendment splits into two. In this Bill we are trying to integrate handicapped children. That is the way the argument goes, and we accept it; but that does make it very difficult to differentiate between handicapped and non-handicapped children in ordinary schools. The argument says, first, that the teacher will not necessarily know in the heat of the moment in an integrated school who is handicapped and who is not. That is the first part of the argument. Secondly, it is said that if he decides not to beat a handicapped child because he is handicapped, that will be discrimination; and discrimination is one of the things we are trying to do away with in the Bill.
The first of those suggestions, that the teacher will not necessarily know who is and who is not handicapped, is bizarre in the extreme. Our education system will indeed have collapsed if teachers, even in the biggest schools, do not know enough about the children they are teaching in any particular class so as not to know the difference. Indeed, I should have thought that a decision to inflict any kind of corporal punishment, whatever view you take of what the law should be, is such a serious one that quite clearly no teacher would dream of either inflicting corporal punishment or ordering it to be inflicted unless he or she had gone absolutely thoroughly into the background of the case and of the child concerned. The whole basis of this Bill is that our schools are good enough and our teachers are good enough so that handicapped children can be integrated into the ordinary schools, and the argument I have quoted against my amendment goes totally against that supposition.
As for the question of discrimination and the suggestion that we are discriminating between handicapped and non-handicapped children, I think that was dealt with in another place in the same Committee when Mr. John Hall was a witness. He is the principal of a further education college dealing with spastics who are also educationally subnormal. He said succinctly in evidence:
"One of the main points of integration is supposed to be that pupils may begin to realise that others have different needs."
In producing this Bill we are not saying that all children must be treated the same. I am sure the Government are not saying that, because if there is one thing which seems to me absolutely basic to Conservative views on education, it is that all children are different and have different needs and should be catered for according to those needs. That is the basis of the Conservative belief in the degree of selectivity—and how much more does it apply in a situation like this?
We must not discriminate against the handicapped, but there is no reason, in a very difficult situation like this where the dubiousness of using corporal punishment at all in schools is widely acknowledged, why we should not have some form of discrimination in favour of the handicapped. Ultimately, I do not
1526
think any children need to be beaten, but in the meantime I would settle for a recognition that handicapped children certainly do not. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: We wish to support this amendment very strongly. Because it has been moved so comprehensively and so ably by the noble Lord, I propose only to say that we completely endorse what he has said. I will save your Lordships' time by not repeating the arguments he has put forward, except to say that of course we look forward to the time when our schools will come into line with most European countries and forbid corporal punishment altogether. I have never been able to understand why our children are supposed to be naughtier than those of countries across the English Channel where corporal punishment in many cases has been totally forbidden. I do not think there is any evidence that it does the child much good, and certainly it does the teacher no good, especially in the prospect of a teacher beating a handicapped child. That must suggest something very unacceptable about the teacher.
I also think it upsets other children, because a perfectly good child might be very distressed if a mate of his who had been naughty is hit by a teacher. I know there is an argument that we should not divide these children into two lots, but within the confines of this Bill I am sure we shall be told by the noble Baroness that we cannot possibly legislate for the total abolition of corporal punishment in schools: that will belong to other legislation. I submit, however, that within the confines of this Bill, and in view of what we are attempting to do to improve the circumstances of handicapped children, we should make a start here with the children who are in special need. I am sure that that will be one step towards the total abolition of corporal punishment in our schools, and I for one will be very glad when that day comes.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: It is obviously tempting to be utterly sympathetic to this amendment, but I noticed that both those who have spoken in support used the phrase"handicapped children". In fact this Bill deals with a great deal more than handicapped children. It deals with children with special educational needs: that includes a wide range of maladjusted children with major problems of discipline. This Bill may cover one child in five, according to all the estimates. So what we are saying here is that for 20 per cent. of all children who may be or may not be in ordinary schools corporal punishment is to be barred, but for the other 80 per cent. it remains in the discretion of the teaching profession. I am not disagreeing with the intention that handicapped children, as such, should not be punished, but I think that we should be a little careful in putting this into a Bill which may cover 20 per cent. of the children in our schools.
Baroness Young: I am sure the whole Committee has listened with very great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said in speaking to both these amendments. He has quite properly outlined the legal position concerning the use of corporal punishment and indeed the view that has been taken by the Government in this matter.
Whether we like it or not, we live under a devolved

1527
system of education. We have always, I thought, regarded this as one of the strengths of the education service. In fact, we have contrasted it with continental practice, where it is a centralised service in which the state, in some countries, lays down in very considerable detail what children shall learn and how they shall learn it—something which I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, as a Liberal, would not wish to see copied in this country. Yet he is proposing in this Bill without any discussion, so far as I can see, with local education authorities, with teachers or with anybody else who is involved, that we should insert into the Bill at this stage these two amendments covering something on which we both know there are very divided views. We have heard one expression of opinion from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who has had very considerable experience of this matter.
Because we live under this devolved system of education, the use of corporal punishment is a matter for the discretion of individual head teachers, in the light of the circumstances and in the light of individual cases. None of us sitting in this Committee can speak for every single individual case in every school in the country, because we do not know. We hear of some cases. We do not hear of other cases. The head teacher is responsible under the law to the governing body for the day-to-day administration of the school, including the maintenance of discipline. His discretion is, of course, subject to any guidelines laid down by the local education authority. But the governors are not in a position to police the operation of a school, or to oversee such matters as restrictions on corporal punishment. That is the legal position and the Government believe that, in our devolved system, this is the right and appropriate position to take on these matters.
We have all considered the question of corporal punishment and one of the things that one has to remember—and I think that the noble Lord said this —is that corporal punishment is used when there is great pressure on teachers. I have no doubt that this is the case. It is always worth reminding oneself that, even if we dislike corporal punishment very much, there are other punishments which are not corporal punishments and which can be meted out to children, but which can be equally objectionable. But at the end of the day—short of writing into the Bill a great many other things—we have to leave the whole question of discipline to the discretion of heads of schools, under the guidance of any guidelines which local education authorities may lay down.
I believe that it would not be appropriate at this stage to tackle this major subject. It is a fact that the two amendments which the noble Lord has tabled would have the effect of banning corporal punishment of children with special educational needs in maintained ordinary and special schools and in independent schools, but he has left outside of his amendments non-maintained special schools which are frequently used by local education authorities. I am sure that this is a matter which, had he recognised it, he would have put right, but it is a major technical defect of his amendments and they, therefore, do not achieve what he
1528
wants. But I hope he will feel having aired this point —I understand his view about it—and having had it discussed in the Committee, that he can withdraw the amendment, because it is a very big issue which is not appropriately settled in the Bill that we have before us today.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wonder whether I may intervene briefly in speaking against this amendment. I run across a lot of children with very great difficulties, which are the subject of amendments today, and it seems to me that those in charge must have the means to restrict, guide, or in any way deal with those in their care, without inhibitions of the law. Some noble Lords may not have had the, perhaps, doubtful privilege of themselves trying to cope with children who are not like other children. Nobody wants to lose his temper with the children and it is very rarely done. But if we put this amendment into the Bill, making it possible that anybody who, for example, slaps a child can be taken to court for that, in these particularly difficult circumstances, it will be restricting those who are doing their very best to look after the children in the best possible way. With my noble friend, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): May I say a couple of words? I am not in favour of abolishing corporal punishment within the ordinary school system for children with special educational needs only, although I am in favour of abolishing it generally. But I wonder whether the Minister could indicate how she would look on an amendment applying to pupils in special schools only; or perhaps she might wish to think about how she might feel about it.
Baroness Young: This is a matter which raises a great many issues, both in special schools and in ordinary schools. It would be difficult to single out special schools, because the whole object of this Bill is to have integration wherever possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, the Warnock Committee has indicated that up to one in five may have special educational needs at some time and, therefore, for ever more, we should be isolating special schools from the others. It is a very big matter for debate. I recognise that corporal punishment is something on which people have very strong views, both for and against, but it would be quite wrong for me to give an assurance that the Government would look at this matter at a later stage.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am very sorry about that last answer from the Government. I should have thought we had got somewhere today if, bearing in mind the reservations which some people have about ordinary schools, and about discriminating between the different kinds of pupils, we could, nevertheless, have gone away with some hope that at Report stage we could, at least, establish the case in special schools themselves, where there is no serious argument. But since we have had no encouragement from the Government and I do not wish to waste the time of your Lordships' House in future, by bringing back something which obviously stands no chance of being

