To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to encourage universities and other institutes of higher education to accept candidates with qualifications other than A-levels.

The Government have successfully sought to increase and widen participation in higher education. A range of entry routes is now available including GCE A-levels and AS examinations, advanced general national vocational qualifications and their precursors and access courses. The Government encourage higher education institutions to give all candidates for admission equal consideration, whatever their entry route.

Does my hon. Friend accept that while sixth formers now have more choice of examinations than ever before for entry into higher education, universities still press for A-levels? Does he agree that in the United States, where I studied, in France, in Germany and in Japan, people who want to go to university are not forced at the age of 15 or 16 to concentrate on just two or three subjects? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be advantageous to people aged 15 and 16 if they were able to study a far broader range of subjects?

I am interested in the comments of my hon. Friend, but I do not think that the position is quite as he states it. For example, about 10 per cent. of entrants to degree courses hold the B Tech qualification alone, and entries to engineering courses include 20 per cent. of students who have come from so-called non-conventional routes. We do not control the universities or their admission policies, although we can issue encouragement to them and we have played our part by developing high-quality vocational and access pathways as alternatives to the A-level route.

What actions are the Government taking in respect of professional institutions that are required to validate and accredit degrees from universities and to accept the quality of the output of degrees, as, in the past year, one institution removed its accreditation from three universities for an engineering course—not because of the quality of output of graduates but because of the qualifications that the students attained before going to university? That issue must be tackled by Ministers from the other side by seeking to put pressure on professional institutions to accept quality of output whatever the input.

The hon. Gentleman raises a characteristically thoughtful point and we are certainly in consultation with the Engineering Council and the providers to look at that problem.

Have not A-levels become not so much a gold standard as a golden calf? Does my right hon. Friend accept that for our cleverest young people A-levels represent an absurdly narrow educational experience while for those less than the cleverest struggling for two years to secure, say, a D or an E grade is like stumbling around in an academic tunnel? Will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage schools and colleges to find better ways to combine breadth with rigour?

The issue is to get all players—not just higher education institutions but employers, parents, teacher and students—to look for appropriate courses and pathways for the students involved. I agree that for some people who embark on A-level courses it may be much better to take part in one of the high-level vocational courses now on offer. I am delighted that such courses are now accepted and practised by some 80,000 people on the general national vocational qualification route. That provides an important pathway to the future that will involve at least a quarter of our young people in three years' time.

Actions speak louder than words. Have not the Government decisions ensured that whatever qualifications our young people obtain in their examinations in the coming year, opportunities for access to higher education have been reduced by Government funding cuts and all our students will find it tougher to get into higher education next year than they have this year?

I was about to, and I still will, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Labour Front Bench, but he will have to do better than that. British higher education has the largest graduate output as a percentage of young people in Europe. It has the highest graduate participation we have ever had in this country, and that percentage participation will be sustained on the back of the most generous settlement achieved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the public expenditure survey for the coming year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils benefit from the assisted places scheme.

In the academic year 1992–93, the latest year for which information is complete, 28,674 pupils held assisted places in England. I am not responsible for Wales.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that among those 28,000 pupils are 234 boys at Haberdashers' Aske's school in my constituency? Is he aware how deeply the parents of those boys appreciate the educational opportunity offered by those places, which they could not otherwise afford and which could be filled many times over by full fee-paying parents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme should continue and should not be denied, as Opposition Members would have it?

Haberdashers' Aske's is a fine school with high standards and I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on having such a school. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats want to abolish the assisted places scheme. They also want to abolish grammar schools, performance tables, charitable relief for public schools and, above all else, grant-maintained schools, where today half a million children are being educated. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats simply want to abolish excellence.

Will the Secretary of State explain why he thinks that the Government should subsidise private education from state funds when the state is strapped for resources in the first place? Is it not just a way of putting state money into private education, as the results achieved by children are no better than they would have achieved in the state sector?

There speaks the authentic neanderthal voice of the National Union of Teachers. After the public expenditure settlement a couple of weeks ago, I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks extraordinary. It is important, particularly in areas where there is little choice, for the Government to ensure that children and their parents have a choice. That is why we are committed to the assisted places scheme and will maintain and expand it according to the plans that I have already announced.

Was not the assisted places scheme introduced over 12 years ago against the direct wishes of the vested interests represented on the Opposition Benches? For children from disadvantaged families in our inner cities it was the best opportunity for a decent education that they could ever have or hope for. Will my right hon. Friend continue to expand the scheme in as many ways as he can achieve?

I want to ensure that every hon. Member is aware that it is the Government's policy to ensure that every child has as good a start in life as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who went to a grammar school and was educated at Oxford university. If the assisted places scheme helps others to achieve the same opportunities as the hon. Member for Bolsover, we want to make it available for everybody.

rose—

No. 3—Mr. Banks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he intends to take in the light of the examination results at Stratford grant-maintained school.

It is for the governors of the school to take whatever steps are necessary to improve the school's academic performance.

I was tempted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Is the Minister aware that before Stratford school opted out, its exam results were above average in the London borough of Newham, and that since it achieved grant-maintained status it has been below average? The Office for Standards in Education has moved in to inspect it because it is perceived to have failed. Under the legislation, there is no provision for an education association to be imposed to replace those governors. What does the Minister intend to do about Stratford school? Will he simply throw more money at it? Is he aware that the school is touting for pupils in the area? It is a total mess as a result of interference on ideological grounds by his wretched Government playing party politics with the educational needs of the kids in my constituency.

Even at a time of charitable Christmas good will to the hon. Gentleman, I find comments about political interference from such a source rather rich. He is right to say that we are awaiting the result of the inspection report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to study that report before determining the next steps to take. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the school's examination results in the past year were disappointing, but it would be unusual if we were to take excessive action on the basis of one year's examination results—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I adjudge that there is now complete agreement across the Floor of the Chamber about the excellence of schools and how we should be raising standards. I entirely welcome that. Let there be no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman's question is motivated by a desire to raise standards at that school, he will find the same desire on this side of the Chamber. Powers are available, in extremis, to the Secretary of State to cope with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status; and what measures he is taking to speed up the process.

One thousand and thirty schools have voted to apply for grant-maintained status, and there are more schools with ballots pending.

Measures in the Education Act 1992 to speed up and ease the transition to grant-maintained status include the need for only one governors' resolution before holding a ballot and a shorter timetable for the subsequent stages of acquiring grant-maintained status.

From 1 January 1994, every LEA-maintained school will be required to consider grant-maintained status and report to parents on the outcome of its consideration every year in future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the 10 schools at the bottom of the league table are not grant maintained but controlled by Labour authorities? Will he also confirm that the lot opposite do not like competition at any level because when they compete every four years they get stuffed out of sight, and they will continue to get stuffed out of sight while they have rag, tag and bobtail policies?

