To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about nursery education.

I am implementing the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, good quality pre-school places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take them up.

What specific steps have been taken to implement that excellent new initiative?

I have appointed a task force to take the work forward and to consult widely. I shall welcome ideas and information from all sectors, and already the Council of Local Education Authorities and the Pre-School Playgroups Association have provided information. My ministerial colleagues have also met with a number of groups.

In view of the statement that the Secretary of State has just made, why do the Government continue to block the Nursery Education (Assessment of Needs) Bill, which I introduced in February but which has been blocked on at least 12 occasions since? It would place a duty on local education authorities to assess the need for nursery education, as introduced by an all-party Government in 1944 under R.A. Butler. Is not that needed now, and will the right hon. Lady please reconsider her decision?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at a range of options for expansion, and a sound basis for that expansion will be provided by what already exists on the ground. A great deal of thought and work has gone into nursery provision, and we shall take account of the work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this initiative and draw her attention to one of the recommendations that the Education Select Committee makes in its excellent report on provision for under-fives concerning the need to ensure an appropriate curriculum for nursery education, as a mere extension downwards of the primary curriculum is far from sufficient?

The objective will be to provide education for the early years, and not child minding. The Office for Standards in Education will be asked to draw up educational criteria.

I congratulate the Secretary of State for Education on her appointment at the end of July, and I look forward to crossing ideological swords with her. How much will the initiative cost, and where will the money come from?

May I, in turn, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? I can reassure him that we are looking at a range of options for expansion, but we have not made a decision yet. The need for additional funding will be determined as part of the development of the policy, but it is new provision and there will be new money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in spending on books and equipment for schools since 1979.

Spending on books and equipment in local education authority maintained schools in England increased by 28 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. On a per-pupil basis, spending has increased by 56 per cent. in real terms over the same period. Equivalent information is not available for grant-maintained or independent schools.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he compare the spending of Gloucestershire with that of the remainder of the country? Might any special additional funding be made available for the provision of books and equipment?

I can confirm that, broadly speaking, Gloucestershire's spending on books and equipment is in line with the average for England. On a cash basis, the figures for Gloucestershire LEA are £63 per pupil in 1991–92 and £76 per pupil in 1992–93; the all-England figures are £ per pupil in 1991–92, increasing to £75 per pupil in 1992–93.

Is the real question not what equipment schools have compared with 15 years ago but whether they are properly equipped to teach children to succeed and survive in the next century? Is the Minister aware that many schools still have to rely on parental contributions for essential items of education? Is he happy that how well a school is equipped should in part depend on the wealth of the parents whose children it serves?

The hon. Lady overlooks the fact that under the revolution inspired by local management of schools, let alone by grant-maintained schools, governing bodies can, and do, take such decisions themselves on the basis of the priorities as they see them for their school. As for her comment about voluntary activity, long may the well-established tradition continue in Britain whereby parents and friends of a school who wish to do so can contribute further to assist its development.

Bearing in mind that local management of schools is acknowledged in my constituency and elsewhere as a total success, can my hon. Friend recall what Opposition Members said about it when it was introduced by the Government?

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. As most of us will remember, most of the initiatives introduced by the Government in the past 10 years have been opposed by the Opposition, only in most cases for Opposition Members shamefacedly to admit eventually that, yes, they worked and that they will support them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education which countries of the European Union have a higher percentage of under-fives in nursery education than Britain.

The United Kingdom is one of only three countries in the European Union where universal state education starts at the age of five; elsewhere, it is at the age of six or even seven. Although data exist for participation rates in most of the countries of the European Union, they do not compare like with like because they do not, for example, clearly distinguish between education and child care, or take account of whether parents are required to contribute towards the cost.

I was asking the Minister about under-fives, not over-fives. I congratulate him on his selective use of statistics—Disraeli would have been greatly impressed. If the French can manage to have 100 per cent. of three to four-year-olds in education and the Belgians can manage 94 per cent., should not we be able to achieve somewhat more than 50 per cent. of under-fives in education? Can the Minister bring himself to congratulate the London borough of Newham, which has the highest percentage of under-fives in nursery classes in the country? The most deprived local authority has achieved that. Will the Minister say something nice about Newham?

Ah.

I suppose it is difficult to praise a constituency that returns the hon. Gentleman, but I might try on one of my better days. On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically simplistic. It is surely not good enough to look at a percentage provision. We should look at the quality and effectiveness of the provision. There is no point in trading futile statistics. The fact that the hon. Gentleman claims that there is a certain provision in France says nothing about its nature, its quality or how much of it is paid for by the parents or the taxpayer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the form of nursery education that may work in Lisbon or Athens need not necessarily be the right form of education in Newham or even Warwickshire? What role does my hon. Friend envisage that the Pre-School Playgroups Association will play in the provision of nursery education in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want, and already encourage, all those involved in pre-five provision to come to us with their thoughts and ideas. We want to take them fully into account and ensure that, whatever regime is eventually proposed, it will take full account of diversity of provision and the maximum parental choice, with a guarantee of quality so that we can ensure that pre-five education is of the best throughout the country. That will be our objective.