1529
accepted, we must consider this amendment as it is on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, whose experience is so great, was pitching the problems a little high. As the noble Baroness quite rightly said, the Warnock Committee said that, at some time in their school career, one in five would have a particular problem of the kind that we are dealing with in this Bill. That is very different from saying that 20 per cent. of children in schools are likely to come into this category. It would be far lower than that at any one time.
I take the points that the noble Baroness made about the devolved system and about Liberals attachment to devolution. One of the major problems of noble Lords on these Benches is, quite often, the campaigning from Liberals in the country to get things put into Bills as national law. When you say to them,"But surely we believe in devolution. This should be left to local government or whatever it is". They say,"Yes, but not in this particular case". Having had to deal with that over a long period of time, I have come up with my own formula, which is that there is a level of what can be perhaps grandiloquently but nevertheless validly described as human rights which it is absolutely right to defend at the national level. Then as much as possible of everything else is devolved. I think that physical violence against handicapped children in our schools falls into that first category. Therefore, I as a Liberal make no apology for trying to put this into the Bill.
How many years will it be before there is another Bill into which a clause like this could fit as naturally as it does into this one? It is a Bill about the education of handicapped children. If we wish to make a change at any time, this is the time to make it. I cannot believe that the opposition to it, either within the professions or anywhere else, is other than very small. I suggest to your Lordships that we should take this opportunity to put these amendments into the Bill.
The noble Baroness rightly pointed out the faulty drafting of the amendment, for which I apologise. If your Lordships choose to put this amendment into the Bill now, I undertake to put the drafting right at the Report stage.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I just say that although many of us do not agree with corporal punishment we are in an awkward position. I do not think that this is either the time or the place for this paragraph to be put into the Bill, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has given; that if we are to have integrated schools, how are we going to distinguish between a child who is handicapped and a child who is not handicapped? But that is not to say that I agree with corporal punishment.
2.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hale, L.

Amherst, E.

Henderson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Banks, L.[Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barrington, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bishopston, L.

Leatherland, L.

Caradon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller.]

Collison, L.

David, B.

Peart, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Underhill, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gosford, E.

Walston, L.

Grey, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Loudoun, C.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Blake, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

De Freyne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Radnor, E.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Richardson, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ridley, V.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Gormonston, V.

Selkirk, E.

Greenway, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63B not moved.]
Clause 12 [Approval of special schools]:
2.10 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that—

(a) the composition of governing bodies of non-maintained special schools shall conform, as far as is practicable, to the requirements of subsections (6), (7) and (8) of section 2 of the Education Act 1980;

(b) each non-maintained special school shall have its own and separate governing body").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment aims to make non-maintained special schools have the same sort of governing bodies—each to have one and to have almost the same representation on them as in maintained schools. I had hoped not to have to bring

1531
forward this amendment because at Second Reading the Minister said, at column 983, that the Government had given a firm undertaking that non-maintained special schools would be required to have governing bodies, including parent/teacher representation, as a condition of their approval by the Secretary of State. However, there has been no sign of this amendment being tabled and therefore I have tabled this one.
I hope the Minister will be able to accept it because it seeks to establish an important point of principle in the Bill and to ensure adequate protection for children attending non-maintained special schools. There are a lot of these. We have 112 non-maintained special schools in England and Wales which cater for 82 per cent. of all blind children, 45 per cent. of deaf children and 32 per cent. of all handicapped children attending residential special schools. So we are talking about a very important category. These schools are almost entirely dependent upon public funds yet as the law stands at the moment they are virtually autonomous and may select their own governing bodies according to their trust deed under the 1959 regulations. A number have no parent governors and under present regulations teachers are not allowed to be governors. Not all even have local authority representative governors. This amendment seeks to bring them into line with special schools in the maintained sector.
The second part of the amendment, paragraph (b), would implement the Warnock Committee's recommendation that each special school should have a single governing body. At present the wording of the Handicapped Pupils at Special Schools Regulations 1959 is such that the governing body of a charity is deemed to be the governing body of each of the schools it administers. This means in principle that the number of schools which can be governed by a single central body is unlimited. This is an unsatisfactory situation. Without a governing body there is no protection for children faced with expulsion or suspension and no procedure to ensure that changes in the school not covered by the regulations are consistent with the needs of its pupils, many of whom are placed there and paid for by local education authorities. In the special and independent school sector handicapped children must be offered the same protection as children in ordinary schools, and this amendment suggests the line upon which the principle can be established. I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: I should like to add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady David. I think this is something that the Association of County Councils felt was necessary and would be helpful and I hope that the Government can accept it in principle.
Baroness Young: As your Lordships will be aware, the Government are in full agreement with the principles of this amendment. During debates on what became the 1980 Act and during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, we have made it clear that we want parents and teachers involved with non-maintained special schools to have as far as possible the same rights as their counterparts in the maintained sector.
However, it is not a straightforward matter. The 109 non-maintained schools vary considerably, not
1532
only in size and circumstances but also in the way they are established. Most involve charitable trusts, some of which have interests beyond the running of the school; a few are operated as limited liability companies and two are subject to Private Acts of Parliament. Before the Bill was introduced we looked in some detail at the way in which these schools are governed and we consulted the bodies maintaining them. We came to the conclusion that, if we were to achieve the objective of parental and teacher involvement, a variety of arrangements would be necessary to take account of the varying legal situations and that it would be impracticable to attempt to deal with all the complexities in primary legislation. It became clear that only by a system of individual approvals could we ensure that all schools got as near to the requirements of the 1980 Act as is practicable.
This is why we propose to use Section 12(2) of the Bill for this purpose. I need not remind noble Lords of the importance of the regulations made under Section 12, which empowers the Secretary of State to specify the requirements to be met by maintained and non-maintained special schools as a condition of their approval, or continued approval, as special schools under Section 9(5) of the Education Act 1944, as amended by this Bill. What we propose is that these regulations should include a requirement that arrangements approved by the Secretary of State exist for the involvement of parents and teachers in the running of each non-maintained school. We shall expect schools to make arrangements for the election of parent and teacher governors unless their individual circumstances make this election impracticable. The sort of circumstances I have in mind here include very small pupil numbers, in some cases as low as 30; a residential school drawing pupils from a very wide area; or a rapidly changing school population, as in some hospital schools. If it is impracticable, the school concerned will have to make other arrangements which ensure that the viewpoints of parents and teachers are available to those making decisions affecting the running of the school, for example by arrangements analogous to those permitted for hospital special schools under Section 2(6) of the 1180 Act. Difficulties arising from the employment of teachers by the managing trust, which relate to the general principles of trust law, will also have to be taken into account when schools seek approval of their particular arrangements.
I must emphasise that in adopting this approach the Government are not looking for an easy way out. My department has written to the bodies which are responsible for non-maintained schools to tell them in outline what will be expected. I have no doubt that many of them will find that there are considerable problems to be overcome if they are to retain their status as special schools. We will be involved in scrutinising all proposals to ensure that they are compatible with the general principles and that the maintaining body has taken all possible steps to bring its arrangements into line with the 1980 Act.
I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept that the Government are totally committed to the principle of parent and teacher participation in the running of non-maintained special schools and that the arrangements which I have described constitute the best way of putting it into effect. With the firm assurance