That was a characteristically sub fusc question from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). I confirm that what he said is absolutely right, both about the schools at the bottom of the performance table—we must try to help them or we shall have to close them down—and about the local education authorities. The 10 worst performing schools are controlled by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.

Is the Minister aware that in the war years, when people had to fight to get to those places, my parents were proud that I won a county minor scholarship to Tupton Hall? I was surrounded by people who had been sent there because they had paid. Is the Minister aware that when I went to Oxford I went to the working-class Ruskin college? Is he also aware that, unlike him and many others on the Government Front Bench, I did not go to public schools and, unlike him, was not educated beyond my intelligence?

As a matter of fact, neither did I. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should look up the facts and see what sort of school I went to. It was then a grammar school, of which I was proud. It is now a comprehensive school and I hope that it will shortly go grant maintained. I am proud of the education that I got there, as the hon. Gentleman is doubtless proud of the very good education that he got at Tupton Hall grammar school. I am sure that his parents were rightly proud of him, although if they were here I doubt whether they would be proud of his question this afternoon, which showed all the intellectual coherence of Mr. Blobby.

Will my right hon. Friend, in his customary warm-hearted way, extend his congratulations to Geoff Lennox, who was first chairman and then director of education on left-wing Derbyshire county council, and who dedicated his career to fighting the opting out of schools and the contracting out of services? He has proved that it is never too late to learn—by joining a private sector company dedicated to selling contracted-out services to opted-out schools.

Doubtless the experience of working with Derbyshire finally persuaded Mr. Lennox to show common sense. All over the country there is a good and fruitful partnership between state and private sectors. I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on his wise choice of future career.

Is it not true that, despite all the Government's efforts to push schools into grant-maintained status, only a small percentage of schools in England and Wales are grant maintained? Is it not also true that, in the past three months, two thirds fewer schools have voted for GM status than in the same three months last year, and that twice as many are now voting not to opt out? Is it not further true that the vast majority of schools have seen through the con trick of GM status and want to remain with local education authorities which are, in the main, Labour controlled? Would it not make more sense to divert the excessive resources in GM schools to all state schools?

The hon. Gentleman is not as well informed as he should be. Since the beginning of the balloting on grant-maintained status, month after month—including the past three months—eight out of every 10 schools have voted yes, and only two against. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the considerable educational benefits of grant-maintained schools. The published results in the performance tables last month showed their excellent performance, and I predict that by the time of the next election—and Labour's fifth defeat in a row—about two thirds of the secondary schools in this country will be grant maintained. This will be an irreversible change.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning local authorities that oppose grant-maintained status not for educational reasons but for political reasons? Will he join me in condemning authorities that do not put the children first and whose first responsibility is to themselves and their own jobs and empires? Will my right hon. Friend go on to say what action he intends to take to promote GM status, not just through governing bodies but through the parents who want it?

I think that parents and others are only too well involved. After all, there are the proud parents of the 500,000 children being educated in GM schools. An enraged group of governors and teachers from Lincolnshire came to see me this morning to complain about the attitude of Lincolnshire local education authority to GM schools. They complained in particular about the new and cruel form of 11-plus on which the LEA is insisting—causing maximum stress for the children and having to be taken on Saturday mornings instead of during the school week so that the children being tested for grammar school entry in Lincolnshire do not even notice. New authorities formed by new types of political control in counties such as Lincolnshire should think carefully before putting children under stress in this way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures have been taken to increase the number of children leaving primary schools who can swim.

The national curriculum for physical education requires that all pupils should by the age of 11 be able to swim unaided at least 25 metres and demonstrate an understanding of water safety. This requirement becomes effective from August next year.

Is the Minister aware that there is great concern not just in the Amateur Swimming Association but among all people who care about young people being able to swim and a fear that there may be some going back on that commitment in Sir Ron Dearing's review of the national curriculum? Will the Minister give a commitment that swimming will remain part of the national curriculum and say what concrete measures will be taken to ensure that all primary schools can afford to get their children to swimming pools, which causes great difficulties in inner-city areas? What resources will be put in and will he ensure that they will be available when needed?

The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of swimming. That is why it features in the national curriculum, as it has done since 1992, along with other physical education requirements. There has been significant funding of the national curriculum in recent years. We believe that it should be possible for the minority of schools that do not currently have access to swimming pools to find additional funding from their existing resources.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies in Britain is that small children still die from drowning? It is extremely encouraging that almost 70 per cent. of primary schools now have swimming pools on site and more than 80 per cent. provide swimming training.

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It sounds as though my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has struck a chord. I endorse what he said and remind Opposition Members, who may have overlooked the report, that in late 1989 a survey showed that more than 80 per cent. of primary schools had access to swimming facilities of one sort or another. I concur with my hon. Friend's views on the importance of the subject, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey).

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the global amounts paid for tertiary education in England and Wales for the past three years for eligible students from the European Union; and if he will give the figures for individual countries.

In 1991–92, total spending by the Department on higher education was in excess of £5,000 million. The amount attributable to students from other European Community member states studying in England and Wales is estimated on the basis of average unit costs at approximately £105 million. The numbers from individual member states are given in Department for Education statistical bulletins available in the Library. British nationals studying elsewhere in the European Community enjoy reciprocal rights.

Do they enjoy reciprocal arrangements in all other European Community countries? Is it not a fact that we carry a fair part of the European budget and also subsidise the education of students from some of those countries to the detriment of our own budgetary requirements?

I can confirm that we are obliged, under the Gravier judgment of 1985 by the European Court of Justice, to provide nationals of other European Community member states with access to higher education on the same terms as nationals of the host state. The United Kingdom has implemented that judgment at some cost to its Exchequer. Other EC member states have an obligation to comply with it.

While welcoming the fact that European students find our institutions so excellent that they wish to come here, may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that they do not do so at the expense of our mature students? Will he consider the case of one of my constituents, who is over 50 and has been made redundant? He had a 14-year-old child, and he and his wife worked out that they could just, by the skin of their teeth, afford to go to university. When they heard that there was to be a cut of 10 per cent. in the grant and the husband was not eligible for a loan, they realised that that would put an end to his career. Could mature students who are over 50 be included in the loan system now that the grants are to be cut?

My hon. Friend ingeniously introduces an additional issue related to the student support package. It has never been our practice to extend the loan scheme to the over-50s, on the ground that they have a comparatively short career ahead of them to repay their loans. However, I note the point that my hon. Friend made. From the student numbers that we have been able to put through our system and from the fast expansion in the number of mature students—about 150 per cent. in the past eight years—I can assure my hon. Friend that there is ample access to higher education in Britain for Britain's mature and other students, as well as those that we take from other European Community countries.

Rather than moaning about the number of foreign students coming to British institutions, should we not encourage our young people to study in institutions in other countries, particularly Community countries? Is not one barrier to that process the fact that we still teach languages in our schools so incompetently that many young people do not feel able to take advantage of such educational facilities? What steps do the Government intend to take to improve that vital part of our young people's education?

