Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 270: debated on Monday 22 January 1996

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Monday 22 January 1996

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Wales

Urban Investment Grant

1.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure has been made recently from the urban investment grant scheme to encourage private sector investment in rundown areas. [8829]

More than £14 million has been awarded in the past two calendar years.

I recognise that this policy has brought enormous benefits to different communities in Wales, but will my hon. Friend please give the House some idea of the number of jobs that have been created as a result?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the investment of taxpayers' money in the urban investment grant scheme has levered in some £80 million of private investment, and that has created or safeguarded approximately 2,000 jobs in Wales.

I am sure that the Minister will have read the complaint in the Western Mail this morning from a small Welsh business man who was looking for grants from the Welsh Office but did not obtain them, when Tesco has received £11 million in grants to transplant its operation a few miles down the road into Wales. As the Minister will know, I wrote to him last week on the same issue, as a company in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is receiving the same treatment. Why do not small Welsh companies get the same treatment as the large multinational companies when they apply for grants from the Welsh Office?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to correct the inaccuracies in the Western Mail story this morning and to give him a reassurance that all companies that come to the Welsh Office for assistance, be they indigenous companies or those from outside Wales, are treated on exactly the same basis.

Unemployment

2.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to tackle unemployment in Wales. [8830]

Between spring 1985 and spring 1995, employment in Wales grew by 10.5 per cent., which is well ahead of the Great Britain average of 6.3 per cent. Unemployment continues to fall. The Government will pursue their key economic objectives of permanently low inflation, sound public finances and improving the supply side performance of the economy. That policy has brought about a stronger recovery in the UK than in any other major European country.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in some parts of Wales, unemployment is getting worse, particularly in my constituency, where the December figures showed that we have 25 per cent. male unemployment? Year on year, it is getting worse, not better. May I take issue with the letter that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) wrote to me, in which, describing the situation in south Pembrokeshire, he said that

"current progress is extremely encouraging",
when unemployment is getting worse? Why will the Secretary of State not address the issue of structural change—something that is particularly needed in peripheral areas and areas of high unemployment? Why will he not restore the cuts, which amount to some £23 million, that were imposed on the Welsh Development Agency by his predecessor last year and that have been compounded by his refusal to restore the cuts next year? That is the only way in which we shall be able to tackle our long-term unemployment, particularly in the peripheral areas of Wales.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognise that unemployment in certain parts of Wales, including his constituency, is higher than the average figures in certain parts of Wales. Part of the answer to that is the overall economic framework, which I have explained. In addition, since the west Wales task force was formed in 1992, more than £17 million has been allocated to local authorities for specific projects and strategies in the area. We have allocated a further £2.5 million for next year. Further support is available for projects such as Pembroke dock, if a good-quality strategy is submitted by the local authority—something that has not been done to date.

Our overall economic policies, backed by such measures, are the right measures to take, and not the imposition of a social chapter or minimum wage on this country and on the hon. Gentleman's constituents, which would cost them their jobs instead of creating them.

I compliment my right hon. Friend on the progress made in increasing the number of jobs available in the Principality. Will he confirm that, in terms of inward investment alone, the Welsh Development Agency aims to create or safeguard some 10,000 jobs this year? Does he agree that the WDA has a very good chance of achieving that target, given that some 7,300 jobs were created or safeguarded in 1994–95? Would not the only threat to such progress be posed by the remote possibility of a Labour Government?

My right hon. Friend is right in every respect. He is right, for instance, about the WDA's target. As the whole House knows, inward investment has brought tens of thousands of jobs to Wales over the years. The WDA's target for the current year is 10,000, and it is working hard to achieve that. It is working on a number of projects at present.

As my hon. Friend says, the only threat to the job prospects that have been created would be posed by a Labour Government, who would introduce a Welsh Assembly, the social chapter and a minimum wage.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the problem relates not just to unemployment, but to the kind of jobs that are attracted to Wales? The vast majority are part-time, low-paid, soul-destroying, non-union jobs. Is he aware that a survey carried out with the Department of Employment in my constituency shows that the hourly rate for jobs advertised worked out at just over £3 an hour? Would he work for that kind of money?

Of course we want skill levels and wages in the Welsh economy to rise over the years. Wages have risen in recent years, and I very much want that to continue. We are also working hard to achieve an improvement in skill levels, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Last week, I emphasised that to the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils. Over time, such improvements help to raise wage levels.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if either of the two sites proposed for a Euro freight depot in Wales—Magor or Wentloog—is used, the Welsh economy and Welsh prestige will receive a massive boost, thousands of jobs will be created and there will be a much wider impact on existing and potential investors in Wales?

If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, will he explain why, during his six months in office, he has done nothing to support either application, thus allowing a massive 1,000-acre competitor north of Bristol to steal a march? Only one of the sites can be viable: if the Bristol scheme proceeds, the Welsh projects will fail. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if that happens, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Wales will have lost out because of the incompetence and indecision that are the hallmarks of the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the Welsh Office?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman's question hears little resemblance to reality. There are projects to create rail freight terminals in South Wales, both of which involve applications for grants. Those applications—some for European grants, others for freight facilities grants—are being assessed, but in many instances more information is required. There has been no delay on the part of my officials in the assessment of those projects, and there would be nothing to stop the projects proceeding if they were not dependent on public funds. Before we commit public funds, it is important for Ministers to be satisfied that there is a strong case for doing so.

Private Finance Initiative (Nhs)

3.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what use has been made so far of the private finance initiative to boost the resources available to the NHS in Wales. [8831]

We fully expect the private finance initiative to contribute significantly to the capital investment within the NHS in Wales. There are currently around 20 major projects with a total investment of £160 million in the pipeline.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the £6.5 million scheme for a new car park at the University hospital of Wales in Cardiff is just one example of the way in which the NHS in Wales is benefiting from the private finance initiative? Is it not the case that the scheme could never have gone ahead on the current time scale if it had had to wait for public funding?

My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting to see Labour Members laughing at this. That is because they do not understand the private finance initiative. At present, the most advanced project that we have is the north Wales cancer centre, worth some £15 million. Two large consortiums have already been short-listed and invitations to tender will take place shortly. Four other major projects in the national health service in Wales have been advertised in the European Journal.

What about another finance initiative: the general practitioner out-of-hours services that have been proposed? In the Rhymney valley, for example, that could mean a return journey of 26 miles in the middle of the night for elderly patients. It may be convenient to GPs. Conservative Members might be happy about it, but the patients are not getting the service that they deserve. Will the Minister consider those initiatives as well to ensure that they deliver service to the patients?

We are obviously aware of the pressures that have arisen in the primary care sector, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, under this Government, patients will always come first, and not trade union members working in the health service.

Is not the point that the PFI involves money available over and above that in the Government capital funding programme and that, if it were left to the Labour party, additional medical facilities and hospitals alike would not be available in Wales or anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is correct. Conservative Members want the PFI to become the main source of funding of capital investment in the national health service in Wales. I notice that Labour Members continue to laugh at that. Perhaps I should tell them what the four other projects currently advertised are, because some of them affect their constituencies. There is provision for a new community hospital at Chepstow worth £6 million; a day surgery unit at the Nevill Hall and District NHS trust worth £1.8 million; radiotherapy equipment at the Velindre NHS trust worth £4 million; and an acute psychiatric unit in Abergavenny, Gwent worth £6 million.

Does the Minister recognise that, in relation to a hospital that has only a limited market—to use the terminology that is now used—the private finance initiative is hardly relevant? I think of Bronglais General hospital in mid-Wales. When is he going to reply to my letter to him dated 13 October, part of our on-going correspondence about that hospital and the problems that it faces in the long term because of the way in which the NHS market is likely to operate?

The hon. Gentleman is being narrow minded about the private finance initiative. Clearly, his party does not understand the PFI's fundamental principles any more than do Labour Members. In the current financial year, we expect the NHS to spend about £125 million. The PH will produce £10 million on top of that. That is hardly insignificant.

As to the hon. Gentleman's letter dated 13 October, I shall take that matter up immediately this Question Time is over.

Primary Schools (Expenditure)

4.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices. [8832]

In 1993–94, the most recent year for which figures are available, £1,608 was spent per pupil in LEA-maintained primary and nursery schools in Wales at 1994–95 prices. That compares with £1,105 in 1979–80, again at 1994–95 prices—the earliest period for which figures are available. That is an increase in real terms of 45 per cent.—I say again: 45 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures scarcely sustain claims of cuts in education? Does he think that that impressive expenditure increase in primary schools in Wales has been accompanied by a comparable improvement in standards?

My hon. Friend is correct. Spending on books and equipment in Wales increased in real terms between 1979–80 and 1993–94 by 89 per cent. Spending on teachers' salaries over the same period in real terms increased by 38 per cent., and during that time the pupil-teacher ratio has been about 22 pupils per class. My hon. Friend is also correct about standards, which in schools in Wales are much higher and better now than they were in 1979. However, we still have room for improvement and we are working hard on the implementation of policies that will ensure rising standards.