1533
that the regulations will be drawn up to include requirements as to the existence and composition of the governing bodies of non-maintained special schools, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment to allow us a little more flexibility in deciding how we approach this difficult task.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for a reply which I must say I find extremely disappointing. I think it is rather surprising that we had this commitment at Second Reading, less than four weeks ago, that the Government give a firm undertaking that non-maintained special schools will be required to have governing bodies including parent/teacher representation, and that they had not discovered already that it was going to be such a complicated matter. I would point out that my amendment says"as far as is practicable". I understand that it is suggested, in line with Clause 12(2), that the regulations will do something about this. May I ask the Minister whether we shall see the regulations before Report stage, because obviously that would have a great effect on what our action would be at Report stage. I do think this is rather an important point, and I should like an answer to it, if I may.
Baroness Young: I would not like the noble Baroness to think that I am going back on what I said. It is our intention to make these provisions under regulations. I went into some detail because this is a very complicated matter. I am afraid it would be impossible to show her draft regulations before the Report stage because we are still consulting and they still have to be drawn up. There is no disagreement in principle between us, but we believe that we could not achieve this in primary legislation, but only under regulations. I would ask the noble Baroness to wait for the regulations. There will be no delay, because no one wants delay in this matter.
Baroness David: The regulations apparently will not appear before we have finished with the Bill. If we do not have the Third Reading until October, will they be available by then?
Baroness Young: I would give a guarantee that if they are available I would certainly show them to the noble Baroness. However, as she will know, it is an unusual procedure to have all the regulations in draft while the primary legislation is still going through Parliament. Regulations follow the primary legislation. I do not think that there is anything unusual about that. If the noble Baroness reads what I have said and if she considers the matter, she will see that there really are some very complicated legal matters to be examined and it really would be inappropriate to write something into the Bill which does not make legal sense.
Baroness David: Of course I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. Although I am not very satisfied at present, I shall, for the moment, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.21 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that, so far as practicable, it shall be a condition of approval as aforesaid that the like particulars to those provided for under section 8 of the Education Act 1980 shall be published for each school year by the like bodies or such persons as the Secretary of State may nominate.
(6) Section 9(2) of the Education Act 1980 is hereby repealed.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 65 and, at the same time, to speak to Amendment No. 66 because they really cover the same point. The effect of these two amendments is to ensure that parents get adequate information about the arrangements for special education in non-maintained special schools and independent schools by making the provision of such information a condition of approval under Clauses 12 and 13. The amendments seek to bring special independent schools as far as possible into line with the requirement for public sector schools to provide information under Section 8 of the Education Act 1980.
There are two points of qualifications. First, it would not be reasonable, we quite agree, to ask for all and precisely the same information that is required under Section 8 because some of it would apply to special and independent schools. Therefore, the words,"like particulars", are used and not the words,"in accordance with the provisions of Section 8". Secondly, the Secretary of State may nominate the person to provide this information. In the case of independent schools it would usually be the proprietor, and that allows flexibility.
In Committee and again on Report in another place the Minister gave an assurance that the provisions of these amendments would be included in regulations. At the Report stage the Minister said that in the conditions under which local education authorities can send children to independent and non-maintained schools, the Secretary of State will specify that information similar to that provided by maintained schools must be provided by the non-maintained and special schools. Therefore, all that these amendments are asking for is that provision will be made in the regulations. I imagine that perhaps the Minister can accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Maintained special schools, non-maintained special schools and independent schools will be required to publish information annually as a condition of their approval and I think that it is important to recognise that. The regulations made under the 1980 Act cover the publication of information by local education authorities on their special educational provision and by individual maintained schools on the provision they offer.
The Education (School Information) Regulations 1981 were laid before Parliament on 1st May. Part II of Schedule 1 indicates that LEAs should publish their detailed arrangements and policies in respect of provision made in county, voluntary and special schools maintained by them for pupils with special educational needs, in schools maintained by other authorities, in non-maintained special schools, in independent schools

1535
and provision made otherwise than at school. Individual county, voluntary and maintained special schools must also publish their own specific information as set out in Schedule 2. I believe that this framework is fully comprehensive and should ensure that parents are in no doubt about their LEA's provisions.
As promised in another place, we have looked again at the provision of information by individual non-maintained special schools and independent schools catering for children with statements. We now propose that the production of such information will be a condition of their approval under the regulations made under Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill. The regulations will require them to produce information on their facilities and curriculum and to make that information available to LEAs and parents upon request. I hope, therefore, that that meets the point that was made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: I think it does. I think that it is a satisfactory assurance, but of course I should like to read it in Hansard tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Approval of independent schools]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Proposed school attendance order: choice of school]:
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 68:
Page 11, line 40, leave out ("or the efficient use of resources").
The noble Baroness said: When I set down this amendment at the very beginning I had not studied what local authorities were at present spending on their children in the sector of special educational needs. I find that despite these hard financial times local authorities have maintained their spending on meeting special educational needs of children, and in the light of the sympathetic way in which this Bill has been received and the fact that local authorities have not cut back on spending, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Lord Vaizey Lord Vaizey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 69:
Before Clause 17, insert the following clause:
("National Advisory Committee.
. 1(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a National Advisory Committee on Special Educational Needs to act as a consultative and advisory body and to report annually to the Secretary of State according to the following terms of reference—
1536

(a) to consult with the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Social Security, Employment and other relevant agencies to ensure the proper co-ordination of special educational provision at national and local level;

(b) to advise and consult with local education authorities on the provision for meeting special educational needs within their area with particular regard to the best deployment of existing services;

(c) to issue guidelines on the provision for special educational needs and gather and disseminate examples of good practice;

(d) to monitor the working of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the National Advisory Committee before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint members of the Advisory Committee.").
Baroness David: I added my name to this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, tabled and he did not, in fact, let me know that he would not be here today. Although I have an absolute mass of material on this and could talk for at least 10 minutes, it might be more convenient for everybody if I did not move it now and left it to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, to move on Report, when I hope that he will be here.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady David, has decided that this amendment should not be moved at this stage. I had hoped that it would be moved and discussed at some length. With the leave of the Committee, I am prepared to move it if that is permissible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): That is permissible.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I beg to move Amendment No. 69. I raised this question during the Second Reading debate. Most of this morning your Lordships were conscious of the real problem of effective coordination and co-operation by the different services that would be involved in meeting the problems of the educational needs of these children. Frankly, I know of no means—unless a committee of this kind is set up —in any way to monitor that co-ordination. We are dealing with two services which in most cases are the responsibility of one local authority, a third service which is not a responsibility of the local authority, and probably a fourth service, for which the local authority has no responsibility whatever. I cannot find any person or group of persons who can effectively contribute in any way to this co-ordination.
Her Majesty's Inspectors have some responsibility relating to the education service, but none relating to social services or to health. Indeed, I do not think that the Secretary of State himself can ensure this coordination. It looks to me as though the only hope we have rests in the Prime Minister, who would be the only person who could, in fact, ensure that there was co-ordination at national level, and even then would find it extremely difficult to ensure effective co-operation and co-ordination at local level. It was for that reason that representatives of the different professions got together in the Warnock Committee and were unanimous in this as an essential recommendation. Frankly, without this amendment the general impression would be left that the Government do not necessarily think that this Bill will work very well, because without effective co-ordination and co-