It is rather interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman attacking teachers for their incompetence in delivering modern language teaching. I have not heard much of that in the past. The Government have introduced a requirement under the national curriculum for the teaching of a modern foreign language. We are actively exploring with our European partners the possibility of changes in the higher education programmes of the Community—for example, the Lingua programme—for the purpose of exploring the objective that we share, which is to encourage a proper, reciprocal, two-way flow of students. That involves Europeans wishing to study in the United Kingdom and equally our students wishing to study in European institutions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to advise local education authorities to ensure that children travelling on school buses are wearing seat belts.

In 1991, the Department endorsed a report by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents on school transport safety and arranged for its distribution to all LEAs and schools. The report included a code of good practice, which recommends that children should always wear belts where fitted on school buses and minibuses.

As my hon. Friend's advice currently extends only to those buses already fitted with seat belts, does he think that it should be extended further? Does he acknowledge the force of the BUSC campaign, which began in my constituency? Will he advise LEAs to restrict contracts for bus operators to those that guarantee that every one of their buses will be fitted with seat belts and that children will be made to wear them?

My hon. Friend should be aware that it is for LEAs to decide their own policies in these matters. He should also be aware that a high proportion of school buses and coaches—indeed, coaches generally—are not currently fitted with seat belts. In addition, the overall requirements of the construction and use of motor vehicles are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Nevertheless, I shall certainly listen to what BUSC has to say and reflect on it in the light of recent events.

Is the Minister aware that only last week there was a tragic accident in Leeds involving a school bus that was taking the children of St. Michaels school on a day trip? The common practice of having three children to two seats was in operation on that bus. Will the Department urgently issue a code of guidance to schools on that practice? Some of us think that three children to two seats is a budget-saving measure rather than a measure to ensure the safety of our children.

About 850,000 of our children either travel on school buses or receive other help with school transport and, sadly, accidents happen from time to time. They are of very different natures and we consider all the circumstances surrounding them.

The working party that prepared the RoSPA report on school transport safety found no evidence that the three-to-two concession had caused any accidents. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will bring it to my attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools have achieved grant-maintained status.

Some 182 primary schools are now grant maintained or self-governing. A further 93 schools have been approved for self-governing status and we look forward to welcoming them to the sector in January and April next year. There has been a fivefold increase in the number of self-governing primary schools operating since last year's general election and the number continues to grow.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if parents genuinely want education to cease being used as a political football they would do well to opt for grant-maintained status? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that those schools that have taken grant-maintained status enjoy better motivation of both teachers and pupils? By voting for grant-maintained status, parents would reap a very handsome dividend.

My hon. Friend is right on every point. A report of the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, earlier this year highlighted improved teacher morale and pupil attendance in grant-maintained schools, and recent exam results show that, comparing comprehensives with comprehensives, grant-maintained schools have significantly better results than local education authority schools.

Why do not Ministers come clean about the trend away from, not towards, grant-maintained schools? Why does not the Minister confirm that only the other day in his constituency a school voted against grant-maintained status; that, as was said earlier, the number of ballots taking place is going down and not up; that the number of no votes is going up and not down; and that parents have now rumbled the fact that, as Stratford shows, grant-maintained status provides neither a better education nor a better way for Ministers to deal with any problems that exist? Ministers should come clean and say that parents have seen what Ministers are still blind to—grant-maintained status does not guarantee education opportunity.

Any suggestion that Ministers should come clean from the party that runs Tower Hamlets is a bit rich. As to the hon. Gentleman's comments on individual grant-maintained schools, or non-grant-maintained schools in the case of one vote in my constituency, the words "straws" and "clutching" come to mind. The underlying position remains that, month in, month out, a significant majority of voters vote yes. One's heart goes out at times to parents and governors who are struggling against the organised opposition of Opposition Members and their parties. When they finally have the chance to vote, they vote for freedom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said.

Will my hon. Friend reassure parents and some teachers in primary schools in my constituency that the malevolent operation of Labour-controlled Merton council to prevent some primary schools from opting out will be controlled in some way or another?

I immediately assure my right hon. Friend that, from 1 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have enhanced powers, in particular to tackle abuses that might occur in the balloting procedure and to cover information going to parents when they vote, which he will not hesitate to use in the appropriate circumstances.

If grant-maintained status is so attractive, why will not the Government allow schools to vote to opt out of grant-maintained status?

That is an entirely theoretical question. In all my journeys around the country visiting grant-maintained schools and talking to their heads I have not found one head who would even consider the option of returning to local education authority control.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken to remove unnecessary bureaucracy in the testing arrangements under the national curriculum following the publication of the Dearing report.

We have accepted the Dearing report in full. Testing and marking time for the tests has been halved and there will far less form filling for teachers. The 1994 tests will be much slimmer, but they will remain as fair and as demanding as possible.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that in my constituency, as elsewhere in the country, there was genuine concern among responsible teachers about the complexity of the original tests, but is he also aware that those same teachers are now delighted that the tests are being slimmed down and will be properly piloted? Will he ensure that teachers continue to be properly consulted and that he brooks no opposition from trade unions, some of which were opposed to any testing at all?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is right about the useful consultations on testing that have gone on and will continue. He will be aware, as I am, that in some counties, including, I believe, Hampshire, it was the local education authority that decided to put complicated tick lists, as they are known in the trade, into schools, which made tasks unnecessarily complicated. They were never laid down by the Government. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, in its handling of its responsibilities since 1 October, has been a model of efficiency. No teacher, deputy head teacher, head teacher or governor could possibly complain that they have not had promptly all the material that they need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the progress of his measures to improve standards in primary schools.

The national curriculum and testing continue to secure higher standards in primary schools. That is confirmed in the first annual report published by Professor Sutherland, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools last week, and in a report published by Ofsted today on testing. Both of those highlight the clear improvements brought about by present educational policies. But there is still room for improvement and we are continuing to work to raise standards in all our schools and to encourage higher-quality teaching for all our children at the level that the best already achieve.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most sensible people want to be assured that children in our primary schools are properly taught to read and write and to grasp the basic principles of arithmetic? In what specific ways do Government reforms carry these vital objectives forward?

They do so in two important ways: by the introduction of the national curriculum and by the introduction of regular testing. In addition, as report after report from the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, shows, teacher expectations need to be as high as possible. In the best of our 20,000 primary schools in England—and England has many good primary schools—teacher expectations are extremely high. All the academic evidence points to the need for enhanced teacher expectation. Children enjoy a challenge and the greater the challenge, the better they perform.

One way to improve primary education is to give adequate funding for proper repairs to schools. Does the Minister accept that it is totally unfair to ask teachers to teach our children in the deplorable conditions that are experienced in inner-city Manchester?