I am bewildered by the Minister's change in attitude to nursery provision. Why has he suddenly become an advocate of nursery provision when previously, time after time, he refused to acknowledge its benefits? Has he now seen the educational grounds for such provision, or has he seen that its introduction is a political necessity?

There is no contradiction or difficulty whatever here. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made it clear that we want to develop quality pre-school provision for under-fives. That is our objective and we want to ensure that what we do is carefully considered, properly based and properly delivered. Among other things, my objection has always been to some of the more half-baked and superficial ideas that have come from the Opposition, not least from the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are now being educated in self-governing grant-maintained schools; and what was the same figure one year ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have opted for grant-maintained status in the last year; and what was the figure in the previous year.

About 620,000 pupils are now being educated in grant-maintained schools, compared with about 480,000 this time last year. The present total includes almost a fifth of all secondary pupils.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Is she aware that the vast bulk of the parents, teachers and governors to whom I speak in Gloucestershire warmly welcome the Government's improvements, which enable them to run their schools independently under grant-maintained status? Is it not typical of the Opposition that they would seek to reverse our excellent reforms, which have so benefited the education of our children?

Grant-maintained schools are both popular and successful, and millions of parents are now keenly interested in them. The Opposition will no doubt now wish to sort out their stance on the matter, as that number includes at least one Labour Front-Bench spokesman.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the unsolicited distribution of 1,000 copies of the Department for Education video, "Our Children: Our Choice", to parents whose children attend West Monmouth school in Pontypool—parents who have already voted against grant-maintained status? In the interests of balanced and informed debate, will the right hon. Lady make available, in this instance and others, the equivalent case against the nationalisation of schools?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I am not aware of the unsolicited distribution of videos. The Government intend to ensure that parents and governors who are considering opting out will continue to have adequate and full information about the benefits.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that all the secondary schools in my constituency of Ruislip-Northwood, except a Church of England secondary school, Bishop Ramsay, have been opted-out schools for a number of years? So successful are they that pupils are sent to them by their parents from other boroughs, making it impossible for local parents in my constituency to send their children to their local opted-out secondary schools. Will she therefore change the Greenwich judgment and make borough boundaries less permeable?

It is very important that sensible admission policies be achieved by close co-operation between local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools. I am happy to look at the detail of my hon. Friend's case.

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State on their recent appointments. I hope that we may now see some consensus in education in the next couple of years.

I am aware of the case, and it is being investigated by the FAS.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures she has for the number of 16-year-olds participating in part-time or full-time education; and what were the comparable figures for five years ago.

In the 1988–89 academic year, 473,000 16-year-olds participated in full-time or part-time education, representing a participation rate of nearly 70 per cent. For the 1993–94 academic year, the latest available figures show that the equivalent figures are 429,000 and 80 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are very satisfactory, and that they perhaps reflect the introduction of national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications courses, which are thought by pupils to be very relevant to their aspirations? Indeed, a report on GNVQs, published today, described students' responses as "overwhelmingly positive". Does my hon. Friend agree that schools that do not offer GNVQ courses should be encouraged to do so, perhaps taking a leaf out of the book of St. Vincent college in my constituency, which he was good enough to visit recently?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I very much enjoyed my visit to the college, with which I know he is very involved. It has excellent provision, reflecting a strong interest in, and a strong take-up of, vocational qualifications, both GNVQs and NVQs. We now find that the targets that we set for GNVQ involvement for 1996 have already been hit, and we are determined that those courses should deliver high-quality vocational education.

I welcome the increase in the number of young people extending their education, but will the Minister recognise and acknowledge that it is not all good—that many young people who are staying on at school are doing so because there are no prospects of employment for them in many parts of the country?

It is interesting that the figures for participation in further education began to increase before the recent recession, and have continued to increase during it. I would say to students at school or college during this period that the best possible guarantee for their future employment is high-grade education, whether academic or vocational.

Given the recent reports on GNVQs, which expressed some worries, what steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that standards, which are most important, are rigorously maintained?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of maintaining standards in vocational qualifications. In a sense, we anticipated those reports by setting out a six-point plan as early as this March. We are now pressing ahead, with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, on implementing that plan, and any other points, including the incorporation of core skills, that have arisen from recent reports.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure equality of research funding throughout further and higher education establishments; and if she will make a statement.

The Government are committed to ensuring value for money and accountability for public funds. We have asked the funding councils to allocate research funding selectively.

The Minister will agree that research plays an integral and critical role at our universities and higher education establishments, but will he advise the House of the criteria that will be used in assessing the efficiency of existing research and how decisions will be reached about future central funding, as not all funding comes from the private sector? Will he ensure that there is an equitable geographical basis for the funding of all research?

I very much agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of research in higher education. I am somewhat surprised that she did not acknowledge the fact that the bulk of research funding continues to be derived from the Education Departments. Under our arrangements, there is a separate Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, which accounts for about one seventh of the English total of higher education funding. In both funding councils, my understanding is that research moneys are properly allocated selectively with regard to quality, and that quality is determined not by Ministers but by academic peer review.

Our further and higher education centres are tremendously dynamic and diverse, thanks to Conservative policies. Will my hon. Friend cling to the principles that have always informed that policy of supporting research, which is to back quality and centres of excellence?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his part in bringing about that high quality in higher education and the emphasis on diversity. I strongly emphasise the importance of quality and diversity of admission, which we are determined to secure at all times.