1537
operation between the services it will not work very well. This is the reality.
I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will accept this amendment. I do not expect that she will for a moment; she will call it one of these Quango bodies and say we have too many of them. If she had listened to them in years gone by, some of them could have saved the present Prime Minister a great deal of trouble relating to the supply of teachers and the unemployment which followed from her refusal to do so. Alternatively, she could give the Committee an assurance that there will be strong reference to this need in any guidance which may be issued under the Bill when it becomes an Act; the greatest possible pressure to ensure effective co-ordination, without which the Bill will fail. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I regret to have to say to your Lordships in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that I am strongly opposed to this amendment. He has based the case on the need for monitoring and co-ordination, but those are responsibilities which in any event fall, or should fall, upon Government departments, and to have to write into the Bill a new Quango of this kind would be an admission of the failure of government. But I have other reasons for opposing it. First is that the money which a Quango would cost could be much better spent in various other ways. Apart from that, we at MENCAP do not want a body of this kind. At present we have direct access to Ministers and officials in the DES and in the DHSS, and we have excellent cooperation from them. We feel that if we have a national advisory committee it could become "an iron curtain" between us and the Ministers of those departments, and we do not want it.
One often finds when you have statutory advisory bodies of this kind that departments use them as an excuse for delaying discussions with those who are concerned, and even as an excuse for delaying decisions, "because", they say,"if we have an advisory body it would be wrong and discourteous not to wait for their advice". Incidentally, the advice that they give is nearly always based on information which the Government department has to feed to them, so the Government department might just as well form its own opinions.
Viscount Ridley: Is it not also true that the Government have power under the 1944 Act to appoint such a Quango? That was enacted quite a long time ago. The Government have never seen fit to introduce this power, and therefore there seems to be no need for the amendment anyway. I strongly oppose it.
Baroness David: As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has moved the amendment, of course I shall rise to support it. I am surprised by Lord Renton's intervention, because every voluntary organisation except the one that he is involved with is keen to have this body. I really think that is true. Mrs. Warnock only two or three weeks ago, speaking at a conference in Oxford, begged yet again that this should happen. She described:
"A collection of experts giving their services voluntarily with minimum central support and servicing. The function of such a
1538
committee would be to advise Ministers from an independent and, above all, cross-departmental standpoint".
She said she had written to Mr. Mark Carlisle but had met with a negative response:
"He replied saying that all the functions I envisaged were the business of the department. But they are not. They are the business equally of those involved with other professions than the teaching profession, and no single Government Department can involve itself in all the issues at stake".
She went on:
"Collaboration between different professionals and between professionals and parents, which is at the very heart of our Report, will not just happen. The point of the Committee would be to devise ways to make this collaboration real. … The Advisory Committee, if it had been set up, would have been the focus for both thought and action. Without it, perhaps all we can do is to work together voluntarily and constantly plague and goad both local and central government when we think they are slipping back from their promises".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, will not press the amendment because it is important and we might do rather better on Report, although I feel strongly about the matter and support what he said.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the spirit of the amendment but I am not sure I support its structure. The Committee will recall that I moved Amendment No. 13 in which I begged that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be monitored because, as I pointed out, we have suffered in the past from passing legislation which had not been monitored. Therefore, while agree with the spirit of the amendment, I could not support it because I am not sure that I agree with the method proposed in it.
Baroness Young: I am grateful for the speech of my noble friend Lord Renton, who summed up the situation very well and I am sure that it will pay re-reading in Hansard what he said. I confirm that it is possible at any time to establish an advisory committee and that there is no need to write it into the Bill. An advisory committee on special education existed for more than 20 years prior to the establishment of the Warnock Committee. The Government have not set their face against the re-establishment of an advisory committee in the future, but we do not require specific powers in the Bill to do that. We take a general view on the undesirability of establishing new Quangos, but we recognise that many voluntary organisations are concerned, and that Mrs. Warnock herself has been very concerned about this matter.
We are proposing to arrange a conference of voluntary bodies to discuss the implementation of the Bill. Outside advice has been valuable in the past and we believe that such a conference, after the enactment of the Bill, would be useful in two respects: it would provide a forum for an exchange of views on how the new procedures should operate and how external views on a range of future issues might most readily be co-ordinated. I am sure that will be valuable, and I will shortly be consulting voluntary organisations about the timing and venue of a conference, which we expect to take place in the early months of 1982.
I indicated at an earlier stage that guidance on the Bill would include guidance on the importance of co-ordination, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, made clear. But at the end of the day, the way this Bill operates will depend very much on how

1539
it operates at local level. Governments cannot make that happen with that degree of good spirit, goodwill and good practice which is required if it is to be successful. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press the amendment and will feel that with those reassurances he will not need to raise the matter again on Report.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I am grateful to the Committee for allowing this matter to be raised today. In view of the assurances which the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Powers of Secretary of State as to medical and other examinations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
2.40 p.m.
Baroness David: I propose that this clause be left out. The Notes on Clauses explain on Clause 18 that the provisions of Section 69 of the 1944 Act give the Secretary of State power to arrange for the medical examination of any child. It is stated that the power has almost fallen into disuse, but that nevertheless it remains necessary to enable the Secretary of State to determine a range of other issues which might arise under the principal Act; it does not state what issues. Apparently however it will not do service for the purposes of this Bill and therefore we have the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, which means that assessments of special educational need children are based on medical, psychological and educational advice.
The notes state that it is therefore possible that the Secretary of State may require to arrange for medical and other examinations and this clause provides him with such powers. To me this seems very heavy-handed and unnecessary compulsion. The balance is against the parent. The Bill seems always to be legislating for the few, very few, bad parents. The vast majority of parents will of course do what is best for their child. I think that a fine is completely inappropriate in these cases, and I really dislike it very much indeed. If a local authority is really anxious about a child, it has care proceedings to fall back on.
I was interested to read a BMA comment about attendance at examinations. The BMA paper stated:
"This clause enables the local education authority to serve a notice on the parent of a child requiring the child's attendance for examinations. This seems to imply that decisions may be taken on the future educational placement on that one examination. It is important to emphasise that this assessment will require more than one visit and the views of a variety of other disciplines. Failure to submit a child for assessment should not be a criminal offence but might be a cause for consideration on care proceedings".
Baroness Young: I felt in a sense that the noble Baroness had answered the question that she had posed, by quoting from the Notes on Clauses, and I do not want to sound repetitive at this stage of the
1540
afternoon. But under the provisions of Section 69 of the Education Act 1944 the Secretary of State has the power to arrange for the medical examination of any child. This power was used in connection with appeals from parents and although with changed procedures it has almost fallen into disuse for this purpose over the past 15 years, it remains necessary to enable the Secretary of State to determine a range of other issues which might arise under the principal Act. It will not however do service for the purposes of this Bill. Under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, LEA assessments of special educational needs will be based on medical, psychological and educational advice. It is therefore possible that in order to determine an issue arising under the Bill the Secretary of State may require to arrange for medical and other examinations of the child, and this clause provides him with such powers.
As the noble Baroness has said, it is there as a longstop against the bad parent, and we have recognised that there are bad parents. I am not necessarily sure that I would agree with the noble Baroness that if there is failure to submit a child, he should be taken into care. I think the general presumption is that children should not be taken into care except only as a last resort and that it would be better to have this provision about the medical examination. I believe that reflecting on these matters we have got the point right. I think it will be only a very small number of parents to whom the clause might apply, but unfortunately, as we know from reports of organisations such as the NSPCC, there are bad parents. There are some parents who will not take their children for medical examinations and there will be a very few cases where the provision will be necessary. I think it right to include it in the Bill.
Baroness David: I should like to point out that I do not want the children to go into care. I meant that only as a final possibility in very difficult cases. I am not altogether happy about what the Minister has said; I think that the balance should be the other way. However, at this stage on a Friday afternoon I do not think it is worth pressing for the deletion of the clause.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Interpretation and commencement]:
[Amendment No. 96A not moved.]
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 14, line 1, leave out from ("on") to end of line 3 and insert ("1st September 1982").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, which suggests that the date of the implementation of this Bill as an Act shall be 1st September 1982. Your Lordships will have observed that in the Bill as it stands it says:
"This Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes".
We do not think that this is satisfactory. I much regret the suggestion that the legislation should be