I do not want to stir up yet another local education authority, but I have to say that the way in which Manchester local education authority has conducted its repair programme over the years is not necessarily a paragon of virtue to hold up to metropolitan authorities. Adequate funds have flowed to Manchester over the years; the question is why they have not been properly used.

Bearing in mind the fact that standards in primary schools, as in all types of schools, greatly depend on the quality of teaching and teacher training, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the congratulations of the country and of hon. Members in all parts of the House on the fact that we are at last tackling the improvement and reform of teacher training? Will he also take up the question of establishing a staff college for head and senior teachers as a back-up for the reform of teacher training?

With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, I wish that we had started our programme of vital education reforms 15 years ago with the reform of teacher training. That is when we should have started, but 15 years later we are getting going on it. My hon. Friend raises an important matter that has been put to me by head teachers who are more articulate and more sensible in discussing these matters than Opposition Members. The concept of a staff college for head teachers, deputy head teachers and aspiring heads and deputy heads is worth considering in discussions between the teaching profession and me. Anything that we can do to enhance the professional standing of teaching is good.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's response to the recommendation of the National Commission for Education on nursery education for three and four-year-olds.

The national commission proposal for free state nursery education for all three and four-year-olds conflicts with our policy of choice and diversity of provision which best meets the varied needs of children and their parents. It is also unrealistic in resource terms.

Is the Minister prepared to listen to research evidence rather than prejudice for a change? All the evidence shows that three and four-year-olds benefit socially and educationally from nursery provision. Does he accept that we are at the bottom of the European league for such provision and that there is good nursery education only under Labour local authorities such as Lothian, in whose area all four-year-olds receive free nursery education? How is the situation to be improved, given that the public expenditure round has been the worst for 14 years, with cuts targeted particularly on local authorities?

The Government are always willing to consider research conducted on that and many other subjects, but the research does not entirely substantiate what the hon. Gentleman said. It certainly confirms the advantage of pre-school experience, but not quite as strongly as the hon. Gentleman suggested. In response to his comments on political parties, I gently point out to him that Wandsworth council, which is under Conservative control and will remain so for many years, opts for 100 per cent. availability of nursery education.

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the many parents in the Pre-School Playgroups Association, which provides such wonderful experience for our children, and will he condemn the fact that, although the Liberal Democrats constantly tell us how much they care about education, only one of them had bothered to turn up for education questions before the television cameras came on?

My hon. Friend makes the point about the Liberal Democrats more clearly than I could. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association. I had the pleasure of attending its annual conference recently and it is a first-class body of women and men, which does tremendous work across the country. If one or two local education authorities included the PPA in provision for under-fives, I suspect that they would have more choice. That is the sort of thing that we want to see happening everywhere.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how, at a time of national financial restraint, he can justify the expenditure of £15 million of taxpayers' money by him and his Cabinet colleagues on entertainment? I understand that that fund is appropriately known as the drinks cabinet. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that expenditure is little less than a scandal, when public service workers are being told that they face an indefinite wage freeze and does not it provide yet again that under his Administration there is one law for the powerful and another for the powerless?

At least the hon. Gentleman may be remembered for having made the worst pre-Christmas joke of the year. I happen to have the figures for No. 10 in front of me and I can tell him that expenditure on official hospitality at No. 10 was 27 per cent. lower than in previous years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the upper schools in my constituency have opted out of local authority control—(Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the upper schools in my constituency have opted out of local authority control and that one of them—the Anglo-European school, which has an international reputation—is under threat from Essex county council because of a decision by the Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition to withdraw discretionary fares? That school has been the jewel in the crown of Essex. It has a high reputation for language training, and represents—[Interruption] Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this—

Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman now. Thank you.

I share my hon. Friend's pleasure in the number of schools that have become grant maintained, which now exceeds 1,000. I have not heard about the specific problem concerning a particular school in Essex, under the control of the Liberal Democrats, and I am sorry if there appears to be discrimination against the school.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is disgraceful that the sums of money being spent in the health service on increased bureaucracy, huge salaries and perks for managers and glossy public relations seem totally out of control?

I do not share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that the expenditure is out of control. I do not believe that it is. The amount of expenditure on administration in the health service is very tightly examined and very tightly controlled. What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that when I examined the control over health expenditure some years ago, as Chief Secretary, there was virtually no reasonable control over expenditure. It is necessary to have such control and I believe that it is right that we should have it.

Has the Prime Minister looked at the affairs of the National Health Service Supplies Authority? If there is control, why did it waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on changing a single word in its name—£5,500 for a new logo, £61,000 for artwork, £67,000 on publications, £40,000 to replace signs and £20,000 to repaint the vans? That is £200,000 of which not a penny was spent on patient care. What kind of control is that?

Administrative costs in the health service are about 2 per cent. of total costs. There are very few companies that could match that. There has been no time in our history when so many resources were devoted to patient care within the health service.

Is the Prime Minister reluctant to condemn the example that I gave him because the chairman of the National Health Service Supplies Authority is Sir Robin Buchanan, a former Tory councillor and, until recently, the chairman of Wessex regional health authority, in which the grotesque mismanagement of public funds was exposed by the Public Accounts Committee?

What the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly neglects to mention is the fact that there is more money in the health service and more patients are being treated in the health service than ever before. He may seek to throw sand in the eyes on other matters, but that is the reality of the health reforms and no sensible person would wish to reverse them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the view of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and of parliamentary delegations in Moscow monitoring the elections that the elections were full, free and fair? Will he make it clear that a Parliament or a Government, whether democratically elected or not, which show antagonism to Britain or the west, cannot expect to have economic aid poured in? Will he also make it clear that any move to annex nations that are now free and border on Commonwealth of Independent States countries must obtain the condemnation of the whole world?

We have not yet received the formal report from the observers of the elections, but the preliminary indications are that the elections were conducted freely and fairly. I look forward to the official reports in due course. It is, of course, too soon to say what the Russian Parliament will look like. There are a lot of results on a first-past-the-post basis that still have to come in. We shall have to examine that and examine the implications for British policy thereafter. It is undoubted that both the United Kingdom and the international community have recognised the independence of countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. We have recognised that and we expect their sovereignty to be respected.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

As we have been talking about wasting public money, will the Prime Minister tell us why he spent £292,000 on decorating No. 10 Downing street and improving the catering facilities? We thought that he had an outside caterer. Does he think that it is obscene that he should be spending that amount of taxpayer's money when, within yards of Downing street, thousands of people are living in cardboard boxes and in shop doorways? Is not it rather strange that a simple Brixton boy has become the Imelda Marcos of Downing street?

I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman, as chairman of the Greater London council, used to arrive in the House of Commons in a chauffeur-driven car, paid for by the ratepayers. I also seem to remember that that same south London boy blew ratepayers' money on a giant binge to celebrate the end of the GLC as well as on parties, fireworks and river trips. He even spent it on silver medallions for his GLC colleagues.