Does the Minister agree that, if lecturers are to maintain high standards in teaching, they will need to be actively involved in research? If he cannot guarantee equality in research funding, how can he guarantee equality of standards in teaching throughout higher education?

It is for the funding councils to balance their funds between research and teaching. The hon. Lady will be aware that the bulk of those funds are spent on the teaching function. That is important, and we hope that as the system develops the balance of funding will reflect the quality of teaching.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with private providers of nursery schooling in preparation for the introduction of the Government scheme.

My right hon. Friend has not yet had any discussions with private providers of nursery education. However, she has made arrangements to visit a private day nursery and an independent school nursery class shortly. She will also be meeting delegates from the Early Childhood Education Forum which represents, among others, private providers, during the course of the consultation exercise. We expect private nursery classes and schools to play a full part in the expansion and to add to the rich diversity of current provision.

The House will be grateful to the Minister for that answer and for his commitment to quality in nursery education, which he gave in answer to an earlier question. May I have his further reassurance that there will be consultations with some well-known international organisers of nursery education, such as Montessori, which set such a high standard for nursery education? I hope that the new Government nursery schools will emulate that standard.

Yes, I am able to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I hope to visit a Montessori school in the near future. Beyond that, it is very much in our interests to get from all the providers as much input, information and advice as we can. We want to ensure that our proposals are firmly based on the best of existing practice, so that we can build on that and incorporate a quality guarantee. Only by extensive and continuing consultation over the next few months are we likely to be able to do so.

As the Prime Minister's recent statements on nursery education are different from those of the previous Secretary of State, surely there are three possibilities: first, that there has been a change of policy; secondly, that the previous Secretary of State did not mean what he said; or, thirdly, that the Prime Minister does not mean what he says. Which is it?

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the simple process of policy evolution. If he cares to consider carefully what has gone on in the past few months he will see that policy is evolving before his very eyes. In the capable hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that process of evolution will speed up gradually but steadily, and in the new year we shall unveil our new policies. At that time, the hon. Gentleman will see how superficial his comments are.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from Bedfordshire county council for increases in capital expenditure on maintained schools for the period after 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.

Bedfordshire LEA has recently submitted its bid for capital support for schools in 1995–96. The degree to which that bid reflects the national priority criteria for the distribution of capital will determine the authority's annual capital guideline for 1995–96, which I expect to announce in December.

Will my hon. Friend be able to respond positively to the specific request by Bedfordshire county council that just over £4 million be spent on Cedars upper school, which is popular, successful and becoming over-subscribed and in urgent need of that money to enable it to expand?

My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable on education matters, makes a persuasive case. However, I hope that he will understand if I stand by my answer to his first question. We shall assess all basic need bids, such as the one for Cedars upper school to which he referred, in line with our published criteria. We shall, of course, take into account both projected demand in the area and local surplus places.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to combat drug abuse in schools.

The Department is playing a full part in the Government's strategy for drug prevention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to eliminate drug abuse, it must be tackled at the earliest opportunity —through education in the classroom? Does she further agree that the worst possible message that we could send to our young people would be to legalise soft drugs, as the Liberal Democrat party would do?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Education on drugs is part of the national curriculum from five to 16. Indeed, references to drugs have been maintained in the new slimmed-down curriculum. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) began his question this afternoon by asking for consensus. I assure him that there will be never be consensus from the Conservative party on legalising drugs of any kind.

Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the advice given by a spokesperson for the Liberal and Conservative-controlled Cheshire county council, who told one of my staff this week that there is no drugs problem in our local schools? Does she agree that it is a problem which affects all schools throughout the United Kingdom and that our education representatives locally and nationally should be taking an active interest in it?

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The recently announced Government initiative in the Green Paper made education a matter of key concern in the battle against drugs. Drugs are an educational issue as well as a social evil. It is important to remove the stigma from those schools that make a stand against drugs. Drugs are an issue for all schools and for all of us.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most effective instruments for improving supervision in schools would be to welcome volunteers into schools to assist teachers in a wide variety of different functions? Apart from anything else, there would be two pairs of eyes in the classroom rather than just one.

Next week, I shall be launching a draft circular as a basis for consultation on teaching about drugs and the handling of drugs-related incidents. We expect the consultation to result in many excellent ideas for good practice from across the country, some of which may include those put forward by my hon. Friend.

I applaud the Government's attempts to control drugs in schools and urge them to do more, but why are the Government at the same time cutting by 25 per cent. the number of customs officers dealing with drug enforcement? Is it inconsistency or hypocrisy?

I think that what it could be is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the total Government programme on drugs prevention amounts to £500 million. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is involved in the recent initiative, as are the Education and Health Departments, the Department of Social Security and other Government Departments.

As a former schools inspector, does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the initiative must be taken at county level? Does she further agree that it is outrageous that, nine months after a call in February from Conservative county councillors for a tougher policy on discipline in schools in Kent, the Lib-Lab ruling coalition has still not agreed to take action?

I always believe the comments of my hon. Friend and what he describes is lamentable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of primary school inspections planned by the Office for Standards in Education for this term will not take place during this term.