May I remind the Minister of the difficulties that are facing the new Flintshire county council, specifically with education? Does he know that, on the basis of the moneys that have so far been allocated by the Secretary of State, special needs children, those from under-privileged homes and, specifically, teachers will lose out hugely? Will he look again at the moneys that have been allocated to that new council and present proposals so that the county will not begin its new life with inadequate Government money?

It is sad that the hon. Gentleman continues the annual tradition of Clwyd education authority—frightening parents and children about funding for education. He knows perfectly well that it is for local authorities, in this case the new Flintshire education authority, to decide how much to spend on education and how to allocate the money.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the considerable increase in Government spending since 1979 on teachers' salaries, on nursery and primary education and on books and equipment shows the Government's determination to improve the standard of education in Wales? Does he further agree that it would be far better for all parties to support the Government's initiative on nursery education so that opportunity and choice can be enhanced and made available to more people in Wales?

My hon. Friend is correct. The figures that I quoted for the primary sector are similar to the figures for the secondary sector. Despite Labour's opposition to the nursery voucher scheme in Wales, I have no doubt that its Front-Bench spokesmen will, as usual, display their hypocrisy by taking full advantage of it in due course.

There would be no question of hypocrisy in these matters on my part. The impressive figures for the increase in expenditure in primary education are principally the result of paying teachers half-decent salaries in the past few years, and of local authorities spending more on education. Will the Minister confirm that, in the past few years, the Welsh Office revenue support grant has made up a smaller share of local government spending and that LEAs have gone into their reserves to maintain services? Despite that, the pupil-teacher ratio is now edging up in primary schools. The average class size is going up and nearly 12,000 more pupils are being taught in classes of more than 30. Primary schools are being underfunded by the Government and they desperately need more money.

The hon. Gentleman must have asked about a dozen questions there, or certainly made about a dozen assertions, all of them incorrect.

The truth of the matter is that Opposition Members believe the lies that are being peddled about statistics, and that explains why the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) chose a selective grant-maintained school for her son.

What progress has been made in Wales on establishing grant-maintained schools? If progress has been made, could my hon. Friend suggest any action to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as progress in the matter has perhaps not been so great in Scotland? Then, in the interests of—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting for a long time to ask his question. I thought that he might have been more direct, but he seems to be circumventing the question on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman has a direct question about Wales, I must hear it.

What progress has been with regard to grant-maintained schools and primary schools in Wales?

If my hon. Friend is patient, he will hear in a few moments our proposal to make grant-maintained schools even more popular in Wales by giving them the opportunity to borrow money in the private sector. I am sure that Opposition Members whose children attend grant-maintained schools will want to support the Government in this matter.

Rural Railway Lines

5.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received over the past two years on the subject of rural railway lines in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [8833]

Twenty-one representations in the two years ended 31 December 1995.

Is the Minister aware that the first three franchisees to be allocated services are intent on reviewing fares every four months? Did not the Government give an assurance that price rises would be in accordance with inflation? What assurance can the Minister possibly give to those of us in Wales who are very concerned about rural lines in particular, and all railway lines in Wales in general? When will the Government realise that we need a properly funded and integrated public transport system in Wales?

My right hon. Friend's assurance on fares remains firmly in place, and there has been no change in that matter whatsoever. The same opportunities for the provision of socially necessary railway services in Wales to be supported by the taxpayer exist. The hon. Gentleman ought to move forward to the 20th century and recognise the real opportunities that privatisation presents, in the same way as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—according to the Western Mail this morning—has seen the possibilities of freight traffic on the north Wales line.

Will the Minister invite the Secretary of State to travel the 120-mile stretch of the heart of Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury to see the most beautiful line in Wales? Will he further ensure that the Welsh Office is represented at a very senior level at the special conference to be held in Llandrindod Wells on 23 March? The conference will look at the potential of the line, and at the potential for integrated transport, green tourism and job creation along its length.

It is always good to be represented on any appropriate occasion, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is looked into. I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for the excellent heart of Wales line and the beautiful scenery through which it passes. I do not need to pass on such an invitation to my right hon. Friend—although I know that he would take it up with alacrity—because he has already travelled on parts of the line.

Local Government Finance

6.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of local authorities to discuss the local government financial settlement. [8834]

I chaired a meeting of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance on 18 December 1995.

I trust that those who were present at the meeting made the Secretary of State aware of the effect of the Government's grant to local authorities on the council taxes in Wales that are soon to be announced. Is the Secretary of State aware that we shall see increases of 30 or 40 per cent. in council tax across Wales? What effect does he believe that that will have on the Welsh economy and on the feel-good factor in Wales? What effect is the rise likely to have on the prospects at the next election of the pitifully few Conservative Members who represent Welsh constituencies?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, council tax levels are set by local authorities. Notwithstanding that, I expect that there will be a large differential between English and Welsh council taxes for the foreseeable future. Local authority leaders made certain representations to me at the meeting on 18 December and further representations in the period of consultation, which ended on 5 January. I shall, of course, consider those representations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, if local authorities such as mine restricted their council tax increase to the 3 per cent. present rate of inflation, in order to balance their books, they would have to cut some 50 teaching posts, close 15 rural schools, withdraw social services from 1,500 vulnerable people and close leisure centres for one or two days a week? Is that the objective of the settlement that he has made?

No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have increased the amount of money that central Government will give to local government in the coming year. It is not possible to satisfy every demand for money on every occasion, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I have increased the money that is given to local government. It is up to local government to play its part, in being as efficient as possible and running its services as well as it can, to ensure that we get the best possible value for money.

In particular, what excuses does the Secretary of State have to offer to the residents of the politically independent area of the new Powys unitary authority, who face a minimum increase of 15 to 20 per cent. in their council tax just to maintain services?

I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman—on a day when the Liberal party has told us that it stands for high taxes, is soft on Europe and is naive on the economy, I wonder that he asks me about a possible tax increase. The question is similar to those that I was asked earlier, and therefore the answer is similar: I am giving an increased amount of money to local government during the coming year, although the actual level of council tax is set by local authorities. I expect Welsh council taxes will be far below English council taxes in the coming year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in Flintshire there is not only concern about education—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)—but growing concern among the leaders of that authority about the future of Theatr Clwyd and the 100 jobs that it creates in my constituency, plus the many more knock-on-effect jobs in the town of Mold? Will the Secretary of State agree today to review the settlement to see whether there is any further assistance that he can give Flintshire, to ensure that that excellent facility continues as a source of pride in north Wales?

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), I received many representations in the consultation that ended on 5 January and I shall consider all those representations, including those that I received from Flintshire.

Unemployment Statistics

7.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent unemployment figure for Wales; and what is the European Union average. [8835]

The latest available unemployment rate for Wales on an internationally comparable basis is 8.3 per cent. for autumn 1995. The European Union rate in October 1995 was 10.6 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment in Wales is lower than in Spain, Italy, France and Germany, all of which follow the sorts of policies advocated by the Labour and Liberal parties? Is that why the Liberal Democrats are regarded as naive on the economy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Liberal Democrats are indeed naive, when they bother to turn up. When he talks about the Welsh economy, that reflects the fact that Wales does not have any of the economic and welfare baggage of the European Union, such as the social chapter or the minimum wage. Perhaps more importantly, Wales does not intend to take on board any of the federal European political baggage, which other countries want to do.

Let me illustrate to my hon. Friend what that means to Wales in terms of jobs—I hope that Opposition Members will listen. It means investment by Bosch of Germany resulting in 1,000 jobs; by L'Oreal of France, more than 500 jobs; by FRAM of Italy, more than 500 jobs; Valeo of France, 660 jobs; Kronospan of Leichtenstein, 420 jobs; MVO Spa of Italy, more than 44 jobs; Axa France, 277 jobs. I am sure that there are more jobs to come where they came from.

Is not the tragedy for Wales in the truth of the Minister's boast—that this may be the Government's best year for unemployment? Is it not a fact that in this, their best year, more than 10 million more working days will be lost through unemployment than were lost in 1979? Does not the horrendous number of lost days that must have accumulated over the past 16 years explain the poverty and deprivation that has become all too common in Wales?

The tragedy for Wales is that the Labour party still has such a high representation there. None of us will forget the tragedy of days lost through strikes when Labour was in power and until we changed the law. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of days lost through unemployment, I should remind him that inflation is down, interest rates are down, unemployment is down, productivity is up, average earnings are up, output is up and confidence is up. The only thing that could undermine that confidence is the Labour party.

I know that my hon. Friend needs no more ammunition than he has already fired this afternoon but will he tell the people of Wales about a large company in my constituency that found that, because of the social chapter, it could not afford to build a factory in France and decided, therefore, to double its production line in Scarborough, thus guaranteeing the jobs of my constituents?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has drawn that example to the attention of the House. He is an experienced industrialist and employer—matters of which the Labour party has very little experience.

I apologise for my late arrival, which was due to train failure. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Members who have put the word "Tory" into praetorian guard by being here today.