The money that the hon. Gentleman referred to being spent on Downing street—a public building—was used largely to repair the kitchens and other parts of the public aspect of the building.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

With recent events in mind, does my right hon. Friend share my confidence that the Government will get their parliamentary business through this Session, bearing in mind the figures recently made public showing that out of the 200 Members with the best voting records, 191 were Conservatives and only six were Labour Members? Surely those figures show that the campaign of so-called non-co-operation is the hypocritical sham that we know it to be.

My hon. Friend understates the problem, as is his wont. Sham is precisely the right word. We know that the Labour party has broken off relations because it made a total mess of tabling an amendment on value added tax. It is now trying to hide the shambles that it made.

The idea that the Government are not allowing enough time to discuss budgetary measures is total and absolute nonsense. The Budget debate was extended by a day this year, and what happened? Hardly any Opposition Members turned up for that debate. I am not remotely surprised that only six Members out of the 200 with good voting records are Labour Members.

As for guillotines, I recall that five were introduced in a day by Mr, Michael Foot and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) voted for them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Has the Prime Minister had time to read the excellent research conducated in America and Britain, which shows that the best and most cost-effective investment in education is that in nursery education? Will he prove the Daily Express right, for once, and commit his Government to providing nursery places for all three and four-year-olds? That would be a much better way of spending money than wasting it on Downing street, fripperies in the health service and paying off retired Cabinet Ministers.

The hon. Gentleman may look, for example, at a Conservative education authority such as Wandsworth, which provides nursery education. He should also bear it in mind that, on other occasions, he and his colleagues have asked for diversity of choice to be given to education authorities about how they spend their money.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the progress towards fair and democratic government in much of central and eastern Europe? Does he agree that NATO must continue to develop the links and resources to ensure that that progress is safeguarded?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The future of NATO and its role from here onwards is an important subject to be discussed at the NATO summit in mid-January.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that widespread concern will be felt throughout the country and particularly in Coventry about the £1 billion error which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted yesterday? Does that mean more cuts in benefit for low-income groups? Is the Prime Minister also aware of the concern felt by many about the breathtaking incompetence of the Government, as demonstrated by their admittance of that £1 billion error?

The hon. Gentleman would do better to go back and read the evidence that was taken and then frame his question in a more accurate way.

The reality of what the Chief Secretary said yesterday makes no difference in practice. All social security— [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen would be wise to listen. The point about the £1 billion was not that it was in error, but simply that it was scored in the wrong place.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

When my right hon. Friend was in Brussels at the weekend, did he have the opportunity of exchanging views with the other European leaders about the state of their economies, particularly the levels of inflation, interest rates and economic growth—all areas in which my right hon. Friend is leading the way?

We had the opportunity of discussing the position across Europe. The fact is that, across Europe, the European Commission is forecasting a fall in GDP of around 0·5 per cent. In Germany, it is expected to fall by 2·25 per cent. in the current year and in France by 1 per cent. Industrial production is down in a number of countries. It is, of course, now rather different here: we have the lowest rates of interest in the Community; our inflation has been below the Community average for two years; unemployment is falling consistently in this country while it is rising elsewhere; and we have the fastest growth rate among European Community countries this year and by far the highest forecast for growth next year.

When was a similar Bill last guillotined in this way?

The nearest comparison that I can make is with the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill two or three years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Before Second Reading?"] Yes, before Second Reading; I think that is right.

In another respect, we face entirely new circumstances this year. It is the first unified Budget for a considerable time. [Interruption.] The unification of the Budget has been widely supported on both sides of the House. It took place on 30 November and included expenditure proposals alongside tax proposals, which require primary legislation but which do not have the same special procedures that tax legislation requires. That has therefore made it necessary to act in the way that I am seeking to persuade the House to accept.

On what previous occasions at this stage of the parliamentary Session—only four weeks into it—have two important Bills of such magnitude been subjected to a guillotine motion? It is common to guillotine Bills at the back end of a Session, but not at this stage. On what previous occasion has such a guillotine motion been proposed?

I had just completed my argument to answer that question. The sort of question that the hon. Gentleman has just asked me might make more sense if we were talking about an education Bill or others that I can think of, but it is not relevant to today's circumstances.

The two proposals are an integral part of the Budget announced on 30 November, with which a range of measures was needed to ensure that the proposals could be carried through coherently by 6 April. I am stating the procedures required of the House of Commons and the other place to enable that process to be carried out in a way that allows British industry to implement the proposals in a sensible and convenient way.

Does the Leader of the House anticipate that it will become an annual event for measures arising from the Budget that have to be passed by April? If not, what does he intend to do in future years?

I shall give the hon. Gentleman an entirely serious reply, as I have sought to do with previous questions. As I have said on a number of occasions—not least when occasionally responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, as well as to questions from other parts of the House—in the wake of our experience with the unified Budget procedures this year, we shall need to consider whether there are further lessons to be drawn.

Some of those lessons could not have become apparent until we had undergone that experience. It may well be that the problem that could arise in relation to expenditure proposals flowing from the Budget, and in the time scale that we are talking about, could require further thinking. That additional consideration would not necessarily be on the same long established lines for dealing with tax proposals, such as the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, but could require further thought on how such matters could be most appropriately handled.

Is it not true that, as a result of moving things too quickly, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—God bless him—has had to admit to a £1 billion error which, had he been more careful and examined the expenditure in more detail, could have been uncovered? Will not a similar error be made now if we do not look at the Bill properly?

First, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman, who assiduously attends our proceedings, will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the story on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based. Secondly, I do not accept that there is a parallel with the proceedings on which I am encouraging the House to embark.

A range of affirmative and negative orders—I am concentrating on the affirmative ones—will need to be laid in early February, allowing proper time for consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and a proper opportunity for debate by both Houses. We shall seek to provide that. Before that process, which must start in early February, the other place must deal with the two Bills after Parliament resumes in mid-January. If people think fairly and objectively about that, they will see that there is a need for the House to proceed with the measures this week, which is the reason for the motion.

From recollection, I believe that it has been customary to conclude such speeches with what is sometimes called knockabout, with references to the number of guillotines moved by one's predecessors of different political persuasions. I could make a number of such references, but I think that the case that I have made is clear and compelling and will command the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am content to rest my case on that, and to commend the motion to the House.

Today's debate is a classic example of the warning contained in "Erskine May" about guillotining motions. They are a potential risk to democracy because they are capable of being used

"in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business"—

that is, the business of this place—

"and the rights of debate."

During the 20 years since I was elected to the House, I cannot recall a better example of the relevance of that warning. We are discussing the guillotining of two Bills that will affect every member of the British work force and every British company. One Bill will penalise all members of the British work force because it will increae the tax take from their salaries, while the other Bill will penalise—or so it would appear—all British companies because it will increase their costs and the bureaucracy that they face.