While this is mainly a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education, I am advised that contracts have been let for 76 per cent. of the primary schools inspection originally planned for this term.

Is the Minister not concerned that 24 per cent. of those planned inspections will fail to take place this term? Does he agree with the comments made by the former chief inspector of schools that the main problem was the requirement that every contract for inspection has to go out to competitive tender? Does he agree that it is yet another example of his Government putting political dogma before the interests of the nation's children?

The hon. Gentleman is being a little previous in this matter. This is the first term of primary inspections and we are planning for and approaching them systematically and methodically. Although the figures show that we have fallen somewhat short of the plans prepared by Ofsted, we are well on the way in making a good start.

Does my hon. Friend agree that he should not listen too much to the carping from Opposition Members, who opposed inspections in schools but are now complaining that they are not happening fast enough? Does he understand the concern felt by some grant-maintained schools that they will be inspected by the local authorities from whose control they have escaped? Will he consider that point carefully?

I know that there has been widespread concern on the latter point, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that as the Ofsted inspections proceed and the level of expertise and impartiality becomes more and more obvious, schools will be reassured that the new independent professional inspection process is of great value both to education and to schools themselves. More and more schools are beginning to learn that that is to their benefit. As for the attitude of Opposition Members, this is yet another area in which they cannot quite make up their minds whether what we are doing is so much better that they want to agree with us, or whether they want to stick with their traditional opposition and become lost as a result.

Is the Minister aware that many local authority chief education officers are complaining that th0ere is inadequate funding for inspections? Is he further aware that that has resulted in the educational requirements of schools being denied in order to meet the costs of inspections? Will the Minister consider providing additional funding?

Opposition Members complaining about a lack of money is something that happens all too frequently. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should establish from his Front-Bench colleagues whether they are now prepared to commit more money to education, for this or any other purpose.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to improve the levels of discipline in schools.

In May, guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline was sent to all schools as part of the "Pupils with Problems" pack. The guidance aims to help schools to maintain and improve discipline. In September, the Department published an anti-bullying pack to help schools combat bullying.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Department on their work on discipline in schools. We are all aware of the few well-publicised schools which have discipline problems, but can my hon. Friend confirm that the last Ofsted report showed that most schools did not have a discipline problem and that most pupils in the state sector were well behaved?

It is important to get this matter in context and to understand that throughout the country teachers are doing an excellent job in maintaining classroom discipline. In most classrooms, in most schools, for most of the time, there is an orderly atmosphere and pupils are learning. However, undoubtedly there is a very small number of difficult pupils. We want to work with teachers to ensure that they have available to them all reasonable means of dealing with disciplinary problems. Very often the key to that is parents. My appeal is for parents to support teachers, governors and heads of schools in maintaining proper discipline. Without parental support, the job is much more difficult.

Will the Minister today recognise something that every teacher in this country recognises—that there is a link between the unacceptable rise in the numbers in school classes, in both primary and secondary schools, and both the quality of education and the discipline maintained? Does he agree that there needs to be a limit on class sizes, especially in primary schools, to enable quality and discipline to be maintained?

No, I know of no such link. If the hon. Lady thinks that, simply by repeating it often enough she will make it come true, she is sadly mistaken. If she can produce any evidence of a causal connection between classroom sizes and discipline problems, I shall be happy to consider it, but no such evidence has yet come to my attention.

On the subject of discipline in classrooms, did my hon. Friend have the opportunity at the weekend to see the excellent article by The Sunday Telegraph education correspondent, Mr. Jonathan Petre, reporting on a visit that he and some secondary school heads had made to Japanese schools which had high numbers in the classroom but high standards of discipline? Does he not feel that it was a counsel of despair for some of the heads on that visit to say that they did not feel that it was possible to emulate the high standards of discipline in Japanese classrooms in their own schools? If my hon. Friend has not seen that article, will he consider it carefully, as there are lessons to be learned there for British schools?

Of course we should always be conscious of experience in other countries, but quite how far Japanese experience is directly transferable to Britain is an interesting matter on which I would wish to ponder. However, I agree that it is depressing if people in the responsible position that head teachers undoubtedly have, when given the opportunity to see some sort of international comparison of this kind, are reluctant to accept the lessons that may be there to be learnt. I hope that they will think again, just as I am prepared to consider the example that my hon. Friend has given.

Does the Minister agree that discipline is crucial to an acceptable learning environment, but that pastoral care in schools and special support, including with the family, are much more important than the Group 4 approach to school discipline, which has resulted in 8,000 pupils being excluded from our schools, many of them grant-maintained schools, during the past year?

I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. When he has had a little more time, he may like to study the figures somewhat more carefully, when he will see that they are not as they first appear. A lot of nonsense is being talked at the moment about the nature of exclusions. We must distinguish between permanent and temporary—or limited—exclusions. We must also be careful not to extrapolate a small sample to a national level. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern in this area. We want to consider carefully the whole matter of exclusions, who is carrying them out and why and the general background to them. I hope that we shall be able to find the right answers to support our heads and teachers in the difficult job that they are doing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people are now entering higher education; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.