1541
brought in piecemeal, and I very much regret, too, that no date at all has been set. We may not have got the date right, but I think it would be a very good thing if some date were fixed.
I know we shall be told that it is a question of when the country can afford it, but this is a question of priorities. If you give two housewives the same amount of housekeeping money, each can spend it very differently; and we believe that the implementation of this Bill should be one of the priorities within the present difficult situation. I was encouraged to put this amendment down by looking back at what happened to the 1976 Education Act. That was the Act, if I may remind your Lordships, which gave effect to the principles of comprehensive education. That Act came into force on Royal Assent except for Section 10, which has still not been implemented—and that is from 1976.
What did Section 10 set out? Section 10 was a section of the 1976 Act which was to give priority to educating handicapped children in county and voluntary schools rather than in special schools; so the proposal which we are discussing in this Bill was actually included five years ago in the 1976 Act, and nothing was done about it. Is there anyone in this Chamber who wants the children we are talking about today to wait another five years? Of course, the section of the 1976 Act that I am talking about, Section 10, is repealed by the present Bill because it has fallen into complete disuse. It may be that we have a better Bill today because the Warnock Committee has sat in the interval. But I quote this example to illustrate the danger of this open-ended legislation which gives no date-line for implementation.
It is also not helpful to local authorities, and I hope that no noble Lord will get up and say that we must let local authorities have plenty of time, because certainly I found as a member of a local authority that there is nothing which so concentrates and invigorates members of local authorities and their officers than to have a sort of vesting day towards which to work; and it is certainly not true to say that by leaving dates unmentioned we are helping local authorities. There will be a lot of long-term planning to be done under this Bill, and it is absolutely essential that local authorities, when they are doing their budgeting and making their proposals, should have a calendar framework within which they can work.
If I may quote another example, we still have not implemented all the provisions of the Education Act 1980. That received the Royal Assent on 3rd April 1980, and, there again, sections are coming into force on a variety of appointed days, which is confusing and, I submit, inefficient. In fact, there was one proposal in that Bill, the 1980 Bill, which was absolutely central to the Conservatives' propaganda in the last election. That was the section which provided for the right of parental preference about admission to schools, and appeals against refusal. None of this is yet in force, just because the 1980 Bill, like this Bill, suggested that everything could wait until the Minister thinks it is convenient to announce the date and bring in an order.
I could go even further hack, to the Education Act of 1944. That received the Royal Assent on 3rd August and the appointed day for Parts I and V was on Royal Assent; for Parts II and IV it was in
1542
1945. Part III, by order, did not come in until 1957. When one thinks of the circumstances of the country in 1944 and 1945 and the vision and boldness which was needed to pass what we usually call with great courtesy —and quite rightly—the Butler Act, it seems to me quite pusillanimous for us to be saying today that we have no idea when this Act will be put into force and when we are going to carry out any of the provisions of the Warnock Report.
Children grow while we are talking. Every year that is lost might permanently affect the future of the children that we are talking about. I wonder how many children would be living different lives today if Section 10 of the earlier Act had been brought into force when it was passed five years ago, instead of which those children have been left in limbo five years. I want to know how much longer they will have to wait.
If it sounds as if I am being ambitious, I suppose the most monumental Education Act of all was the Forster Act 1870 because that established the principle of public elementary education. Maybe this Government should take an example from the time of Forster because that Act came into force on receiving Royal Assent in August 1870. Goodness knows! that confronted authorities with an enormous amount of work because they had to begin the structure. It required school boards to be established all over the country and funds to be raised out of rates for the first time for this purpose.
Then we get the Education Act 1902 which transferred the duties of school boards to local authorities for the first time and empowered them to provide education other than elementary education. That was an enormous challenge to the local authorities. That received Royal Assent on 18th December 1902. The appointed day, I emphasise, was 26th March 1903, just a few months; but there were some exceptions. That part which was not brought in on 26th March 1903 had to be brought in on a day or days to be appointed by order not later than 18 months after that date. I feel that if the Government could write into this Bill some such proviso—if they do not want to put in a definite date—that will at least reflect some sense of urgency. If it could be done in 1902 I should have thought most Conservatives would have thought that it was possible to do it in 1981.
I was a member of a local authority in 1948 when the Children Act was passed. That Act was based largely on the Curtis Committee report, much as the present Bill is based on the Warnock Committee's report. We on local councils felt at the time that we were given a very short interval to get to work on this; but it did us nothing but good. Most officials who are conscientious and interested in their jobs are glad of this type of challenge. Nothing is more demoralising to officials of committees than to have papers brought before them about which they are told that there is no date. The result is an inclination to do nothing because there is always something else to do. There is always another chief officer who wants the money for something else, or some other problem demanding attention.
There was a similar position over the National Health Service Reorganisation Act, 1973. At least some sections of that Act came into force on Assent,