We are having a debate on a guillotine motion because the Government do not want to talk about the issues; they simply want to use their parliamentary majority to get them out of the way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that only today I had a letter from the PMT bus company in Stoke-on-Trent clearly stating that, as a result of the Government's proposals, it is likely that there will be an increase in bus fares? Surely we should have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bills properly, rather than pushing each through in one day.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is precisely the purpose of scrutiny of legislation that such points should emerge from people outside this place. Parliament exists to scrutinise legislation; that is why we are here. In particular, this place exists and our greatest duties—for hon. Members on both sides of the House—stem directly from the need to scrutinise the tax raising and expenditure of Government. It is extraordinary that any Government should suggest curtailing scrutiny in the way that is proposed today. Not only are we asked to guillotine two Bills in one day, but each will have only one day's debate in this place.

The first of the Bills raises national insurance contributions for every working person by 1 per cent. That will raise £2 billion—two thousand million pounds—every penny out of the pay packets of the British work force. It actually raises £300 million a year more than a penny increase in income tax would have raised. No one could argue that those are not substantial sums or that they are not of considerable importance.

The second Bill—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill—transfers the administration of SSP from the Government to private industry. That transfer will mean savings for the Government of £750 million—again, a substantial sum. The Government claim that employers will be fully compensated for that transfer by the cuts being made elsewhere in national insurance contributions. That is part of the Government's case for curtailing debate.

Frankly, the House should doubt whether that is the case—as does British business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) identified. I shall come a little later to the reasons why that doubt is considerable—reasons based on the proposals being put before the House, rather than simply on the straightforward presumption that a Government who are behaving in such a hole-in-the-corner way are a Government with something to hide, as appears to be the case.

Is not it one of the ironies of such an extraordinary piece of arrogant behaviour that the Government have succeeded in highlighting the very facts that they would rather the electorate did not know about?

I am indebted to my hon. Friend. She is entirely right. Speaking as someone who, in common with others in the Chamber, has spent some five years trying to get the public to take an interest in social security matters, often of immense importance to them, I certainly take the view that, if it had not been for the Government's incompetence as well as their disregard of the proceedings of the House, people would be much less aware of what is going on.

Usually, when we have debates because the Government have chosen to guillotine our proceedings, the Lord President spends much time claiming that time is being wasted in Committee and that great discussion has already been undertaken. He sought to claim credit today for his forbearance but, of course, he cannot make that claim today because we have not had a minute of debate on this legislation. Last week, he fell back on the claim that, with regard to the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, the increase was announced in the Budget a year ago, so there was no need to debate the detail.

That, in itself, is a dubious claim. First, the Bill contains somewhat minor and technical provisions with regard to the health service and personal pensions, to which the Lord President drew attention, but those clauses are there because preceeding legislation is either wrong or unclear. We scrutinise legislation so that, irrespective of what the Government intend, they can get the legislation right.

Secondly, as anyone who is suffering from the ministrations of the Child Support Agency can tell the Government, the devil is often in the detail. All hon. Members approve of the idea that people should contribute towards the upkeep of their children; very few people approve of the way that it is being done. That again, I repeat, is what this place is for, irrespective of the party that hon. Members represent.

We are now having to sort out many issues simply because the Government have failed to get legislation right in the first place. My right hon. Friend has just mentioned specific legislation. Will she also bear in mind the way in which the Government have completely failed properly to scrutinise the European directive on the transfer of undertakings? Shall we not end up in exactly the same position with the legislation that we are about to scrutinise simply because the Government are not prepared to get it right and are not prepared to bring it to the House for proper scrutiny?

My hon. Friend is again entirely right.

Does not the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) underline the need for the House to spend time scrutinising European legislation rather than debating humdrum bits of legislation that have the broad support of the House? Was not the European directive on the transfer of undertakings brought forward under the previous Labour Government? If we had a system for the proper scrutiny of draft European legislation, would not we be able to deal with the problem raised by the hon. Lady? Do not we need to spend more time scrutinising the vast quantity of European legislation and less time talking up bogus divisions between the two sides of the House in order to conceal the ever-encroaching nature of the EC?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He can be assured that his words will go clown in history, at least on the Opposition Benches, and he can expect to have frequently quoted back at him, and frequently quoted back at his right hon. and hon. Friends, his words about humdrum legislation, which merely affects every member of the British work force and takes money out of their pay packets. That was a most revealing observation. The hon. Gentleman has clearly betrayed the fact that an increasing number of Conservative Members have no idea that this place is for the scrutiny of legislation of all kinds.

This place exists not only for us to have an opportunity to ask our questions and to probe; as my hon. Friend has made clear, it is for those outside this place who will be affected by the legislation, those members of the British work force and every British company that will be affected by the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. It exists so that they can scrutinise the legislation, ask their questions and perhaps, if they are extraordinarily lucky, even have them answered. It is not only our freedoms that are being curtailed by this procedure; their right as citizens to know that Parliament has examined legislation which will so seriously affect them is also being curtailed.

A few minutes ago, the right hon. Lady called the Child Support Agency in her aid. She was right to think that many Conservative Members are just as worried as she is about some of the ways in which the policy has turned into reality. Does she accept that the legislation to set up the Child Support Agency was not guillotined, which demonstrates that a guillotine does not necessarily prevent scrutiny? Even without a guillotine, we do not necessarily get it right.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I am not sure that it will work out in the way that he intended. Certainly, even with the scrutiny that is available, Parliament sometimes overlooks things or fails to get sufficient straight answers from the Government. How much worse, therefore, is it likely to be when we are allowed such a minuscule amount of time?

Furthermore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to stay for the rest of this part of the debate. I assure him that I shall be able to point out to him something that Parliament has already missed in the proposals.

If the matter is so strikingly in need of scrutiny, can the right hon. Lady enlighten us as to why the Leader of the Opposition made no mention of it in his response to the Budget and gave it no scrutiny?

It is essential in the reply to a Budget speech to deal with the broad sweep of the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned some of these issues.

Did he mention statutory sick pay?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. If he would like to stay to hear a little more of my speech, he will find out one of the difficulties that lie behind the statutory sick pay proposal and one of the reasons why the guillotine motion is before the House today.

The Lord President justified the guillotine on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill by advancing the notion that, as the proposal has been around for a year, there was no need to scrutinise it. That is the complete opposite of the position on statutory sick pay. That proposal has been around only since 30 November. No one has had time to scrutinise it. What is more, as I have already said, the way in which it was described was seriously misleading. The Government have claimed that there is nothing untoward or almost nothing unusual about their method of proceeding.

Humdrum.

Humdrum, as my hon. Friend says.