The Government's policies have led to record student numbers in higher education. More than 30 per cent. of young people entered higher education in 1993, compared with around one in eight 10 years ago.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Britain now has a higher graduation rate than many of our European Union competitors and that 50 per cent. more students now gain a first degree than in 1979? Does my hon. Friend agree that, instead of carping, Opposition Members and their Commission on Social Justice would have done better to study the successful Conservative policies which have enabled that to take place?

My hon. Friend is entirely right in pointing to our achievements in that direction and, in particular, the fact that we now have the highest graduation rate in Europe. That does not entirely transmit itself to the Opposition Benches. Every time an Opposition Member comes up with a sensible proposition, someone tends to end up being sacked.

After that orgy of self-congratulation, and after Prime Minister's Question Time, will the Minister take his fellow ministerial team to No. 10 Downing street to discuss a petition received by the Prime Minister this morning, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and myself, on behalf of the higher education sector—students, staff, administrators and vice-chancellors—protesting at the under-funding of higher education by the present Government?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the retention of his somewhat dangerous portfolio. He has never told the House what proposals he would make for the resourcing of higher education. I can tell the House that, in the last public expenditure survey, we were able to produce a real terms increase, to a record level, in the proportion and amount of higher education funding in this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We have the highest student numbers and the best resourced higher education in our history.

Are the Government committed to the principle of uniformity of standards across each class of degree across all universities in the country? If so, how does the Minister intend to ensure that that principle is observed in practice?

We are absolutely committed to the maintenance of high standards. It is, of course, primarily for the academic community, through its higher education quality council, to ensure that degrees mean what they say and are uniform throughout the various institutions, and that is a matter to which it is giving the closest attention.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm the complete absence of any mention of privatisation of the Post Office in the last Tory party manifesto? Is he aware of the complete absence of any public support for that latest piece of Government dogma? Will he now take this opportunity to do the country a service and rescue the President of the Board of Trade by withdrawing that absurd proposal?

As the whole House knows, we are considering the results of the consultation exercise that was launched in the summer. [Interruption.] I am surprised to hear Opposition Members scoffing. I thought that in the new politics the Labour party favoured consultation.

If Mr. Al Fayed requires a forgery from The Guardian to resolve his conscience, what, in my right hon. Friend's mind, does that tell us about Mr. Al Fayed or The Guardian, or both?

I think that many conclusions may be drawn from that, some of which may well be drawn from the investigation that the Serjeant at Arms himself is carrying out into the affair. Certainly, whatever is uncovered, I doubt whether it will be to the credit of the principal people concerned.

To return to the Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), on Post Office privatisation, there is more than a whiff of retreat in the air. If the Prime Minister does retreat—[Interruption.] Is he aware that, if he does retreat on that, he will be acting wisely, because if he is going to consult the British people, the vast majority of them—and, I believe, a majority in this House—want a modern Post Office with greater commercial freedom, delivering a cheap and reliable service, and that the best way of achieving that is to retain it in public ownership, run it as a public service and serve the public interest?

I can certainly share with the right hon. Gentleman the wish to make the Post Office business strong, competitive and able to deliver the services that people need. Of course, a large number of improvements have been made over the past few years, most of them opposed at the time by Opposition Members. In 1981, we separated out Telecom and introduced the £1 monopoly limit, introducing competition and allowing a thriving courier industry to develop. In 1990, we sold Girobank. All those changes were opposed by the Opposition, who now take credit for the success of the Post Office as a result of our policies.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the actions of Mr. Preston of TheGuardian? Not only has he been using House of Commons writing paper to forge letters; he has been forging other people's signatures—and this from a man who is on the Press Complaints Commission. Should he not resign from that body at once?

Over many years, The Guardian and its present editor have from time to time thundered against general standards in public life. It is, of course, the right of the press to do that; I simply invite its members to observe their own standards.

But is the Prime Minister satisfied with the promptness, accuracy and frankness with which his Chief Secretary to the Treasury has responded to questions over past weeks and months? Are those the standards by which he would wish his Government and their Ministers to be recognised?

The right hon. Gentleman, and some other hon. Members, may be wholly satisfied with their own blameless pasts in every respect. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made the position entirely clear, and I accept his word.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that so-called investigative journalism has sunk to a new all-time low? Does he also agree that, if a newspaper is found to have used the name of the House to give false authority to its activities, that newspaper deserves to lose the respect and confidence of the House?

I believe that a diverse and wholly independent press is a very important protector of our system of democracy. I hope that there is no dispute about that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I delivered a petition to No.10 Downing street on behalf of thousands of pensioners in Warrington, calling on the Government to abandon their proposal to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. from next April. Is the Prime Minister aware that half the 36,000 claimants of income support in Halton and Warrington are entitled to claim only cold weather payments and that many other families in fuel poverty receive no help whatever? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he recognises that to be a true problem, that he will abandon the VAT increase, and that he will ensure that all low-income families receive fuel credits weekly when there are cold spells during the winter?

So that no one who may be listening to these exchanges can be in any doubt, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, while he says that he opposes VAT on fuel, he is in favour of a carbon tax, which would have exactly the same effect on people? Will he also acknowledge that measures worth around £2.5 billion over three years have been put in place—[Interruption.]It is no good Opposition Members pointing and shouting. They cannot on the one hand oppose VAT on fuel, and on the other hand support a carbon tax which would have precisely the same effect on the people whom they claim to be defending.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree with that great editor of The Manchester Guardian, C.P. Scott, who said:

"Comment is free but the facts are sacred"?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The press rightly demands the highest standards from Parliament and we have a right to expect the highest standards from the press.