1543
so although it may be unusual for us on this side to be quoting precedents in argument, I do submit that there is every reason why, to make this Bill effective, some time-scale should be introduced. if I have got the wrong date I will gladly give way to another one, but I hope that the noble Baroness can give us at least some indication: otherwise I think we shall have wasted a lot of time on this Bill.
Baroness Young: We all want to see this Bill brought into effect and I hope we have all said enough during these proceedings in order for that to happen. One reason why I cannot accept the amendment is that we do not wish to be tied to a date on the face of the Bill and I am already exploring the possibility of bringing in some provisions into force earlier than September 1982, which seems to me a most desirable outcome.
I can assure the noble Baroness of our good faith in this matter. We said in a statement in March 1980 that we would be bringing forward a White Paper on the Warnock Committee. We brought forward the White Paper in August and we published this Bill in the following January. No one can say there has been any delay. We are as anxious to see it on the statute book as the noble Baroness, but it does require the bringing into force of regulations and she would be the first to want to have the guidance on the subject matter of so much of our discussions. All these matters have to be settled and, not least, we must discuss with our partners in the education service the details of the timing, but I can assure her there will be no unnecessary delay if she will withdraw her amendment. I would hope that parts of it would come in before the proposed date.
Baroness Jeger: What the noble Baroness has said is exactly what the Minister said in 1976, when we waited for five years while nothing happened. I am pleased to hear from her that, on the other hand, she hopes to bring in some of these provisions before my modest date of 1st September 1982. I assure her that we shall keep a very close watch on the bringing in of such regulations before that date, and with this in mind, for today at any rate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Assessments and statements of special educational needs]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 15, line 24, leave out ("requiring") and insert ("requesting").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove yet another element of compulsion which is at present upon the parents of handicapped children. It is very much in line with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, to try to remove Clause 18. I feel that compulsion is really not in the best interests of the family and still less of the child. There is something rather
1544
odd in the wording of this provision, and perhaps the Minister can explain it. I would draw your Lordships' attention to line 23, that is the line before my amendment, because Clause 5(4) on page 4, line 42, says that the LEA have a duty to make an assessment of a child if, after any representations have been made, they still consider it appropriate. Yet in the paragraph we are discussing, page 15, line 23, the wording is that they "may serve" a notice on the parents of the child to be assessed and requiring the child's attendance for examinations. Surely if there is a duty to assess it follows that they have a duty to ask the child to be present. Perhaps the wording in lines 23 and 24 should be "shall" and "requesting" instead of "may" and "requiring". Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on this, and meanwhile I beg to move the amendment as it stands.
Baroness Young: Schedule 1 is deliberately worded in its present form once again to deal with the case of bad parents. LEAs must be able to demand the attendance of children for examination; otherwise they cannot discharge their duties and identify and assess children with special educational needs, as they must under other provisions of the Bill. It is, as it were, the other side of the coin of Clause 5, to which the noble Baroness made reference.
This part of Schedule 1 will be used by LEAs only in cases where the co-operation of parents is not forthcoming—something which we all acknowledge will happen rarely—and where the LEAs believe that the child's best interests are being neglected. That is the reason for it.
Viscount Ridley: I would support my noble friend Lady Young. I am sure that the local education authorities would much prefer to see the wording as printed in the Bill and not as in the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. I have now grasped the significance of the word "may". I thank her for putting me right. I am still not happy about the element of compulsion, but I do not see much point in having a Division at this hour of the day. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
3.1 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 15, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Baroness said: Sub-paragraph (4) provides for penalties for parents who fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements of a notice of assessment and parents can be fined up to £50. This compulsion—this is in line with what I said earlier on Clause 18—to produce a child for assessment is totally inappropriate. Compulsion is likely to affect adversely the relations between child, parents and professionals and, if compulsion is necessary to have a child assessed, the parents are unlikely to be happy with any decision resulting from the assessment, if it is not in accord with their wishes. Compulsion helps nobody.
Moreover, there could be grave consequences if a parent is fined £50 and refuses to pay the fine. It could lead to imprisonment with the child, therefore, being taken into care. Those most likely to fail to comply are probably those least able to afford the £50. Few parents would prevent their child from having special provision to overcome problems. A named person or an adviser to the parents would be able to explain the reasons for an examination and allay any fears they might have. I feel very anxious about this provision for a fine. It is dangerous and very unsatisfactory indeed. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Once again, this is a re-enactment of the existing provision in the 1944 Education Act, which relates to medical examinations. The only change which has been made is that the amount of the fine has been increased in line with penalties for comparable offences. Again, it is a provision which is rarely used, but we believe it to be necessary because there will, inevitably, be some bad parents. Indeed, we have frequently seen in the Sunday newspapers examples of such cases of abuse or bad parents. When LEAs encounter this type of parent, who is preventing the assessment of his child with special educational needs, they must have a power of enforcement, unless we are prepared to see such children deprived of the help they may need. Such a power would not, of course, be used unless it was necessary, but it must be backed up by the possibility of a penalty for noncompliance. This is the justification for the subparagraph, which I accept may, at first sight, appear harsh, but which is necessary in the interests of the child.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment, too. While I am in favour of leaving out this whole sub-paragraph, I notice that during the Committee stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, speaking to an amendment similar to this one, said in col. 1160:
"I am bound to say, when one reads the clause, that it may be too rigidly expressed."
Later he said—
"I therefore propose to consider an amendment for Report to establish that the machinery of compulsion, if I may so call it, will not be set in motion unless there has been a failure on the part of the parent and that failure has been without reasonable excuse."—[official Report, 14/7/81.]
I wonder whether the Minister might be able to give a similar undertaking. She will notice that Amendment No. 75, which was drafted a great deal earlier than the time when the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made that comment, reflects this thinking. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate whether she might accept Amendment No. 75, if not Amendment No. 74?
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: We are not discussing Scottish legislation. We are discussing a Bill which applies to England and Wales. The noble Baroness is as well aware as I am that the law in Scotland varies somewhat from the law in England and Wales. The noble Baroness has been as anxious as anybody for parents to have the right to an assessment and for local education authorities to have their notice drawn to
1546
handicapped children so that they can make an assessment of the special educational needs.
This is the other side of the coin: where there is a need to have an assessment but the parent will not bring the child to have an assessment made. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the generalities of other cases. Before it ever gets to the stage of refusal by the parent, there will have been all the opportunities for consultation and discussion with all those involved, beginning with the health authority notifying the parents about voluntary organisations, all of whom no doubt will explain to parents why they should take their child for an assessment.
If at the end of the day the parent refuses to take the child for an assessment, what is the local authority to do? It could say, "Very well; we will not trouble with the child. We will leave it". However, it would then be failing in its duty under other parts of the Act. There must therefore be a provision against parents who refuse to take their child for an assessment. If there is a reason, perhaps a deeply-held religious conviction, perhaps a deeply-held other conviction of conscience of one kind or another, that is a matter which the local education authority must reasonably take into account when going through its procedures about assessment. However, that does not in any way invalidate what could well be the case of a vexatious parent who will not take the child for an assessment but where the local authority would be under a duty to make that assessment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): If the noble Baroness says that there are cases where it might be reasonable not to comply, would it not be best to write into the Bill the words, "fails without reasonable excuse"?
Baroness Young: That is exactly what paragraph (4) says:
"Any parent on whom a notice has been served under this paragraph and who fails without reasonable excuse …".
That is exactly what it means. Under those circumstances, it is unnecessary to write any more into the Bill.
Baroness David: I still do not like it at all. I think that probably it will be counter-productive and will not achieve the aim that is wanted. However, I shall read what the Minister has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) If any parent on whom a notice has been served under this paragraph fails without reasonable excuse, or declines, to comply with any of the requirements of the notice, the local authority may apply to the Secretary of State to determine whether the notice should be enforced. The Secretary of State may—

(a) direct the local authority to withdraw the notice, or

(b) direct the local authority to amend the notice, or

(c) direct the local authority to serve a further notice notifying the parent that if he fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirements of the notice already served on him, he shall, if the notice relates to a child who is not over compulsory school age, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.").

The noble Baroness said: This is an alternative to the previous amendment which I hope the Government might feel able to accept. It softens a little the compulsion. Compulsion is inappropriate and is likely to affect the delicate relationship between professionals and parents. The process of examination, testing and so on can be disturbing and should not normally be initiated without the active support and involvement of the parents. The BMA recommend the removal of the element of compulsion. This amendment allows for the intervention of the Secretary of State in those few cases where parents feel they have good reasons for opposing an assessment. I hope that this amendment, which is a kind of halfway house, will be accepted by the Government. It still keeps in what I do not like, which is the fine.
Viscount Ridley: It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to introduce the Secretary of State. This is quite squarely the responsibility of the local education authority, and should remain so. To introduce the Secretary of State is bound to create not only delay but extra expense. I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Baroness Young: I agree entirely with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ridley. We think that it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not a notice should be enforced. This must involve him in disputes as to whether or not a child should be required to attend an examination for the purposes of assessment. This is a matter which should be decided at the local level, and by way of explanation as to how these procedures will work, I do not think that I can add anything further to what I said on the previous amendment.
I believe this is a matter in which the local authorities will only use these procedures as a matter of last resort. We must expect them to comply with the law unless there is a reasonable excuse, and I think the local authorities would deeply resent the involvement of the Secretary of State in something which is quite properly their work.
Baroness David: I would say in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that the Secretary of State is referred to on a great number of occasions in this Bill, and I think one might equally say that is the business of the local authority. I can only repeat that I am not satisfied, but I will withdraw the amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 16, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 78, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. Amendment No. 78 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations with respect to the keeping, disclosure and transfer of Statements. As paragraph 4 stands he is not obliged to do this. I assume that we are also
1548
concerned with the records and reports lying behind the statement, and perhaps the Minister can say if it is not so. This is such a sensitive issue that I feel it is essential for the duty to be placed upon the Secretary of State to prescribe procedure by regulation, particularly in regard to disclosure if this also covers records.
When, on the first day of the Committee stage, I moved Amendments No. 29, which dealt with the parents' rights of access to all records, I said that it was an unjustifiable infringement of parents' rights that they were refused access to records, whereas apparently many LEA personnel, not all of them professionals, would enjoy unrestricted access. I feel that there must be some restriction on their circulation, and I see that the notes on the Bill from the Department of Education and Science make it clear that disclosure in this context means disclosure to people other than the parents.
Amendment No. 79 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 80, which would require—or empower if Amendment No. 78 fails—the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations for the discontinuance and destruction of statements. In the Education (Scotland) Bill now going through this House—and I hestitate to refer to that Bill after the remarks made by the noble Baroness—Clause 4 on page 27 gives the Secretary of State the power to do this. I cannot find any mention of the eventual destruction of the statement in this Bill, and I feel strongly that there should be such mention, particularly with regard to records.
One of the main objections from parents and voluntary organisations is that at present reports are often factually inaccurate and highly judgmental. Perhaps I may give one example. This is a primary record on an eight-year-old which was found in a secondary folder seven years later:
"Far too much pressure is put on X to look after younger brother and sister and she is frequently at home for domestic reasons. Mother is unkempt and always telling the children how she longs to return to her home in Germany".
That is just one of a number of London secondary school records provided by the Advisory Centre for Education, who add:
"There is no reason to believe the collection to be unrepresentative and it contains a frightening variety of subjective judgments made by teachers and retained in files which may be available to all sorts of outside agencies. At no point may the student or parent concerned check or challenge or even know of the existence of the file".
I feel it is essential that we must make rules regarding the discontinuance and destruction of statements and everything lying behind the statements on a child who has had special educational needs. I do not think that it should be lurking like a skeleton in the cupboard for all the days of the child's life. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: The noble Baroness has moved one amendment and spoken to a second one. I will try to reply to both. It is common practice in legislation for Governments to take power to make regulations on several specific topics while retaining discretion about the extent to which they are used. It is not always desirable to be required to make them, as this amendment would have it. While it is our intention to make some regulations in this area, we have not as yet decided on how far they should deal with each of the three heads of keeping and disclosure and transfer, or the balance between what is best covered in guidance