Does the Minister accept that, contrary to the impression that he has given that Wales is a land flowing with jobs, milk and honey, his own recent publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales 1994/95" shows that Wales' gross domestic product per head is 15 per cent. below the British average and 20 per cent. below the United Kingdom average and that Wales therefore produces tax receipts 20 per cent. below the UK average? Does not that suggest that, in spite of the investments that he mentioned—some of which, including FRAM, are 20 years old—Wales does not flow with milk and honey and would have a far higher standard of living if the standard of living of some of the countries that he mentioned as bad examples applied?

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the state that Wales was in when we inherited it in 1979, with clapped-out public sector industries that cost the UK taxpayer £50 million a week. Since we privatised them, they have contributed some £50 million a week to the Exchequer. He cannot seriously expect anyone to believe that Wales is not now an infinitely better place in which to work and live than it was in 1979.

Inward Investment

8.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the board of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss its policy on inward investment. [8836]

I regularly meet the board of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a wide range of issues.

When the Secretary of State next meets the board, will he point out that the M4 corridor does not stop at Bridgend and ask why a constituency such as mine, which still has 30 per cent. of its work force engaged in productive industries and which has a long tradition of manufacturing engineering, has had no major investment at all for the past 10 years?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to that strong tradition in his constituency and I should certainly like us to maintain and improve our efforts to ensure that the spread of inward investment around Wales increases. Of course, inward investors are attracted to particular sites, but the Welsh Development Agency has targets to ensure a greater spread of inward investment. Llanelli has major inward investment employers such as Calsonic and Camford Pressings from Germany, although they have been there for some time. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a great deal of effort to maximise inward investment into all parts of Wales.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with the Welsh Development Agency the difficulties that it would face should this country ever be under a Labour Government who were committed to a social chapter and a minimum wage, which would destroy inward investment?

Some of the factors that attract inward investors are lower tax on companies and less regulation than is to be found in the rest of the European Community, and one factor in producing them is not being part of the social chapter. Were we to sign up to it, it would undoubtedly damage our inward investment prospects.

Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the Welsh Development Agency, jointly with the Cardiff business school, on producing for Wales the United Kingdom's first regional technology plan? Given the importance of that project, does he think it appropriate that he should have deceived the WDA into thinking that he would launch the plan in Cardiff on Wednesday this week? Will he confirm that, contrary to the press releases that have been put out, he has no intention of being there and has chosen instead to be at a Conservative party function in London? Does not that demonstrate precisely what is wrong with the Government—people's needs are playing second fiddle to the Tory party's needs?

I shall be attending a meeting of the Cabinet, and the hon. Gentleman would be angry with me if I did not. I shall deliver my speech at the launch of the regional technology plan by video tape. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy listening to every word of my speech and that his questions will be better informed in future.

Modern Apprenticeships

9.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has been taken to allow more young people to benefit from modern apprenticeships in Wales. [8837]

I have made additional funds available for modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships so that, by the end of 1996–97, more than 8,500 young people in Wales will have been able to start such training since the initiative began. That will result in a substantial injection of new, highly skilled and qualified workers into manufacturing industry in Wales.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on increasing spending year on year by 14 per cent. Does not that show the Government's commitment to producing a skilled work force from our young folk? Does he feel that Welsh employers have managed to measure up satisfactorily to the challenge presented to employers and to young people by the modern apprenticeship scheme?

I thank my hon. Friend. He is right about the priorities that I have given to the training of young people. The budget for training young people will be £53 million next year which, as he said, is an increase of 14 per cent. I have also asked the training and enterprise councils to make manufacturing skills their top priority, not only in Government schemes but by encouraging companies to do the same. We have a steadily improving performance on training in Wales and I shall do my best to continue to encourage it.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that that is all nonsense? The Government's figures show that the number of recognised trade apprenticeships has fallen from 19,000 four years ago to less than 10,000 now? There has been a collapse in job opportunities for young people. Crime is rising, there is a lack of hope and young people throughout the valleys in south Wales feel tremendous despair because they cannot get trade apprenticeships, which the Government have cut year after year.

As I have explained, the Government's policies are directed towards increasing opportunities. I have already listed the ways in which we are doing that. Moreover, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the survey released today by Dun and Bradstreet, which shows that nearly two thirds of Welsh firms—the highest proportion in the whole of Great Britain—expect to increase their employment.

School Sports

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to encourage participation in sport in schools and to raise the standard of sports provision in schools. [8838]

Last September, my right hon. Friend published "Young People and Sport in Wales", which sets out a comprehensive programme of action for sport for children of school age. He invited the Sports Council to Wales to consult widely and advise him on a number of specific issues arising out of the document. My right hon. Friend expects to receive that advice shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my Welsh constituents in Basildon will be delighted with that news, irrespective of the type of school to which they send their children? Will he confirm that plans to change national lottery funding so that individuals may benefit from lottery money will considerably help young people and sport generally in Wales?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in touch with his Welsh constituents in Basildon. However, matters involving the national lottery are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Trade Mission (Indonesia)

11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the prospective cost of the Welsh Office-led trade mission to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [8839]

It is £18,000, including a visit to Singapore. My Department's trade mission programme provides excellent value for money and has given a significant boost to the Welsh economy by helping many small and medium-sized companies to improve their overseas sales performance.

Is not his attitude typical of those who used to trade with Saddam Hussein despite the evidence that he was torturing and killing his own people? Does he not realise that the human rights record of Indonesia is one of the worst in the world? Indonesia killed 200,000 people when it illegally invaded East Timor. Does he not realise that the people of Wales are outraged that he and his team in the Welsh Office consider the matter to be of no significance?

United Kingdom exports to Indonesia increased by 42 per cent. in 1995. The people of Wales would be outraged if we said that Wales were to have no share in that increase, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and those who went with him, promoted. The people who went on the trade mission were not arms suppliers, but people seeking to trade with Indonesia in many different sectors. They have brought back orders worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds, which should be welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members.

Attorney-General

Vickers

27.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to call for a report on the memorandum of 6 September 1995 written by Sir Colin Chandler, chief executive of Vickers, to his fellow executive David Hastie; and if he will make a statement. [8858]

The cynical and casual attachment to the principles of British law implicit in that most cynical of answers is probably why this will be the last time that we shall see the Attorney-General in his current position. The Vickers memorandum catches the chief executives of Vickers and British Aerospace red handed as accomplices before the fact of a conspiracy against Mohammed al-Masari, a refugee living lawfully and peacefully in this country. If not kidnapping and murder, what could the executives have been referring to when they used the cynical and chilling phrases, "stifle him personally" and "direct intervention against him"? Why have not those executives explained their words? Why have they gone to ground so shamefacedly? Why is the discredited Attorney-General covering up for them today?

The House might think that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If he seriously thinks that there are any grounds for suggesting that there has been criminality in relation to that memorandum, he will no doubt report it to the police.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the professor enjoys the hospitality of this country and should not behave in a way that puts jobs for people in this country at risk?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is fully entitled to take foreign affairs considerations and the relationship with important allies into account in making his decisions.

Magistrates Courts (Paperwork)

28.

To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to reduce the paperwork involved in bringing criminal charges in magistrates courts. [8859]

In cases where pleas of guilty are anticipated, abbreviated files are being introduced which are expected to reduce paperwork by 5 million sheets annually.

That is a welcome answer. An independent inquiry into paperwork in the police force has been conducted by PA Management Consultants, and there is a strong case for having an outside look at the paperwork element of the Crown Prosecution Service because there are concerns, legitimate or not, about delays. We should consider widening the scope of cases that can be handled by the use of guilty pleas through the post, which greatly reduces cost and time in the prosecution process.

My hon. Friend's latter suggestion is already the subject of discussion. The Crown Prosecution Service does not impose case format on the police unilaterally: it is the result of joint discussions between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the legal profession.

Would the Solicitor-General be prepared to call in the papers in the case of my constituent, Miss Elaine Steele, to review the prosecution brought against her?

The Crown Prosecution Service conducts 1.4 million cases annually, so the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not have the facts of that case at my fingertips at present. Naturally, I shall look into the matter if he asks me to.

Discontinuances

29.

To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in reducing the number of discontinuances; and if he will make a statement. [8860]

The rate of discontinuance has fallen from 13.4 per cent. of cases for the year ending September 1993 to 11.9 per cent. of cases for the year ending September 1995.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the discontinuance of prosecution often causes great frustration to the police and distress to the victims of crime? Can he confirm, therefore, that the very welcome reduction in the number of discontinuances that he mentioned is the result of closer co-operation and liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

Yes, I can confirm that. Although the matter is of concern, it is of less concern than before as the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are working together very closely at local level to ensure that the quality of files is as high as it can be.

My hon. Friend will realise that some cases will always have to be discontinued. Some 30 per cent. of cases are presently discontinued because they cannot proceed due to the defendant producing documents at court or witnesses refusing, or failing, to attend.