If the Prime Minister reads in Hansard what he said at Question Time last Thursday, he will realise that he answered one of the questions in a rather silly way. I hope that he will now give me a considered reply to that question. Why is he prepared to countenance devolution for the Province of Northern Ireland but not for the countries of Wales and Scotland?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, if he does not understand the difference in the history of Northern Ireland, he certainly should do so before sitting in the House. Secondly, there is a well established system of local democracy and government in Wales and Scotland which does not apply in Northern Ireland.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Reverting to the subject of earlier exchanges, what would be my right hon. Friend's reaction if the Lord Chancellor were to include a known criminal among his appointments to the magistrates bench? Is it not equally unacceptable that the editor of The Guardian should sit in judgment on his fellow editors as a member of the Press Complaints Commission when, on his own evidence, he has been party to a forgery?

That is a matter for the Press Complaints Commission and for the conscience of the editor of The Guardian.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Why are the Government threatening to cut housing benefit for hundreds of thousands of pensioners simply because they have spare rooms? Why is the Chief Secretary frightening pensioners with the prospect of having to move house just because they have raised their children and want to live out their retirement in their family home? Does the Prime Minister have any confidence in the Chief Secretary, particularly on matters of accommodation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the system of housing benefit that we have in place is more generous than he will find anywhere on the continent. It is necessary to ensure that a proper balance is kept between that and the taxpayer.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in stark contrast to that lot opposite, we are united behind our leader? To put the issue of The Guardian into perspective, is my right hon. Friend aware that Janice had a shock this morning, as I think did my right hon. Friend, because it said that David Evans was sponsoring Bambi. That is how ridiculous The Guardian is. If my right hon. Friend raised £79,000 to become leader of our party, would he put it in the Register of Members' Interests? This shows that that lot opposite are a bunch of fiddlers, because their leader has not done so.

My hon. Friend has been accused of many things over the years, but I do not think that anybody would credibly accuse him of being a sponsor of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister list the Tories who are members of quangos since last week he listed the Labour members? Will he also give the costs?

I think that the hon. Gentleman would prefer a much longer list of those Labour members of quangos that I did not yet mention. If he is so against quangos, will he perhaps explain why he wants to create a very long list of them, which I will happily read to the House if the hon. Gentleman presses me? Those are the new quangos that the Opposition thus far are committed to establishing. The hon. Gentleman would be better off looking at his own policy than trying to misrepresent ours.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday that the regime in our prisons is to be toughened up and that privileges are to be earned is widely welcomed, especially by the victims of crime? With that in mind, will he ensure that all victims are consulted before prisoners are granted any home leave?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend and with the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary yesterday. He intends to ensure that privileges are earned and are not available as a matter of right, and that home leave and temporary release will be granted only after rigorous assessment of risk to the public. As he has said on a number of occasions, conditions in prisons should be decent but austere. I believe that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country.

I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the Government's action in blocking the Energy Conservation Bill which was introduced by the Right honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with support from all parties; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill itself in the coming session.

"the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats".

"I most certainly endorse the Bill…I will certainly encourage my colleagues to put their names to the EDM."

"present Government assistance—on energy conservation—through the home energy efficiency scheme, the green house programme, the housing investment programme and the establishment of the energy saving trust—welcome and worth while initiatives although they are—does not constitute a sufficiently comprehensive nor an adequately funded programme of action."

"would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government".

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how a local authority could introduce energy-saving measures for individual properties that have particular problems and require attention without investigating those properties?

Many local authorities will know of building structures, such as blocks of flats erected during the 1960s, which are particularly energy-inefficient, and they may want to identify the level of that inefficiency and programmes to deal with it. The Bill asks them to look at the most cost-effective way to cut the energy bill. It does not require them to identify every property in one year, as that may not be an efficient way to go about this business. The aim of the Bill is that the best, most cost-effective and energy-efficient method is found and acted on to deliver energy savings of up to 30 per cent. I simply do not believe that every authority would engage in the process of looking at every individual dwelling.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position within the Liberal Democrat party.

Under the Government's current rules on the ring fencing of councils' housing budgets, that investment would probably be required to be recouped from rents. However we expect people to benefit from energy-saving measures because they would cut their bills, including those increased by VAT on fuel. At this stage, I do not want to go too far into the Liberal Democrats' previous policy. Suffice it to say that we looked at the possibility of VAT on fuel, and the manifesto on which we fought the previous general election specifically ruled it out. To have looked at something and then decide that it was not a good idea strikes me as more honourable than to fight an election saying that one would not do something and then do it afterwards.

As someone who has not gained ministerial office, I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to reply to one point. He makes a good point when he says that the Government were wrong to block the Bill on the ground that it would cost too much to insulate a lot of houses. I do not recall that from the debate at which I was present on 22 April. The hon. Gentleman was not present at that debate, but may have read the proceedings in Hansard. If that was why they blocked it, it would be a ridiculous basis on which to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite its enormous cost, the Bill's passage would not result in a single dwelling being insulated?