1549
and what is best covered in regulations. In this connection, we will, of course, study very carefully what the noble Baroness has said on this matter.
This paragraph follows the form of Section 27 of the 1980 Act under which "the Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions with respect to the keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records." It is precisely to bring it into line with that Act that we have written it in this way. The noble Baroness went on to speak to two other amendments. I have listened very carefully to what she has had to say, and I recognise her concern. I think it would be helpful if I explained the circumstances in which a local education authority will cease to maintain a statement. This may happen, first, if a child goes to live outside the area of the authority which made the statement. In that case, the child ceases to be the responsibility of that authority. The statement ceases to have any effect, because the authority will no longer be responsible for the child's education. If the child has moved into the area of another local education authority the original authority may pass on the records, but there will be power under paragraph 4 to make regulations about that. It will be for the new authority to decide whether to make a statement. The statement will lapse if the child is over 16 and leaves school. Thirdly, the authority may change their mind about the child. This may be the result of an annual review or by request from the parents for another assessment, and a different statement will be made. Before this happens the authority must under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 inform the parents of their intention and give them the opportunity to make representations. I do not think, therefore, that regulations are needed about discontinuance. In the two instances, it will be automatic, and in the other provision is made in the Bill.
May I conclude by making one further general remark about this matter. The noble Baroness has spoken as if the destruction of a statement is the destruction of a harmful document that should be destroyed as soon as possible. If we really believe that this is the case, we take, if I may say so, a view about the Bill which is certainly not the Government's intention, because the whole purpose of the LEA in making a statement on a child, which thereby imposes duties on the LEA and attracts parental rights, is solely to protect the child's interests. I would be most dismayed if this was conceived as conferring some kind of stigma on the child. I think the instance the noble Baroness quoted is not a case of a statement which will be concerned about special education and the provision that is going to be made for the child with special educational needs; it is something about the school record, which is quite a separate matter. I hope that with all the safeguards that have been written into this Bill, including consultation with parents at a number of stages, a statement will be seen as a joint document in the interests of the child in all these matters, and it should not be destroyed if it is going to be helpful for the child who is going on to further education or higher education. It should always be helpful. If it needs to be amended then it is appropriate that it should be, and it should be seen positively as a document that adds to the child and does not detract from the child in any way at all.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): While thanking the noble Baroness for her reply, may I ask her this. When we are talking about keeping and disclosure of statements, are we only referring to the statement and not the documents that lie behind the statement?
Baroness Young: Yes, we are talking about the statement on the child.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Then could I ask the Minister what is going to happen to the records and reports, because there is absolutely no provision as to what is going to happen to them. These are the things I am concerned about.
Baroness Young: My understanding as regards that matter is that they would be covered by the general terms of the regulations which would and do apply under the 1980 Act. They would apply in these cases as well. If I am not right about that, I shall, of course, write to the noble Baroness, but that is my understanding.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am sorry to come back again, but I am not very conversant with the 1980 Act. Is there anything about destruction or does it refer only to keeping and disclosure in the 1980 Act?
Baroness Young: It is on the subject of the keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): So there would be nothing on the destruction of these records and reports?
Baroness Young: Not as I understand it—no.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for her reply but I cannot say that I am at all cheerful about it. I would like to read what she has said and think about the whole matter and perhaps have some correspondence with her, if she is willing. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 not moved.]
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 16, line 27, leave out ("15") and insert ("30").
The noble Earl said: The hour is getting a bit late and I shall not take very long on the question of the time of appeal on the termination or the amendment of a statement. We spoke about this on the first day of the Committee stage in relation to the serving of a statement. The arguments on that occasion were quite simple. I think that there was a difference of opinion between myself and my noble friend Lady Young. My noble friend said that it was a matter of balance, and indeed it is. I still feel very strongly indeed that the balance has tipped much too far towards shortness. A short time for appeal perhaps benefits the child with a disability which is being kept out of school. I think that the point was made that you cannot put it into any slot, and I can appreciate that.
However, with the learning disability child it is very

1551
important to remember that the parents will probably or could probably want to have a second opinion. Further, as I have already said, they might take the view that it might have to be a multi-disciplinary assessment which might involve three different disciplines. There are two weekends or so in 14 days. This seems to me to be a completely impossible situation.
On the last occasion my noble friend said that there would have been consultations all down the line, and I can appreciate that too. However, I do not think that that is quite good enough. One travels with hope and perhaps all through those consultations and being brought in, so to speak, on the act, one might, as a parent, just be waiting at the end of the day and hoping that everything was all right and then suddenly the statement would be, in this case, amended or they would say "It is finished; we shall cut it off". I think that in practice many parents would suddenly say. "Now we must take some action. We only have 15 days. We want to talk to our friends and contact So-and-so"—possibly three people. It is quite impossible for them. In my view I am putting forward a compromise and it was a compromise, to my mind, on the last occasion. I really think that 30 days can be too short, but I take the point about children being kept out of school. As a compromise I think that doubling to 30 days is just about right. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: This was a matter that we looked at on the first day of the Committee procedings and I should like, because I think that this amendment is based on a misunderstanding, to explain the circumstances in which local education authorities might propose to amend or cease to maintain a statement. We should bear in mind that many such proposals will be made with the consent of parents or perhaps at the request of parents. If the parents do not dispute the proposal, clearly 15 days is adequate for making any representations, because the chances are that they will not have any representations to make.
A proposal to change or cease to maintain a statement will always be a consequence of an earlier process of assessing the child and making the statement. In that process the parents will have had at least four weeks at the beginning in which to make representations, and two weeks in which to consider and comment on the draft statement. There will have been a lot of contact between the parents and the LEA, and the parents will be having to consider, not the whole question of their child's needs, but the changes which the LEA are proposing to make.
Perhaps I should explain what 15 days will mean in practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) mentioned postal delays. I have made inquiries about this and am told that the effect of the Interpretation Act 1978 is that when a notice is served by post it is assumed, unless the contrary is proved, that it is served at the time at which it:
"would be delivered in the ordinary course of post".
This means that if a person has a period of 15 days from service of a document in which to make representations, that period is counted from the time the document would ordinarily be delivered—which is a
1552
matter of general assumption—or from a later time, if that later time of delivery can be proved. In many cases, the change to be made in the statement will be of a minor, or automatic character, such as a change of school from primary to secondary, and there will be no cause for disagreement.
However, where the LEA propose to make any significant changes—and this is the point which worries my noble friend—they could scarcely do so without a reassessment of the child having taken place. Should the LEA not propose to reassess a child in such circumstances, the parent would be able to request an assessment under the provisions of Clause 9, and it is difficult to see how the LEA would have grounds for refusing. The process of assessment would thus have opened up the rights to consultation under Clause 5, under which the parent is allowed no fewer than 29 days to make representations. I think there thus need be no concern that parents will have insufficient time to make representations where serious issues are at stake.
Imagine the circumstances in which an LEA refuses and appears to be vexatious. Nothing could be worse than the kind of publicity that it would get. I believe that it would be possible for the parents to intervene and request the Ombudsman to intervene, because it could be seen as maladministration. But long before anything reached that nature, it would not be in the interests of the LEA to behave in a way in which the parents had information that they were anxious to bring before the LEA, and not to use it. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to get this correct relationship between the parents and the LEA. I do not envisage the circumstances in which the parents need a longer length of time than the various times that we have indicated in the course of this Bill, and I believe that at the end of the day we must balance this against the needs of the child to be in the school which is suitable for him, he having been identified as having a special educational need. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to make a few comments on this amendment because noble Lords will see that I have tabled Amendment No. 83A, which is an attempt at a compromise after the Minister agreeing on the first day of the Committee stage to look at the possibility of allowing 21 days in which a parent could make representations when he is served with a copy of the proposed statement under Clause 7(4).
On the point of Clause 7(4), the Minister explained at a meeting, which she very kindly arranged for us last Wednesday, that the LEAs would put a fairly broad interpretation on the 15 days, particularly as it was in their best interests to get the parents' approval of the statement and minimise the likelihood of an appeal under Clause 8(1). I wonder whether she would be kind enough to say a few words on this because I think that she has been speaking on the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor? Can she say whether this broad interpretation of 15 days would go out in guidance issued to LEAs? Can she confirm that that guidance would also advise LEAs that parents should be informed of their right to a second opinion?—this is still on Clause 7(4). Would they be given time in which to seek that opinion? I am sorry to raise this question at