There is only one precedent that we have been able to discover—the Lord President also identified it—of a Bill being guillotined before it had even received Second Reading. That precedent is instructive. The precedent is the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. It has similarities with the Bill that we are debating today in that the Government clearly were not anxious to spend much time debating the issue. The Bill dealt with the most embarrassing policy, up to now, that the Government have pursued in their years in office—the policy of the poll tax. The Government wanted to spend as little time as possible dwelling on the impact of the poll tax. That is the similarity with the guillotine that we are discussing. That is where the similarity ends.

The Act followed hot on the heels of a Budget in which the Conservative party increased VAT to 17·5 per cent. It was, in fact, the counterbalance to the cut in poll tax of £140, paid for by an increase to 17·5 per cent. in VAT. The Budget statement in which VAT was increased was made on 19 March. The Bill was produced on 26 March and debated in one day. We opposed the guillotining of that Bill because we thought that it was not the right way in which to dispose of such vast sums of money. We were right to recognise the dangers of that precedent. At least that Bill was the means whereby the Chancellor put back into people's pockets the money that he had taken out a few days before in the Budget.

There is no such excuse for the provisions that we are discussing today. They are a straightforward increase in deductions from people's take-home pay made in direct contravention of what was promised by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister before the general election campaign.

Let me remind the Lord President that one reason why the Social Security (Contributions) Bill is before us is that a change of this magnitude in the Government's tax-raising powers requires primary legislation. I have no doubt whatever that if the change did not require primary legislation, the Government would scuttle the matter through in whatever hole and corner way they could find. The remark of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that some of the legislation is humdrum confirms that view. The Government cannot get out of presenting the legislation to the House, but they have chosen to allow it to be debated as briefly as possible, allowing the princely total of less than six hours' debate for all stages of the Bill before it goes to another place.

I shall now deal with statutory sick pay. The Lord President's argument on the Statutory Sick Pay falls on the fact that we have known about it for less than two weeks. When the Government curtailed the previous arrangement on statutory sick pay of 100 per cent. reimbursement by reducing it to 80 per cent., the Lord President said:

"It is entirely proper that we should come to the House with primary legislation to effect that change …that is the…legislation that we are debating."—[Official Report, 28 November, 1990; Vol. 181, c. 917.]

The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the change was so significant that it had to be scrutinised properly. But that was a less sweeping step than the one in the Bill: it simply reduced the reimbursement from 100 to 80 per cent.

At the time, we were suspicious of the Government's further intentions and in debate we drew attention to that concern. Anxiety about the Government's intentions runs through the history of statutory sick pay. When it was introduced, the Government said that it would apply for periods of only six weeks and that it would be wrong to go further because of the danger of putting burdens on British business. Within a year they had gone further by increasing the period over which it applied from six weeks to six months.

That, too, was a less sweeping change than the one in the Bill. Not only was that legislation referred to by the Leader of the House in the way that I described but, despite being of lesser purport, it was discussed for more than 50 hours in the Chamber and in Committee.

On 1 March, the permanent secretary to the Department appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. There was again some suspicion about the Government's motive. No doubt some Conservative Members will think that it was unworthy. The permanent secretary was asked whether the Government had any plans to go ahead with further reductions and further burdens on British business. He replied:

"No, there are no plans by Ministers at the moment to do that. Obviously, that is something they keep under review."

He was further pressed by the Committee and said:

"What you expect or what you do not expect is something you must deduce. We keep it under review."

In line with a recent television programme, he should have said, "You might think that; I could not possibly comment."

The Government claim that the change is of no importance because there will be no losers. That is their basic argument about curtailing the debate and, plainly, it has been swallowed by some of their Back Benchers. They say that, because there will be no losers, the Bill can go ahead without full scrutiny.

Plainly, that argument is not accepted by the Institute of Directors, which is normally a friend of the Government. At the weekend, the institute suggested that the proposals would have a damaging effect on British business. It is not accepted by the Confederation of British Industry which, in the short time available, has written to hon. Members expressing concern about the principle of the changes which, it says,

"poses fundamental questions about who should bear the cost of social security provision".

The CBI note says that it hopes that those questions will be explored—in the debates that the Government are now curtailing. It also says that, because of the overall Budget package and the Chancellor's reassurance, it does not necessarily wish to oppose the Bill, although it seeks various assurances from the Government.

I wonder whether the CBI is right about being reassured. Of course, this is exactly the kind of issue that it is right and proper to explore in Committee. That is the purpose of a Committee, but it appears that, at least in some respects, the Chancellor may have been economical with the truth in his reassurance in the Budget speech to which the CBI refers. The Government say that large companies will be compensated for the change by the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur in other ways.

Later in the Budget speech, the Chancellor said:

"for well managed companies with low sickness rates, there will be a net reduction in the cost of employing people. Other companies will have a much sharper incentive to improve their management of sick leave and to take a greater interest in the health of their own employees."

If there is no cost to business, where does that incentive, never mind a "sharper incentive", come from? The whole point, for the Government, is that there will be a cost unless companies themselves take other steps, which are not identified. Judging from the CBI survey of the management of sick leave, produced a little while ago, no such policies have been identified by anyone. Given the Government's track record, the fact that they cannot give us any breakdown of where the balance of the proposals for financial compensation in the Bill lies—to what extent the cut will compensate for statutory sick pay and to what extent it will contribute, as the Government suggested, to job creation schemes—raises doubts. The Government's imprecision gives us real concern.

What about small companies? The Chancellor continued his Budget speech by saying:

"the current special exemptions"—

for small companies—

"will be extended. At present, those with national insurance bills of less than £16,000 a year are fully reimbursed after the first six weeks of each…claim. I propose to increase that threshold to £20,000, to bring more companies into the scheme, and to provide full reimbursement after only four weeks. Two thirds of all employers will therefore continue to get help."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 926.]

That undoubtedly created the impression that there would be no cost to small companies—indeed, that they might benefit. Unfortunately, it appears that that is not true.

The Chancellor mentioned improvements that he said he was making, but in preparing for today's debate our inquiries have elicited the information that there will be increased costs for small companies. At present, 80 per cent. of the costs of small companies are reimbursed for the first six weeks, and after that they receive 100 per cent. of their costs. The time limit is being lowered to four weeks, but until four weeks have passed small companies will get nothing. I repeat: they will get not one penny—not one halfpenny—of compensation for the first four weeks. Only then will they receive 100 per cent. compensation. No doubt it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that, as all the surveys confirm, the vast majority of periods of sick leave are shorter than four weeks.

There is no reference to those facts in the Bill or in the notes on clauses. They emerged only during our inquiries in preparation for the debate. With only six hours available for all stages of the Bill, the facts might not have emerged at all during the debates. I assume that hon. Members would have concentrated their scrutiny of the legislation on what they thought were the difficult points, not on aspects that the Chancellor's words had led them to assume would not raise any problems.