I believe that it would result in that, but the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Bill is about considering the problem and identifying ways to overcome it, not requiring people to insulate their houses directly. It is a process of setting out the identification of the problem and the ways to tackle it. It would be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman asked the Ministers that question; they have repeatedly referred to the cost of the Bill as a reason for opposing it.

"The UK is bound by international obligations concerning the global environment. It also has domestic responsibilities which require it to address both fuel poverty and ill health. We believe an integrated package of measures therefore needs to be co-ordinated between several Government Departments in order to turn convictions and commitments into action."

I am simply trying to understand what the Liberal party policy is on energy efficiency. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House unequivocally: does it or does it not support VAT on fuel? Also, as the hon. Gentleman is going into the Bill in such detail, will he tell us whether he has done any detailed costing as to what it would cost the country to implement?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware by now that we have opposed VAT on fuel, and continue to do so. I hope that he will join us in opposing the second-stage increase in VAT that will come through—contrary to the platform on which he fought the previous general election.

"likely to be the most cost-effective means of limiting the environmental impact of UK energy consumption".

"Energy conservation makes sense, whether one views it from the perspective of global warming or from that of pensioners struggling to keep warm."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1142.]

"I am very glad to support the Energy Conservation Bill. It is a measure that is long overdue. I shall urge my colleagues who have been successful in the ballot to adopt it and I shall urge the Government to support it."

"The Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised the very important issue of energy conservation. It also provides a useful opportunity for advancing energy efficiency in our housing."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1183.]

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"commends the Government's commitment to the efficient use of energy and congratulates the Government on the action taken to encourage energy efficiency; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department of the Environment and in particular the imaginative way in which it uses available resources in close partnership with local authorities, businesses and other organisations and individuals; deplores the proposals in the Energy Conservation Bill which would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government; and further considers these proposals typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who supported VAT on fuel in 1990, but then changed their minds as soon as the Government introduced it."

I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that the Energy Saving Trust, whose initiatives he has just commended and for which he has expressed support, has declared itself firmly in support of the Bill, and that its chairman has made a particular point of doing so.

We also have a comprehensive package of measures to provide encouragement, information and advice to help people take informed decisions about whether and how to invest in energy efficiency.

Does the Minister accept that any fair energy tax would have to include a full tax on nuclear power to take account of the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal? Does he agree that that cost should fall on the present generation, and that future generations should not have to pick up the tab for our wastefulness?

The hon. Gentleman takes me down byways that are not appropriate in this debate. Perhaps he would like to table yet more questions on this matter, which I shall endeavour to answer.

Does the Minister understand that a full tax on nuclear power, in order to take into consideration decommissioning and waste disposal, would be a remarkable act of energy conservation, because we know that nuclear energy is the most ineffective and inefficient energy form known to man today?

I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a party which is obsessed with putting yet more tax on everyone, but it is interesting that he is advocating such a tax at the same time as being opposed to VAT on fuel. He must make up his mind which side of the argument he is on.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's plan to educate people to insulate their own homes, if necessary by a contribution from their gas and electricity bills, is a much better way of approaching the subject than asking local authorities, which are not experts in energy efficiency, with all the bureaucracy and costs that that would involve, under the proposed Energy Conservation Bill?

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a member of the Select Committee. He has taken a great deal of interest in these matters, and, as usual, as is often the case with Conservative Members, he has put his finger on the exact problems to which I shall refer later. He is of course quite right.

The Minister referred a moment ago to the funding arrangements for the Energy Saving Trust having been worked out successfully. Will he elaborate on that, because the director of Ofgas has refused to levy the E factor on the bills, effectively undermining the trust's funding basis? Will that problem be solved?

I did not say that we had resolved those difficulties; I said that they were being reconsidered. It is in the knowledge of the House and probably the hon. Gentleman that the electricity industry has already continued the funding to which it is committed. The matters relating to Ofgas in those discussions are still under consideration. The ball is firmly in Ms Spottiswoode's court at the moment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will doubtless tell the House more about that, and in future, when the matters are resolved.

Any party will understand the concern about expenditure, but given the Government's commitments to cut energy use and emissions in this country, and given the failure at present of policies to deliver that—energy use and energy inefficiency are rising rapidly at the present time — what new initiatives does the Minister believe will deliver this ground? If not the Bill, what about the very substantial list of proposals and recommendations that were made by the Select Committee?

I have to say that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I happen to think that we are beginning to achieve success with energy efficiency, as I demonstrated with the figures with which I opened my speech, and the continuing programme, which, in many areas, has been doubled or even multiplied by a greater factor.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although most local authorities are making a very strong effort on environmental measures, one of the authorities that is not is Tower Hamlets, which was recently criticised in The Guardian for failing to use recycled paper?

Tower Hamlets, of course, is an authority which I seem to remember was controlled by the Liberals at one stage. They certainly had an active role in it. I should be interested to have more information about what Tower Hamlets has failed to achieve.

rose—

Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because The Guardian was not just criticising Tower Hamlets for not using recycled paper. Indeed, it said:

"it even ignores obvious cost-free gestures such as the use of lead-free petrol, CFC-free aerosols and recycled paper…it does not offer pooper-scoopers in parks."