1553
the moment, but it would be very helpful if we could have something on the record.
Baroness Young: I have said that I shall look at all this. At this stage I cannot give an absolute undertaking that the guidance will contain an answer to every point that the noble Baroness has raised. Clearly, if the parents want a second opinion and they say to the LEA, "We are worried. Clearly there is something wrong. We know that your doctor has suggested one diagnosis. We are not satisfied. We wish to seek a second opinion" it would be totally unreasonable of the local education authority not to allow time for that second opinion. As I said to the noble Baroness when we had our meeting earlier, if it behaved in this way it would be seen by the public at large to be behaving in a totally unreasonable way, and I do not believe, knowing as I do those administering local education authorities, that they would do so.
Even if they were minded to, there would be councillors on the authority who would raise the case. Before you knew where you were the press would raise the case. It would be about the last thing that the local authority would want, and it would certainly not be in the best interests of the child. If the worst came to the worst, the Ombudsman could be called in. There is a limit to the extent to which we can go on saying that local authorities must ensure all the time, when there are so many reasons—even if they were unwilling to do so, which I do not for one moment believe—that they would interpret this Bill in the spirit in which it is intended.
The Earl of Radnor: I was hoping when I moved this amendment that we would not have to rely on the press and the Ombudsman. But I am somewhat reassured by my noble friend. I still believe that it would be better to have a longer period. I see there is a following amendment. However, in all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83A not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transitional provisions]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 17, line 16, at end insert ("unless requested to by a parent under section 9(1).").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to overcome a concern that there will be an unnecessary delay in moving children who are at present inappropriately placed in special schools into ordinary schools, because, as Schedule 2 stands it seems that all the children at present in the special schools will be deemed to have a statement, and for 12 months beginning with the commencement of the Act the LEA need not make an assessment and statement for those children. I can understand that the reason for this is pressure of time and work on LEAs, and that it is expected in fact that many children will be assessed within several months of the Act being passed. However, this may not be the case in all
1554
cases, and it is important that parents who are dissatisfied with special educational provision be given the right to an immediate assessment, because 12 months is a very long time in the development of a child, and where provision is inappropriate it might have far-reaching and long-term harmful consequences. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I think the Bill has met the point that the noble Baroness has asked. In effect, LEAs will be given 12 months after the coming into force of Clause 7 of the Bill in which to compile statements in respect of some 180,000 children in England and Wales currently ascertained as handicapped. Local education authorities will clearly need some time in which to undertake this task, and 12 months seems to me to be a reasonable time to allow for this.
I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that, if during this period the parent of one of these children requests an assessment under Clause 9 of the Bill and that assessment reveals the necessity for a statement, then LEAs will have a duty to complete one. Therefore, the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness is unnecessary, as the Bill as drafted will have the desired effect of her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am happy to say that for once I am delighted with the noble Baroness's reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 20, line 25, at end insert—
("17. Where the appeal committee is considering an appeal made under section 8 of the Education Act 1981 it shall include 1 or more persons who have knowledge and experience in specialeducationand are acquainted with the special educational provisions in the area of the authority, or are parents of registered pupils with special educational needs or persons defined under section 15 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.").
The noble Baroness said: I touched on this amendment when I was speaking about amendments to Clause 8 on the first Committee day. This amendment has to deal with the constitution of the appeal committee. In Committee in another place, one of the reasons the Minister would not accept that the appeal committee decision should be binding on both the local authority and the parent—as it is with children under the 1980 Act, and children in ordinary schools—was that the appeal committee might not have the necessary expertise to judge the type of issues involved in deciding on special educational provision. If the amendment were accepted, that difficulty would be overcome and the appeal committee decision could be binding—that is, if we passed the appropriate amendment on Report—because this amendment would put on the committee some person who had knowledge of special educational provision in the area, perhaps themselves parents of registered pupils with special educational needs or persons defined under Section 15 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
It would mean that one piece of discrimination

1555
against the parents of a child with special educational needs would be removed, and I should very much like to see that happen—a bit of positive discrimination towards them would be right. I do not believe it would be difficult to find one or two people suitable to serve who have the appropriate experience, and they need not take up a disproportionate number of places, as the appeal committee could have as many as seven people on it.
Baroness Young: That was a point which we considered when we were looking at the framing of the Bill, because, as the appeal committee's decisions will not be binding on the local education authority, we wondered whether it would be appropriate to include on the appeal committee people with specialised knowledge, in order of course that we could make the same provisions in this Bill apply as apply under the 1980 Act.
The difficulty—it is a very practical one—which in a sense has been illustrated at various points in the debate today, is that special educational needs will cover a great many varying degrees of handicap, both severity and complexity. My noble friend Lord Renton spoke earlier about the special needs of mentally handicapped children, and indeed those are widely recognised. But if, for example, we are dealing with the special needs of a blind child, it does not necessarily follow that the person who is particularly knowledgeable about the mentally handicapped will be equally knowledgeable about the needs of a blind child, or a totally deaf child or a spina bifida child, or indeed a child with some very obscure illness who has special educational needs.
I believe that when local authorities come to look at the composition of the appeal committees, they may well include someone who has an interest in special education, and in general that would be a desirable thing for them to do, but we do not think it would be right to lay down that kind of provision in the Bill because we feel that the disputes which could arise about placement at special schools will differ very considerably from those about placement in ordinary schools in terms not only of questions about whether it is the parental preference, but because questions of the location, supervision, facilities, medical care will all have to be taken into account.
It is not that we are unsympathetic to the desire behind the amendment, but we do not believe it would be right to specify in the Bill who should constitute the appeal committee, bearing in mind that parents will have a further right of appeal to the Secretary of State should the local education authority not uphold the recommendations of the appeal committee. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Viscount Ridley: Can this be included in the guidance to local authorities? I think it would be better done that way than by way of an amendment to the Bill.
Baroness Young: That is certainly a matter I should be happy to look at, and that may be something we should do.
Baroness David: Perhaps I should have made it clear that my amendment was meant to be drawn so that the person with experience need not necessarily be a permanent member of the committee; it could be a permanent member or it could be somebody co-opted for the special occasion, as it were. However, if the Minister would say there will be some guidance about this, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Young: As I have indicated, this is certainly a matter that I shall look at.
Baroness David: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at the end of what really has been a rather gruelling week—although this is not entirely unknown at this time of year—after four late nights in a row, and at nearly a quarter to four on a Friday, I think it would be right if I expressed on behalf of all sides of the House our thanks to the staff in all parts who have looked after us with such unfailing courtesy and kindness.

  M4: HESTON SERVICE AREA
  M4: HESTON SERVICE AREA
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUESTS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUESTS
  TRUSTEES: CHARITY COMMISSION GUIDANCE
  TRUSTEES: CHARITY COMMISSION GUIDANCE