Serious Fraud (Prosecutions)

30.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about prosecutions for serious fraud.[8861]

The Serious Fraud Office has so far brought to trial and concluded some 145 cases of serious and complex fraud involving some 325 defendants. That has led to the conviction of at least one defendant in more than 75 per cent. of those cases. Where there has been only one conviction, it has usually been of the principal defendant.

I do not think that the country will be particularly satisfied with that answer because the spectacular prosecutions are going down very badly. I think that the House is entitled to ask the Attorney-General what is going on inside the Serious Fraud Office. Is it harassing honest business men, is it incompetent, or are white collar crooks simply getting away with it? My gut feeling is that the Maxwell brothers are about as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Is not the real problem self-regulation in the City? There might be a case for getting rid of the jury system in complex fraud cases, but, quite frankly, self-regulation for crooks will never work.

Order. Before the Attorney-General replies, I must point out that there are a number of other charges pending involving the Maxwell brothers and the House's sub judice rule prevents any further discussion of those matters. Of course, general references to the work of the Serious Fraud Office are entirely permissible, but I hope that the House will be cautious about these matters.

I take fully on board the points that you have made, Madam Speaker, and I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman may regret the observations that he has just made.

The case was investigated with what independent commentators regard generally as great skill, it was prosecuted entirely fairly with great professionalism, the court handled it in an exemplary fashion and the jury considered the matter and reached its decision. That is British justice. We keep under careful review how we should proceed in future, but we should not distort the position.

Is not this a moment when the whole House, the Government and everyone else should defend and support the Serious Fraud Office, and not attack it for irrational reasons, bearing in mind the fact that that institution is crucial to the future of the country in tackling serious fraud cases, that it needs more resources and more staff in future and that it has a very good record? Is not it important also for the Government to consider further, without excessive delay, the need to have a professional panel of assessors instead of an amateur jury in the trial of such cases?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Serious Fraud Office has proved its worth during its seven years. Very complex cases are now being brought to trial with a professionalism and skill that cannot be compared with what went before. If we did not have the Serious Fraud Office in its present form, we would need to invent it.

The whole House will acknowledge that trial by jury is a very important part of our liberties, from which it and the country would never move lightly, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the only way to conduct a trial. When the Maxwell case is over, we shall consider calmly, carefully and thoughtfully whether there is a way in which similar cases might be tried better than by jury. We should certainly make no change unless we were confident that it would be an improvement.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with Lord Devlin that the object of any tyrant would be to overthrow trial by jury? Does he believe that that applies as much to fraud cases, where there are judgments of honesty and dishonesty to be made, as to any other case in which dishonesty is charged? Will he reflect on the effect of his remarks following the verdict in the Maxwell trial, which have given the impression of criticism of a jury that listened for 131 days to evidence and argument, and returned a verdict on the basis of that evidence and argument?

I am sure that no one who has listened to my comments in the round will have received that impression. I have been studiously careful to be very balanced on the subject.

The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to Lord Devlin, who was head of my chambers and a greatly respected Law Lord, but other greatly respected Law Lords take different views and it is a subject on which very experienced people hold different views. When we come to consider the issue, we shall certainly consider it extremely carefully before we make any change—and I am not saying whether we shall make any change.

Will the Attorney-General reject recent criticism of the jury system in fraud trials—there is no evidence that it has failed, and I know so far of no better way of assessing dishonesty—and of the SFO, changes in both of which have been rejected by Parliament in recent years?

Will the Government, instead of considering the matter internally, as the Attorney-General appeared to suggest at the weekend, appoint a senior judicial figure of the calibre of Lord Roskill to examine, with the assistance of financial experts, the system of prevention, investigation, prosecution and trial of alleged large-scale financial wrongdoing?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the support that he has rightly given to the SFO. He, like me, recognises the enormous advances that it has made in the seven years of its existence. I can assure him that, in keeping under review the best way of trying even the most complex and difficult cases, we shall bear his words, among others, in mind.

Over-Lenient Sentences (Appeals)

31.

To ask the Attorney-General how many successful appeals have been made against over-lenient sentences. [8862]

Since the introduction of the power to refer unduly lenient sentences in February 1989, the Court of Appeal has heard 213 references, of which 177–83 per cent.—resulted in increased sentences.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for the general public, the introduction of the power to appeal against over-lenient sentences and to ensure that criminals receive a proper sentence has been hugely popular? Is not that another demonstration of the Government's commitment to law and order, on which Labour so signally seeks to undermine us?

My hon. Friend makes two good points. The power has been most beneficial, and it is exercised with great care. The Opposition opposed the power when it was introduced, but have been good enough to realise that it is beneficial and to say so. I am glad to think that that view spreads across far wider fields of policy. I hope that we shall always hold the high ground and that the Opposition will seek to assault us upon it.

Crown Prosecution Service

32.

To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [8863]

The Crown Prosecution Service is in the process of developing initiatives with the police on training, and on the provision of prosecutors in police stations and police crime support units, to give early advice and assist in the prompt and efficient preparation of cases for court. Like other departments, the Crown Prosecution Service is implementing a senior management review.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take note of concerns expressed by my constituents? In one case, a young man was knocked off his motor bike by a car, whose driver accepted guilt at the scene of the accident. There were also two witnesses to the accident, yet the CPS is refusing to take that case forward. My constituents would like changes in the service. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that changes will be considered?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whenever there is criticism of the CPS's handling of case, I examine the matter with immense care. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to write to me with details, I shall ensure that the case he has in mind is carefully reviewed. If it is concluded, I shall give the hon. Gentleman an explanation; if it is still in process, I shall ensure that it is reviewed.

Points Of Order

3.31 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that today's Order Paper was properly circulated? It appears that a number of hon. Members with an interest in grant-maintained schools are not present for the debate.

All the papers needed for the debate are available to hon. Members. It is not for the Speaker to determine which hon. Members are present and which absent themselves.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this matter not because my oral question was 12th on the Order Paper and only Question 11 was reached. I refer to an issue that I have raised with you on numerous occasions in the past. As you well know, there are 38 Members of Parliament for Wales. Although I appreciate that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, right hon. and hon. Members representing Wales rarely have an opportunity to question the Executive, particularly the Secretary of State for Wales. Today, Madam Speaker, you called six Conservative Members who do not represent Welsh seats, four Labour Members who represent Welsh seats and one Welsh nationalist. Surely it is time that Labour Members representing Wales should have the opportunity to examine and question the Executive.

My question related to representation of constituents in the whole of Bridgend, who in all probability will face a 38 per cent. increase in their council tax as a result of the measly contribution that the Secretary of State is offering. Is not it true—

Order. I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point—[Interruption.] I can deal with this matter, thank you. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman missed out today, but he answered his own question at the beginning of his remarks, when he pointed out that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that any hon. Members may put questions to any Department of State.

I shall take the House into my confidence in regard to today's Order Paper. My research has shown me that 20 Welsh Members and 18 English Members tabled questions. Of those, 13 Welsh Members and 17 English Members were successful in the ballot. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that only 20 out of 38 Welsh Members actually tabled questions. If Welsh Members wish to increase their quota, they should table more questions. If there is some great fault with Welsh questions, perhaps Welsh Members might like to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, but much of the answer lies in Welsh Members tabling more questions.

We shall now proceed.

Yes. Would it be in order to have three cheers for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who has done for this Parliament what the Sheffield rally did for the general election campaign? In other words, she has let the country know the true nature of the Labour party.

That is not a point of order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) has a genuine point of order.

It is certainly a different one. I rise to seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. There was much interest in my constituency this morning about a document that has appeared, paid for by the taxpayer and produced for the benefit of some hon. Members. Do you have the power to ensure that that document is placed in the House of Commons Library, especially as it describes the policies of the Liberal Democrats as naive, and in favour of higher taxes and crippling home owners? Surely, that is the least that we could expect from a party that is wedded to open government.

It may be a point of order for me, but I should like to see the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers before I make a ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] So would the House.

Delegated Legislation

With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Public Passenger Transport

That the Public Service Vehicles (Operators' Licences) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2908) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Public Service Vehicles (Operators' Licences) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2909) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Knapman]

Question agreed to.

Orders Of The Day

Nursery Education And Grant-Maintained Schools Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.37 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill has five clauses relating to nursery education and gives powers to the Secretary of State to make arrangements thereto. When I heard about the Bill, I made inquiries about certain documents that relate to the operation of the Bill, if passed, and other consultation papers and administration arrangements. I was supplied with those documents and I passed them to those who are advising me on the merits of the Bill.

I assumed that, as those documents were public documents, I could pick up duplicate copies from the Vote Office today or I could consult them in the Library. I found that the documents were not available from the Vote Office. The Library may have them as deposited papers, and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench may have been supplied with them, as may other hon. Members. However, I have not been able to obtain them for the purposes of the debate. As papers related to the Bill should be available, I wish to ask the Secretary of State—and I have given the right hon. Lady notice of my question—where the documents were distributed, and to whom. Did they go to the Library; did they go to the Front Bench; and why are they not in the Vote Office?