That strikes me as a record about which we ought to know more. Perhaps my hon. Friend could do some research and let us know the results; I am sure that we should be fascinated.

The Minister said that it would be costly to prepare new legislation. Has he estimated the cost of preparing more than 200 amendments—a task carried out, quite unnecessarily, by parliamentary counsel in respect of the existing Bill?

I beg to differ. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was associated with the Bill during its Committee stage; I made it clear then that I did not approve of the essence of what the Bill was trying to do in terms of costs and burdens, and that I would have to seek further advice on whether I should consider tabling amendments—which is, indeed, what happened. I make no apology for that. During the assessment of Government business, one uses officials to produce amendments so that they can be tabled; that is a perfectly legitimate stance, and one from which I do not in any sense resile.

My hon. Friend may recall that, in Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:

"The Minister mentioned several matters that might need to be tackled on Report or in another place. I am willing for that to happen".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 10.]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. Hon. Members will not want to confuse the issue with the facts, but that is exactly what happened at the time, and exactly what resulted.

The Minister said that he believed that the cost of the numerous amendments was appropriate. Can he explain—in the context of private Members' Bills, which are given limited time on the Floor of the House but can deal with detailed amendments in Committee—why he did not seek the amendments from his officials so that they could be tabled in Committee, but tabled them on the Floor of the House, where they would inevitably wreck the Bill? Will he also explain why hon. Members were seen to vote against their own amendments?

I cannot speak for other hon. Members; I am speaking for the Government. It was clear at the time that we wanted to examine the Bill properly. We allowed it to go into Committee—that was a perfectly legitimate stance—and discussed the matter during what I recall was a particularly amenable Committee morning. I promised the Bill's promoter, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that I would consider the effects of what he was saying, and said that I would have to table amendments and clauses accordingly; and that is precisely what I did.

I find it extraordinary that the Minister should say that the Government had not had sufficient time to consider their attitude to the Bill months before it went into Committee. He knows very well that the Bill was the subject of discussion around the House; he also knows that I had a meeting with his predecessor to discuss it well before its Committee stage. The Government had plenty of time, but they failed—perhaps deliberately—to table amendments in time for the debate.

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I reiterate that the position is clear. The Bill was considered in Committee; I said that there were concerns, and that I would table amendments. That is what I did. It is a perfectly legitimate stance. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has experience in these matters, and he knows that, if there are concerns about a Bill, there is a process for ensuring that it does not come to fruition. That is a legitimate stance that the Government have adopted and will doubtless adopt again, whichever party is in power.

"impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes … we will nevertheless press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate on VAT on fuel."

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on taking the opportunity for a further debate on this important Bill, about which, I am sure the House will understand, I feel a little proprietorial.

Would not one source of funding at least help—the windfall returns that companies receive from advance payment on bills, by which their customers avoided paying VAT? Companies attempted to argue that they had not made a profit out of that, but two companies have now broken ranks and acknowledged that they did make a profit and put money towards the trust. Is it not it time that the rest were a little more honest with the public and a little less worried about a windfall profit for their shareholders?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The way in which companies have been able to make use of advance warning of the imposition of VAT to make considerable savings from advance payments is almost an embarrassment. Of course, they should be ploughing a lot of those resources back into energy efficiency programmes to benefit people who need them in their homes.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the cost of the scheme that he proposes would be about 3 per cent. of the annual energy bill? If so, is he saying 3 per cent. of £50 billion?

I am not getting into that sort of issue. A Conservative Member suggested that the imposition of a levy on electricity or gas bills after the implementation of an energy efficiency programme in a home would be a sensible way of funding the scheme. Whether the levy is 2 per cent. or more, that is a reasonable way of funding it. Savings in bills would amount to 10, 20, or 30 per cent., although some people have suggested that they would amount to even more. An additional levy, therefore, would be more than compensated for by savings in bills.

"The Trust strongly supports the primary aim of the Bill which is to place an obligation on all district and borough councils to create an energy use profile of the dwellings within their area … This information will be invaluable for all organisations attempting to target energy efficiency programmes … The Trust also support the second objective of the Bill which is to place an obligation on the relevant local authorities to draw up an Energy Conservation Plan for their locality, setting out what works would be required in order to achieve a minimum amount of energy savings."

The problem is that the hon. Gentleman wishes to set targets and draw up plans, but that costs a great deal of money, which will then not be available for insulation or other energy efficiency work. Does he recall that in Committee, in answer to a question about whether people would be required to install double glazing, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:

"The Bill does not contain a requirement but it calls on local authorities to set out what could be achieved by certain levels of energy conservation. No one is required to achieve those levels."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 25.]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that individual householders should be compelled to carry out energy efficiency work. That was one of the spurious objections raised by Conservative Members in previous debates. The most recent version of the Bill makes it clear that there will be no compulsion to participate. It is clear that there would be no need for it. Of course, some eccentrics might say that they do not want their homes improved even though energy efficiency schemes would save money and provide extra warmth and comfort. There is no element of compulsion in the Bill, and neither should there be. The hon. Gentleman should understand the need for organisation and planning and for local authorities to be able to see the whole picture to make the most efficient use of resources and prioritise the types of property that need energy efficiency programmes first.