We now know that there will be a cost—probably a substantial cost—for small businesses, and that it will be enshrined in regulations, which, as everyone in the House knows, cannot be amended. Yet hon. Members on both sides of the House would not have drawn that implication from the Chancellor's words. That not only highlights the need for scrutiny of legislation but shows us all why the guillotine motion is before us.

Tory Back Benchers are fond of posing as the champions of srnall business. There have been references in the press today—clearly, the result of briefings by Conservative Members—about the reassurance given to disgruntled Tory Back Benchers. Now we know what they were disgruntled about; they were being conned into voting for the Government, assuming that small businesses would be compensated. Now they know what is happening, and they can decide whether to vote for it.

While my right hon. Friend has been speaking, has she noticed that some Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Come Valley (Mr. Riddick), seem not to have known the facts? Can the Government have kept the information away from their Back Benchers?

Judging by the expressions on the laces opposite, I believe that my hon. Friend is right, and that the information was kept from Conservative Members. That demonstrates, more perfectly than any words of mine could, why scrutiny of legislation is required in this place, why that is the purpose for which the House exists and the dangers to which hon. Members lay themselves open by behaving in such a cavalier fashion towards the House.

The proposal to guillotine the Bills in such a manner is shoddy and disreputable. During the debates on the Queen's Speech we referred to the insolence of office that shines through everything that the Government do. The problem both in the House and in the country is that the Administration believe that they can do anything that they like, and they do not even want to be bothered to come to the House to defend it. It is clear that deceit, incompetence and cowardice are the hallmarks of the Government.

I was not surprised to hear the speech by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett); such speeches are de rigueur for a debate on a timetable motion. I welcome the proposal to allocate time on the two Bills. Indeed, I believe that that should be a standard procedure for all legislation and I am sorry that that aspect of the Jopling proposals seems to have been lost in the mists of time. Hon. Members on both sides of the House sometimes refer to the importance of freedom of speech in this place, but after a few years here I have come to the conclusion that much of that is a facade. In reality, debate has to be curtailed if minds are to be concentrated. One of the features of timetabled debates is a better quality of discussion; more succinct arguments are addressed to particular amendments and to the particular concerns of the Bill.

The right hon. Member for Derby, South did herself a disservice—not to mention causing offence to my hon. Friends and myself—by suggesting that Conservative Members were not aware of the absence of any help for the first four weeks. I am perfectly well aware of that and it is mentioned in much of the documentation that we have been sent by various organisations. It is indeed one of the matters that needs to be raised in the debate.

I remind myself that we are considering timetables for two Bills—the Social Security (Contributions) Bill as well as the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We have heard the sham anger from the Labour party, which before the general election planned to remove the upper earnings limit altogether. That would have meant a massive increase in national insurance contributions. The Labour party derides restraints on the time allowed for debate, yet if it had had its way many such issues would not even come before the House, because Labour would have handed the powers over to the European Community and the House would not have had the power to debate them.

The anger is a sham, coming from the party that has handed social policy-making to a commission, an outside body. That body is now—believe it or not—coming up with one or two sensible ideas, such as questioning the universality of child benefit. I wonder whether that idea will quickly be buried deep in the holes of Walworth road.

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that, because one pursues a certain European policy, the House cannot debate such matters? If so, he fundamentally misunderstands how the Community works—and, indeed, how the House works.

Outside the Chamber the hon. Gentleman and I are hon. Friends and he knows from our lengthy discussions that there is a difference between debate and constructive debate. We can debate European measures until the cows come home, but we cannot necessarily amend them. If the Labour party had signed up to the social chapter, as it was pledged to do, legislation relating to many issues would be agreed by majority voting in the Council of Ministers. We could debate their decisions for as long as we liked, but, after such scrutiny, we would have no power to change them. That very point was stressed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Single European Act or the social chapter has been more damaging to the concept of subsidiarity?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the social chapter has not even come into existence—

Yes, it has. The hon. Gentleman does not even know that.

It is highly questionable to argue that subsidiarity is damaging the country. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that the Labour party did all that it possibly could to obstruct the progress of the concept of subsidiarity by obstructing the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—the Maastricht Bill—through the House. If the Labour party had had its way, subsidiarity would not be an option, because of its obstruction of the Maastricht Bill.

The debate relates to the time allocated to two important, but small Bills. Those Bills will be considered after the House has had six days of debate on the Budget and, in the case of the social security contributions, five days of debate on the March Budget, when the I per cent, increase in national insurance contributions was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).

Does my hon. Friend recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security came to the House the day after the Chancellor's Budget speech to announce the full details and implementation of the changes relating to social security? That was an opportunity for every hon. Member to take apart the proposals.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A statement offers another opportunity to hon. Members to question a Minister on whatever issue.

Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that he is not aware of the difference between the questions put after a statement and the examination of a Bill?

Of course I am well aware of that difference, but a statement offers a further opportunity to hon. Members to understand exactly what is proposed. That information helps hon. Members to form their arguments on a particular matters. The ability to obtain information also counters the point made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who suggested that Conservative Members are unaware of the full implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. That is utter nonsense.

The timetable motion allocates a full day for the consideration of each of the Bills. In addition, today's debate offers another three hours in which hon. Members can, as is the tradition, speak about the Bill's contents.

That is wrong.

That is the tradition behind timetable motions.

We are talking about one Bill with three substantive clauses and another with two substantive clauses. Both relate largely to a matter of principle.

The right hon. Member for Derby, South was right to draw attention to the implications for small businesses of the proposed changes in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill relating to the first four weeks during which an employee is ill. No doubt we will have ample opportunity to table amendments to that proposal and I am sure that it will be discussed many times.

The Social Security (Contributions) Bill concerns a matter of principle. Hon. Members are either for or against the 1 per cent. rise in national insurance contributions. There is no need to provide a great deal of time for hon. Members to table amendments to that Bill.

Given the size of the two Bills, I believe that two full days of debate offer ample time to hon. Members to make short, succinct contributions that get to grips with the issues. That is the way in which all debates should be handled. I strongly support the motion.

I have been a Member of the House for just over three years and the one thing that I have learnt rapidly is that it behoves every hon. Member to read the representations that he or she receives, because they enlighten us about the implications of legislation.

I have received 57 letters from those running small businesses and 16 from those running large businesses in my constituency—yes, there are still 16 large businesses left there. Those people have explained the true implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill not only for their businesses but for their employees. Just today I received letters recording even more concern from the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors—organisations not noted for their donations to the Labour party.

The Leader of the House said that the Department of Social Security and its internal organisation had to get documents out in February. I wonder what happened—obviously it was before my time—when national insurance contributions were increased in previous March Budgets. Those contributions stood at 6 per cent. in 1979 and had increased to 9 per cent. before the current proposals. How was it possible for a change to be made in a March Budget and then introduced by 1 April without the aid of a guillotine motion? Now, with four months to play with, the Government have introduced such a guillotine.