The Secretary of State may wish to make a point further to that point of order. As far as I understand matters, on Second Reading, the Bill is all that is required for our debate. Any supplementary papers that may be of help are usually supplied as a courtesy by the Secretary of State who is handling the Bill. If the Secretary of State wishes to comment on that, I am sure that it would be helpful to the House.

I shall comment. Absolutely no discourtesy to the House was intended. Sets of the documents have been placed in the Library and they were supplied to the Vote Office. I understand that they have run out, but we can certainly ensure that full sets of documents, not only those that the hon. Gentleman may have seen, but the consultation documents that preceded the drafting of the Bill, can be made available very quickly. There is no problem. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who is always meticulous about such matters, and to the House. No discourtesy was intended.

3.39 pm

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill has two purposes. It provides for the expansion of the education of under-fives; it removes the statutory bar preventing grant-maintained schools from borrowing on the commercial market; and it builds further on the main themes of the Government's education policy. It focuses on improvement in standards of achievement and encouragement of parental choice, diversity and the aspirations of parents and children—all parents and all children.

On all those themes—encouragement of parental choice, diversity of provision, and the aspirations of all parents for their children—the Opposition are in complete disarray. We have heard the shadow transport spokesman enunciating Labour education policy—indeed, I am interested to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in his place this afternoon. It seemed earlier today that he might have been reshuffled in favour of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). Let us hope that that does not come about.

Nothing now can hide, however, the basic contradiction and deep division at the heart of Labour education policy: choice and diversity for some Labour Front Benchers, but clearly stated and oft-repeated policy intentions to remove that choice and that diversity from everyone else. Small wonder that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has found it necessary to resign as chairman of the Labour education committee. As he says in The Guardian today:
"It was not me who opposed party policy".
I am not sure what sort of advertisement that is for the hon. Gentleman's education, but I quote it verbatim.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the school at the centre of this controversy produced the first parliamentary ombudsman and three Conservative Members of Parliament—of whom I am proud to be one? It has also given a first-class start to many hundreds of young men who have succeeded in the professions and in business. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that just down the road from it is Kemnal technology college, of which I am proud to be a governor? It offers an all-round education to young men, leading to a range of technical qualifications. Are not those examples of diversity and choice in education of which all parents can take advantage?

They are indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his rather striking tie—I believe that it is the tie of his old school. I am delighted to hear him speak so warmly of his old school, which is clearly an excellent school with an excellent record. It is of course part of Conservative party policy to promote such schools and to promote diversity. We do not seek to abolish them.

The right hon. Lady spends her time at the Dispatch Box defending state schools. Can she explain why three quarters of all Conservative Members of Parliament have sent their children to the private sector—to public schools—or intend to send them to private schools? If the state sector of education is so wonderful, why do Tory Members buy their way around it?

Oh dear, oh dear. The hon. Gentleman will have to do a great deal better than that. We believe in choice and diversity and in the private and public sectors. We believe in access for everyone to independent schools, through the assisted places scheme, and we believe in a diverse system: grant-maintained, local education authority, selective, non-selective and specialist schools. It is only the Labour party that wishes to march back to the 1960s and reimpose the comprehensive uniformity of those drab years.

Will the Secretary of State come back to the business of the House—that is, nursery provision—and tell us how parents can have a choice if there is no place for their child to attend a nursery school? As she will be aware, from letters that I have sent to her, in my constituency we have requested nursery places, but she is refusing to provide them. Will she explain where the choice is if there are no nursery places for people's children?

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), when asking my right hon. Friend his question, was clearly coming to the aid of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), because he clearly believes in choice—at least for himself, as he is listed as having gone to Keswick school; he then chose the Sorbonne in Paris. It is all right for him, but not all right for anybody else.

That is a shame, is it not? I shall now try to make some progress.

As I said earlier, as Opposition Members should agree, the Bill should be bipartisan. There are some 8 million pupils at state schools in England and Wales. They and their parents, if Opposition Members will allow me to use the expression, have a stake in the system, because schools are accountable to parents, and run by governors who are accountable to the wider community, for the benefit of children. Those parents, governors, the wider community, and, of course, the children, are stakeholders in education, and it is the Conservative Government who have made them so.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in my constituency I have four grant-maintained grammar schools. If children cannot be selected for admission to those schools on the basis of interview or examination, those schools will cease to be grammar schools. Does she agree with me on that?

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend on that. He makes the excellent point that camouflaged comments about interview procedures hide the intention of Opposition Members to abolish grammar schools, which some of them value for their own children.

I should like to make a little progress. The Prime Minister has made a commitment that new nursery education places will be made available for four-year-olds during the lifetime of this Parliament. Over time, there will be a nursery place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish it, in a state, independent or voluntary setting. That commitment is vividly illustrated by the £390 million of new money that we are making available for the scheme over the first three years, which with the £565 million coming from local authorities makes a total of some £750 million per year, which is a substantial investment.

Phase 1 is already under way. The first children to benefit will start in April this year.

Will the Secretary of State tell me—before anybody asks, I went to Verdin comprehensive school—whether the number of nursery places in authorities such as my own, where all four-year-olds currently get a nursery place, will be diminished through voucher schemes, which will force authorities to reduce the number of places in the public sector? People will then have no choice at all, because such places will not exist.

The hon. Gentleman is completely misguided about the matter. If the quality of education provided in nursery schools in his authority is very good, parents will choose it, and local authorities will lose nothing. It is just possible, however, that some parents in his local authority area—as in mine—would like to choose between local authority, independent and playgroup provision. Let me also remind him that, at present, the quality of provision is uneven; one of the effects of the Bill will be an improvement in inspection and standards. Consumers of the service in his authority, as in all authorities, stand to gain.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Solihull benefits from far better provision than the Government's scheme? Will she exempt it, and other local education authorities, from such schemes?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited nursery schools in Solihull and was very impressed. There is no doubt that, if the parents of Solihull find that provision as excellent as I did, that is what they will choose. The Solihull authority has nothing to fear.

Phase 2, which will apply throughout England and Wales, will start in April 1997.

I should like to make a little progress, if I may.

I shall say something about Scotland and Northern Ireland later.

The Bill's proposals for nursery education break important new ground in three respects. For the first time—across the board, in all sectors—through the new funding mechanism, parents will be in charge. They will choose the setting—state, independent or voluntary. For the first time, too, all providers in the state, voluntary and independent sectors will be required to work towards the same educational outcomes; and, for the first time, all providers will have to satisfy a common inspection regime.

Parental choice has underpinned the whole range of our education policies. First, we put parents on governing bodies. We gave them a greater chance of choosing a school for their children, through open enrolment. We gave them more kinds of school from which to choose: grant-maintained, city technology colleges, specialist schools, local authority schools, selective and non-selective schools and independent schools, made available through the assisted places scheme. Through local management of schools, we have given parents and governors a much greater say in the running of their schools.

In other words, we have given parents a fundamental share—a stake—in the process of their children's education. We did that because we believe in choice and diversity for all. Some Opposition Members are happy to benefit from the Government's policies of choice and diversity for their own children, while seeking to remove that choice and diversity from everyone else.

Can my right hon. Friend give a figure for what the Treasury calls the deadweight cost of her scheme—the millions of pounds that will be handed out to well-to-do parents who are already paying out of their private income for children to go to nursery school? Will she also explain why she is prepared to countenance that deadweight cost in the case of nurseries? When I suggested that certain ex-direct-grant schools that wanted to go into the state sector should be allowed to do so, the Government told me that that was impossible, not least because of the deadweight costs.

I cannot give my hon. Friend a detailed answer in regard to the deadweight cost. What is important is that there is choice for everyone, whether they come from the middle class or not. We want to benefit all people, including people who may not hitherto have thought of going into the independent sector or of being able to obtain high-quality nursery provision. I believe that my hon. Friend will agree that those principles are important. He also knows that my door is always open if he wishes to discuss with me his interesting ideas about closer liaison between the private and public sectors.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way when she has already done so a number of times. Does she agree that not only parents who are currently using the existing private sector provision are better off? My wife runs a successful playgroup, and the vast majority of children go on to our excellent village state primary. They will be very grateful for the scheme, and many parents who are struggling to pay will be very glad of the vouchers.

It is true that the policies are not designed to put out of business either independent providers or playgroup providers. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

We have tailored an education system to each individual—we do not expect the individual to fit a uniform system. The introduction of the nursery education voucher is another step in that direction. It builds on the influence that parents have gained under our policies. It reinforces the key role of parents in choosing the right setting for their children, a principle so firmly supported by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). It gives them the opportunity to influence the education provided.

Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and speculates perhaps on how the hon. Lady will vote on this matter of choice and diversity tonight, does my right hon. Friend agree that the point about the hon. Lady is not that she is doing the best for her children, which any hon. Member on either side of the House would accept, but that she is claiming rights for her own children that she is committed to denying to the children of other parents? Is not that what makes her action so contemptible?

My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly and I think that the faces of Labour Members tell their own story.

I will in a moment. I have taken about 10 interventions. I must try to make a little progress now.

This country has a long history of nursery education, going back to the Macmillan sisters, Susan Isaacs and beyond, in state and private schools. The evolution of their ideas has produced a rich diversity of pre-school provision through the playgroup movement—now itself evolved into the Pre-School Learning Alliance—in private nursery schools, through the Montessori movement, in local authority nursery schools, and in reception and nursery classes of primary schools, so that nine out of 10 of our under-fives already receive some pre-school education experience.

As I have said, however, it is not part of the Government's policy to seek to impose on that flourishing and varied sector the dead hand of uniformity, nor to seek to put out of business independent providers such as Montessori and others, or the pre-school playgroups that have served young children with such distinction in the past 35 years.

Does the Secretary of State agree that choice in education is vital and will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will she try to explain to the House that, if one does not have choice, the only alternative is class segregation? Will she be reminded, in particular, of her experience in Southend-on-Sea, where all my children have attended state schools and where one quarter of all children go to the four grammar schools? If one abolishes those, the choice that we have to enable an able, working-class child to break out of his environment simply disappears. Will she therefore try to persuade Labour Members who are shouting at her that this is good social common sense?

I agree with my hon. Friend that choice is vital and that selective schools have an important role to play in that choice and in the quality of education.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will therefore tell the House what plans she and her Government have to extend grammar school education to every part of England and Wales, and when she intends to bring those proposals forward to satisfy the demands made by her Back Benchers this afternoon.

That is grand stuff coming from the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that, given the problems in his party, it might be he who should be bringing forward such proposals. As he knows, however, we are consulting on admissions procedures.

I have spoken about variety and about the flourishing sector that exists for the under-fives. We want to use that variety to encourage partnerships of provision and expertise, and to encourage enterprise and innovation. Good-quality education can be provided in all kinds of settings.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady; the failure in relation to the documents is not typical of her meticulous work. Does she agree, however, that the choice that she is advocating is to be implemented by use of parental vouchers, that the use of vouchers will probably diminish the number of three-year-olds at nursery schools, that vouchers must be given up to local education authorities in infant school reception classes for children below the age of five, and that they are likely to be issued in different colours, one for each day of the week? It is possible that they will be redeemable at more than one establishment per pupil. Finally, there is a risk that they will become negotiable tender. Are not all those points correct?

No, and I intend to cover most of them in my speech. The practical details of the way in which the scheme will work are currently being tested in phase 1, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I recommend to him the documents that he has and the consultation material, which will also help him in his quest for information.

When welcoming the scheme, the National Private Day Nurseries Association stated:
"It will stimulate the market to provide more places. It will give parents improved choices and drive up standards through healthy competition."
What we do not want is uniformity of provision, but what we must have is uniformity of quality because this is an education policy designed to improve the achievements of all children: it is not a question of child minding and child care.

On the issue of parental choice and the avoidance of uniformity, does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the hypocrisy of Opposition Members is that they argue one thing to benefit their own children while seeking to deny that same choice to other people? It is a case of, "We are all right, Jack and Harriet, pull up the ladder." Is not their policy obviously unharmonised?

We support the right of parents to choose. Labour is in difficulty because while some of its Front-Bench Members seek to exercise that choice, which we support, for the benefit of their children, Labour's policies seek to deny those choices to the children of everyone else. That is unacceptable.

The right hon. Lady has commended parental choice 10 times in 20 minutes. Does she recall the Prime Minister's speech in Birmingham in September, in which he promised that Church schools would be allowed to change their status without consulting the parents? Is that still the Government's policy and how does it square with parental choice?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been out to lunch. He has obviously missed the announcement about voluntary-aided schools. We put six options to VA schools and others on whether they would like to have a fast track to grant-maintained status, and on other matters. While they supported the present arrangements for schools going grant-maintained, VA schools did not want to have a special case made for them. As I have confirmed in the House on many occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has not been present—out to lunch I dare say again—in the consultations nothing was ruled in and nothing was ruled out. I made that clear a number of times, and we accepted the views of VA schools and others.

I must make some progress. I have taken about 15 interventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Very well, but this is the last one.

We all know that the Church rebuffed the Prime Minister: it was one of his many humiliations during the autumn. Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question that I asked her? How did the Prime Minister's offer of allowing schools to opt out without consulting parents square with the avowed policy of parental choice?

Mainly because my right hon. Friend did not make it—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I said that six options were put to VA schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I did. Church schools were consulted on the sixth option. It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman, who intervened twice, did not listen to the answers that he was given.

I now intend to make some progress. I have taken a number of interesting and jolly interventions, but the House will begin to lose patience if I do not do so.

We are proposing a series of measures to ensure quality. First, parents will be in control. All the providers to which grants will be made will be required to publish information for parents. That will include details of their staffing, admission arrangements and the education programme on offer. Parents will be able to see whether their children will be offered the opportunities that will help them make the most of their pre-school year in just the same way as they can make judgments from the prospectuses of primary and secondary schools.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will of course give way in a little while, but I want to make progress.

Secondly, I have gladly accepted in full the advice that I received from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on the goals for learning for children by the time they enter compulsory education. Different children will of course make progress at different rates, but all children should be able to follow a programme towards the outcome. I want children to start compulsory school excited by the prospect of learning and keen to question and investigate.

Thirdly, inspection is essential in ensuring that there is good-quality provision. The Office of Standards in Education will be responsible for drawing up an inspection framework for recruiting and training inspectors, and for organising inspections and monitoring them. For most non-maintained providers, that will be a new development. For many that think that they already deliver good-quality education provision for young children, that will be an opportunity to demonstrate that fact and to be recognised for it in an inspection report. The inspections will concentrate on the education quality of the places supported by the grant. They should be rigorous but not disruptive, and should apply with equal rigour to all settings. Providers that have been given an initial validation if they have met certain qualifying conditions will get their final validation after a successful inspection.

The Secretary of State suggested that consultation was of the essence and added that the Government listened to consultation in relation to Church schools. Can she confirm that the outcome of such consultation in Wales was a universal rejection of the scheme? Will she therefore pay heed to that consultation and make sure that the scheme does not go ahead in Wales at all?

I know that there is to be no phase 1 in Wales, but I am quite sure that once parents in Wales have caught on to the fact that parents in England are benefiting a year earlier than they are likely to, enthusiasm will then grow in Wales and pressure will be put on the providers.

There have been some worries that institutions will not be inspected until they have begun to exchange vouchers, but those worries can be set to rest because there will not be free entry to the scheme. Providers will be eligible only if they are a maintained school, a finally registered independent school, a local authority day nursery or an institution registered under the Children Act 1989, and if they agree to these three fundamentals—to publish specified information for parents; to work towards the SCAA desirable learning outcomes; and to agree to regular inspection and work through a self-assessment schedule that shows what the inspectors will examine and gives an idea of what standards are required.

Quality and the maintenance and enhancement of standards are of supreme importance.

Does my right hon. Friend remember a report by the university of Leeds four years ago, on the primary education structure in Leeds? Although standards are critical, as my right hon. Friend says, that report highlighted the real problem with state provision as against the flexible and innovative measures that she is proposing. That totally independent report was critical of the way in which teachers felt under pressure to adopt good practice as set down by local authorities. Teachers felt straitjacketed, and believed that their career prospects would be blighted unless they followed that good practice. Does not my right hon. Friend's scheme provide the innovation and flexibility that a state scheme cannot give?

I am not familiar with the report that my hon. Friend quoted, but I must say that the scheme will encourage innovation and imaginative co-operation between providers, all of which, with quality assured, will be for the benefit of the children's early education.

When those matters were considered in the House on 21 November last year, the hon. Member for Brightside claimed that, for example, a regime that puts the emphasis on parental choice is "absolute nonsense". Given the events of the weekend, the hon. Gentleman should take up that statement with an increasing number of hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench.

The hon. Member for Brightside apparently believes that a regime that puts the emphasis on quality of outcome, inspection and validation is also absolute nonsense. I cannot believe that he will hold to that after hearing this debate. Does he believe that our aim to increase the number of four-year-olds receiving nursery education is also absolute nonsense? It may be that the hon. Member for Ladywood will have different things to say about that.

I should like to say something about the funding system. There will be a document—for convenience we can call it a voucher or, if it suits the Opposition better, an individual learning credit—which has no face value, is not transferable and is not what lawyers might call a means of exchange. The voucher is an administrative tool for determining the grants to be paid to the providers chosen by parents, in exchange for providing the service of nursery education.

The mechanics of the voucher scheme will be perfectly straightforward. Parents with children in the eligible age range will receive an application form and apply to the voucher agency. The agency will issue a voucher. The parents will choose the provider and present the voucher. The provider will return the voucher to the voucher agency. The validity of the voucher will be checked, and passed to the Department for Education and Employment for payment of the grant.

The hon. Member for Brightside called that scheme an "administrative nightmare". I can suggest only that he perhaps has other nightmares to worry about now—the Labour party's education policies. There are more myths to dispel about the voucher scheme funding.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. She has been generous in giving way and splendidly robust on the subject of the Labour party's education policy. I wonder whether during her speech she might find time to comment on the Liberal Democrats' policy, because we have been told by the excellent Mr. Gareth Roberts, the senior researcher for the Liberal Democrats, that all they want to do is to throw money at education and that their policies are interchangeable with Labour's. That is an amazingly accurate description. Could my right hon. Friend comment on that?

That description is likely to be proved during the debate, but of course we shall all be noticing.

There are more myths to dispel about the voucher scheme funding—for example, the claim that local education authorities will lose out. That is not so. Funding will come from two sources: the new money that I mentioned, which is £390 million during three years, put together with around £565 million from local authority budgets. Let me be clear about it: the only money to he deducted from local authority budgets will be the voucher value for four-year-olds already in state schools. If those schools continue to recruit the same number of four-year-olds as they do now, all that money will be returned and the local authority budget will be unchanged. If local authority schools recruit more four-year-olds, the funding will increase. If local education authorities provide what parents want, they will not lose out.

Let me examine another myth. It has been claimed that places for three-year-olds are threatened. That is not so. Local authority spending on three-year-olds is unaffected by the funding for vouchers because it applies only to four-year-olds. Local authorities can continue to spend just as much as now and provide just as many places.

There is another myth. It has been claimed that reception class places will be reduced from full time to part time. Again, that is not so. If local authority schools continue to recruit as many four-year-olds as they do now, the funding will be the same and there will be no need to change the number of full-time places that they provide. Moreover, contrary to another myth, expansion of places for four-year-olds will bring benefits to children with special educational needs. There will be the potential to detect special needs earlier. That will be good for parents, their children and their children's future education.

If recruitment of four-year-olds by local authority schools is maintained, the funding mechanism for vouchers will not touch resources for special needs. We want the places for special needs children to be good as well, so we shall discuss with interested parties the impact of requiring all providers to have regard to the special educational needs code of practice. In the meantime, providers must tell parents of their special needs policies.

Other myths, about the future of nursery schools and grants for pre-school playgroups, can also be dispelled. None of those is under threat. There is opportunity and funded growth for the whole sector.

The plans to monitor standards across the board have received a warm welcome from the pre-school movement. The chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance said:
"We welcome the plan to bring pre-schools within a common inspection framework which will be regulated by Ofsted".
She added:
"Vouchers will also provide much needed financial assistance to the parents of four year-olds using our member pre-schools".
Parental choice will also raise quality. A head teacher in Wandsworth was reported as saying about the voucher scheme:
"This arrangement pushes me to raise standards. We cannot afford to be lax or complacent. Anything that forces me to give my utmost should be welcomed".

Now that the Prime Minister's plans for fast-track opt-outs for Church schools have been dropped, are we to understand that the Secretary of State has finally convinced the Prime Minister that it is standards, not structures, that are important?

Standards are extremely important and a great deal of what I have been saying has been to do with them. What a pity that Labour Members, including the hon. Lady, do not seem to understand that choice and diversity contribute to raising standards—although, of course, some of her colleagues do understand that.

It is a pity that more local authorities did not volunteer for the first phase of the scheme. We have a good selection of areas for a thorough test. The pity of it is that some four-year-old children have been denied an opportunity to have a full year of nursery education in 1996–97. It is a pity for them that the opportunity for more innovative and exciting collaboration between the maintained, private and voluntary sectors has been put off for a year.

My right hon. Friend knows that Norfolk local education authority is Lib-Lab controlled. However, in reply to my investigations it said that it had had no choice but to volunteer because the scheme was of benefit to children. Can she explain why Liberal-controlled Dorset county council, despite being given every incentive to take up the opportunity, turned it down flat, not after investigating it, but on purely dogmatic grounds on day one?

That is pathetic and reprehensible on the part of Dorset local education authority. By contrast, the chairman of Norfolk county council's education committee looks forward to

"almost doubling our nursery provision"
in the lifetime of the council. More provision is being planned by the independent sector and playgroups, often in imaginative partnerships with the local education authority. I am delighted that all that is happening in Norfolk and I regret that it is not happening in Dorset.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party, which claims that state provision of nursery education is vital and fought the most recent county council elections in Kent on that policy, has proposed no new nursery units for my constituency? When a grant-maintained primary school proposed such a unit, the Lib-Lab pact in charge of Kent county council tried to block it at every point and it was only my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who got it through. Where is the great enthusiasm for state nursery education in that?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He—and Kent, Dorset and elsewhere—will want to look at phase 1 because it gives us the opportunity to see how the system works. We shall be watching the new funding mechanism carefully.

By September this year, two batches of vouchers will have been issued and grant payment will be well under way. There will be plenty of time for monitoring the arrangements before phase 2 starts and evidence will be accumulating from inspection reports.

We favour quality, choice, opportunity and giving parents and their children a real share in their destiny. We are not concentrating on the interests of institutions and their structures for those stakeholders whom Opposition Members favour; rather, we are caring for each individual. I suppose that we might look forward to hearing a little more about stakeholders in this debate. A definition would come in handy, but I doubt whether it would say much about parental choice or diversity. What embarrassing words those are for the Opposition today.

The second topic of this two-topic Bill is the provision that enables grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to ask for your protection, as Back Benchers must from time to time against Ministers. Twenty minutes ago, the Secretary of State accused me of inventing something that I claimed the Prime Minister had said, which was that Church schools could convert to being grant-maintained without consulting parents. I now have the extract from the Prime Minister's speech. I do not wish to weary the House with it; I simply want to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to apologise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I would gladly read the extract, but I know that the House wants to move on to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), so that we may hear something constructive for a change.

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give the extract to the Opposition Front Bench so that it can be incorporated in that speech. It might then clear the air a little. [HON. MEMBERS: "He already has it."] In that case, I call the Secretary of State.

I am not sure whether I am supposed to comment on a point of order, Madam Speaker.

There is no need for the Secretary of State to respond as the point of order was to me.

Order. It is for the Speaker of this House, not other Members, to deal with points of order. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked the Secretary of State whether she would apologise. It is up to her whether she apologises or not. I do not force Members of this House to apologise unless they have used unparliamentary language. No unparliamentary language has been used.

Order. The Secretary of State is just making a point on this matter. I have already given my guidance on it. The hon. Gentleman should listen for a change.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For the avoidance of doubt and to comfort the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), he will recall that I said that the VA school sector was offered a range of six options. He will find the word "option" in those used by the Prime Minister.

The proposal for grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially underpins our commitment to the grant-maintained sector and to increasing parents' choice of schools. It adds to the freedoms and independence enjoyed by grant-maintained schools, which they so much value. Those schools are thriving because of that independence. Nowhere are choice, diversity and parental involvement better demonstrated than in GM schools.

Head teachers and governors in GM schools have been pressing for some time to have the power to borrow commercially. They are keen to explore the opportunities for commercial borrowing and to develop their premises further in the interests of parents and pupils. They have many plans for building work in which the ability to borrow could prove invaluable. Those include new sports facilities, halls and other improvements to their facilities. Their building proposals will enhance their educational work; add to the facilities available to the local community; in many cases generate extra revenue, including revenue from dual and commercial use; and enable grant-maintained schools to take part in the private finance initiative and make the capital grant go further. I know that the Opposition support the private finance initiative. They call it "partnership for investment", but it is the PFI to us.

As grant-maintained schools have developed, we have given them increasingly greater powers. We extended their freedoms in the Education Act 1993 and they are now ready for the new power to borrow and charge for their assets. Their proposals will be subject to the consent of the holder of my office and there will be conditions to safeguard the schools' assets.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the risk of encouraging grant-maintained schools, which I support, to overextend themselves when they borrow to improve the schools' physical facilities, while under-using their most important freedom—to sack incompetent staff and assemble high-quality, aspiring staff, who are so often lacking in many of our secondary schools today?

It is obviously important to have appropriate safeguards and I have it in mind to delegate the power to give consent to operate the safeguards to the Funding Agency for Schools.

The House will perceive that the Labour party is in some difficulty over the issue and over most other aspects of its education policy, as far as it goes. It is facing in a number of different directions at once on the issue of grant-maintained schools and, even for political contortionists, that is difficult.

Despite careful camouflage, the Labour party's official position, so often articulated in the House by the hon. Member for Brightside, is what it has always been: to abolish grant-maintained status and deny schools the benefits of self-government. But what is the unofficial position? Who can say? Perhaps we shall hear it this afternoon. Perhaps, as I speak, there are flurries of activity involving the hon. Member for Peckham, the Opposition Chief Whip, the spin doctors and others.

I am curious to know what, if anything, the Labour party will do about the grant-maintained aspect of the Bill in Committee. I understand that when the proposal was first announced, the hon. Member for Brightside was so impressed that he suggested that local authority schools should be given the same powers. He even tabled a parliamentary question to find out how much that would cost. Does that foreshadow proposals from the Labour party for more freedoms for local authority schools? How much closer does he think such schools should get to grant-maintained status without taking that vital step and opting out of local authority control? All those issues are lost in confusion and disarray.

The House will expect me to go quickly through the Bill's clauses and schedules. Clauses 1 to 5 and schedules 1 and 2 deal with the nursery scheme. Clause 1 is the main provision; it empowers the Secretary of State to make grants for nursery education within the context of the funding regime that I have described. To put it simply, the clause defines "nursery education" as applying to children below the age of five and leaves the precise age range to which the new scheme applies to be specified in the arrangements that we shall be making. In the first instance, the new scheme will apply to four-year-olds, but the clause enables us to extend the age range downwards at a later date.

Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to delegate the power of paying and administering the grant.

Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to impose requirements on the providers—including local education authorities, voluntary organisations and independent schools—that participate in the scheme.

Clause 4 applies schedule 1, which provides for inspection, and draws on the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992. That will be a new development for many schools and other providers in the private and voluntary sectors, and a further development of the Ofsted inspection framework for state schools. The existing arrangements for the registration and annual inspection of day care under the Children Act 1989 will be left in place, as will the Ofsted regime under the 1992 Act.

Clause 5 applies schedule 2, which provides for passing on to those operating the scheme the information needed to identify parents with children eligible for the scheme, and restricts its further disclosure. The schedule is modelled on provisions in the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

On that point, can the Secretary of State give an assurance to the parents in the four areas selected for the experiment that if they choose, for whatever reason, not to take the £1,000, their children will not be excluded from the experiment?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate. It is good to see him—he has missed the debate so far. I am not absolutely clear what he means by his question, but if he would like to write to me, I should be delighted to reassure him.

Schedule 3 contains a number of consequential amendments. Paragraph 2 introduces a useful relaxation in the existing powers of local education authorities to direct schools as to the times when children can start school. Paragraph 9 provides for necessary adjustments to the legislation in the capping of local authority budgets.

Clause 6 lifts the statutory bar on grant-maintained schools' power to borrow other than from the Funding Agency for Schools and the bar on charging assets in connection with such loans, subject to the Secretary of State's consent. Schedule 3(10) provides that the Secretary of State may by order delegate to the Funding Agency for Schools the power to consent to such loans and the charging of assets. Clauses 7 to 10 and schedule 4 are technical and supplementary.

The Bill concerns the education system in England and Wales. The Education (Scotland) Bill now in Committee in another place contains comparable provisions introducing a similar regime for nursery education in Scotland. The Government intend to introduce appropriate legislation to provide for a similar system for nursery education in Northern Ireland.

The Bill puts the Opposition on the spot. Will they oppose it? Opposition Members may put forward some interesting technical points, which we can look at, but I do not see how—given the fact that they support education for under-fives and some of them support grant-maintained schools—they can do anything but support the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that Mystic Meg has tipped that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be Prime Minister by November. While I understand that the Secretary of State wants to give a good presentation of her abilities to the House, is it fair that she has been on her feet for almost one hour? Is that reasonable, and can something be done about it?

That is not a question for the Chair. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows that individual Front Benchers have the discretion to decide how long to speak about a particular Bill.

No, I shall not take an intervention at the moment. The fact that I have taken 25 interventions—there have also been seven points of order—may account for the time that I have spent presenting this Second Reading speech. I shall take no more interventions.

As I was saying, given that Opposition Members support education for under-fives and some of them support grant-maintained schools, how can they do other than support the Bill? Furthermore, given the fact that some of them appear to enjoy choice and diversity when it comes to their children, can we look for their support? Given the deep division and complete confusion that is Labour party policy, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to hold their breath.

The two measures will increase choice, opportunity and flexibility in their sectors. They will increase the share of individuals in their education. What will the Labour party do? Will it support the measures in the interests of individuals, or oppose them because they are not designed to further the cause of institutional uniformity? For it is institutions and organisations that are Labour's stakeholders—especially their paymasters, the Trades Union Congress. Will the Opposition for once declare for choice, diversity and opportunity—the real measures that enrich society—or will they oppose the measures and remain faithful to their socialist tradition of collective uniformity?

On the Conservative Benches, we have acted on abiding principles. We have extended benefits in which all can share. The beneficiaries include: parents, to whom we offer choice and diversity of education provision; governors, to whom we offer flexibility and the means of expanding education; schools, to which we offer ever wider opportunities; and the nation, to which we offer the prospect of an even sounder educational foundation. Above all, we are offering vastly increased opportunities to children—for whose benefit our education system is designed—to enter and to benefit from the world of learning. I commend the Bill to the House.

4.33 pm

I begin this afternoon by wishing the Secretary of State a very happy birthday—I sincerely hope that it improves from here on.

The Government's legislative programme is in tatters: their education plans have been either abandoned or shelved, and where the Government continue to implement them they do so without conviction. Two thirds of the proposals that were announced last year as the predicted legislative programme for the coming Session have now been either abandoned or shelved. The Education (Student Loans) Bill turned out to be a fiasco. The Government's proposals to extend grant-maintained status, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, have already bitten the dust.

The Secretary of State has turned into a Norfolk market gardener, walking behind the Prime Minister like someone following a rag and bone man with a diarrhoeic horse, shovelling up the mess that follows every idea about education that the Prime Minister comes out with.

It must have been the term "diarrhoeic horse" that got the hon. Gentleman to his feet. Before I give way, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook mentioned the Prime Minister, I shall enlighten the Secretary of State in her belief that the Prime Minister did not commit the Government to a massive extension of grant-maintained status in his speech on 12 September 1995. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) will forgive me, I shall read parts of the Prime Minister's speech.

The Prime Minister said:
"All state schools should gain the benefits of becoming self-governing independent schools".
[Interruption.] "Quite right," Conservative Members say. "Where are the proposals for all state schools to become GM?"

The Prime Minister said:

"Many Church schools have already become grant-maintained"—
which is not strictly true, as the Church schools will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He said:
"More want to."
Actually, more do not want to, and they have made it abundantly clear.

The Prime Minister said:
"Gillian Shephard will next month be consulting about the options",
and the options were:
"a fast track route to full self-governing status".
He continued:
"If a school's governors, with the prime interests of parents at heart, and the trustees representing the Churches' interests, agree on self-government, then they should be able to take that step simply and quickly."

I will in a moment.

The Prime Minister said:
"Nor is today's instalment"—
that was 12 September—
"anything like the final word in the moves towards full self-government for our schools".
Apart from the self-evident fact that all six options that the Prime Minister promised on 12 September have been set aside by a Secretary of State who does not agree with him, who did not agree with him and who never does agree with him, the churches rejected all the nonsense about forcing those schools to become grant-maintained because, like Labour Members, they believe that real diversity, real choice, does not involve making all state schools become grant-maintained so that there is only one status and one option.

That is the difference between Labour Members—plus the Secretary of State—and a Prime Minister who knows nothing about education and illustrates it every time he gets to his feet. The voucher system and the minimal extension of the powers of grant-maintained schools link in admirably with the whole Government programme, which has been about dividing one school against another, dividing parents against one another and fragmenting the education service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment
(Mr. Robin Squire)

The hon. Gentleman—no doubt because he wants to disguise splits in other matters—is making a meal of reiterating two of the things that he said and adding a third. First, he says that the Prime Minister spoke about the option of a fast track; we agree. Secondly, the Prime Minister said that the proposals were subject to consultation; we agree. The difference between Labour and the Government is that we listen to consultation. When the hon. Gentleman's party produced its proposals for church schools last year, it did not consult even the churches.

I only have to repeat the Prime Minister's words:

"Nor is today's instalment anything like the final word."
Where is the final word? What is the final word? On which of the options are the Government still consulting? Which of the options that the Prime Minister laid out on 12 September will be brought before the House, in the Bill?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned choice and diversity in approving tones, as coming from his party. Will he say what choice and diversity the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) wants, and whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to provide them for her?

I am happy to answer. Every parent in every community, whether or not they are a Member of Parliament, should have the right to exercise a preference for their child to go to the school of their choice. That preference should not be blocked by any mechanism that prevents a child from entering that school on the basis of his prior attainment at the age of 11 or on the interview of his parents by a head which then excludes that child because the parents do not meet a particular set of criteria. That is why we are against and will remain against selection, why any debate about selection is a past and dead agenda, and why we will turn to the future to offer every parent, whichever school they approach, the excellence that some have sought for themselves in the past and which others have been denied—excellence for everyone, rather than privilege for a few is the way in which we shall proceed.

I challenged the Secretary of State to indicate this afternoon whether she was going to extend grammar schools to the whole of England and Wales and the blocking of preference through selection to all parents. She clearly indicated that she was not. The only steps the Secretary of State has taken on the selection issue was to extend the 10 per cent. selection by grant-maintained schools to 15 per cent. I want to make the position clear. Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know how many schools from the grant-maintained sector have exercised that preference already available to them?