What plans he has to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the periodic review of water prices. [43225]

As part of his price review, the Director General of Water Services has requested guidance on the environmental obligations that water companies will be expected to meet. We have invited views on the issue and will publish our guidance in the summer.

Does the Minister accept that, hitherto, water regulation has given too much comfort to shareholders at the expense of both the consumer and the environment? When he gives guidance, will he take account of public opinion as reflected in independent surveys, which suggest an overwhelming preference for environmental improvement and reduced leakage, rather than for reduced prices in the next review?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the previous price review was, in retrospect, unreasonably generous to the water companies and their shareholders—I think that that lesson has now been learned. I take note of the suggestion of the chair of the Environment Agency that cost efficiencies achieved since the most recent periodic review, and further cost reductions in future could fund a £10 billion improvement in environmental goals without any real-terms increase in bills. The Government are considering those matters.

On the Government's consultation paper on water charging in England and Wales, does the Minister recognise that circumstances in Wales may be different from those in many parts of England? In Wales, we have a plentiful supply of water, so water metering may not be appropriate in encouraging sustainable attitudes. Does he agree that the matter should be left to the National Assembly for Wales, which will be up and running in June next year, so that we can adopt in Wales an approach that is appropriate to the social and environmental realities of Wales?

We certainly want Wales to adopt a system that is appropriate to the different water conditions that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, exist in Wales. As I am sure he knows, the Government are clear in their view that, over and above the new houses that are being built, water metering should not be extended unless people want a meter. If individual householders apply to the water company for a meter, that is fine, but the Government do not believe that there should be universal compulsory metering, as we have made clear in our document.

Will the Minister explain why the rate of investment in the water industry has doubled since the 1980s? Is that, perhaps, one of the achievements of new Labour?

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, very selective. He has failed to recognise that the price of water has increased in real terms by between 35 and 40 per cent. since privatisation, which is faster than any other commodity.

What was the cost of the Environment Agency's new headquarters in Cumbria. [43226]

The Environment Agency estimated that the annual rent and rates for its new area office in Cumbria would be £297,000 initially, rising to £402,000 by the 10th year of the lease.

That seems a lot of money to pay, given that the Environment Agency could have expanded on its existing site in Carlisle. Instead, it moved to a green-field site on the edge of the Lake district, which hardly seems a good idea for the Environment Agency. Planning permission was given in secret by Eden district council, whose reputation in planning is currently very low. Is the Minister aware that the National Audit Office is considering the matter? If it finds, as I think it will, that money has been wasted, will she consider renting out the new property and relocating the agency headquarters back to my constituency of Carlisle, from where the staff did not want to move in the first instance?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has raised these issues with the National Audit Office. Clearly, we await the results of the inquiry that it is conducting, and he would not expect me to commit myself to any action until I have seen the report. He must also recognise that the Environment Agency was founded from the old National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which had a lot of surplus office space that they had to rationalise. We await the NAO survey to find out whether they did so and got the best value for money.

What proposals he has for removing the cap on local authority budgets. [43227]

Our proposals are set out in the consultation document "Modernising Local Government—Improving Local Financial Accountability".

That is helpful. When the Minister has considered the responses, will the Government hold firm to the principle that one cannot have proper local democracy unless local councils can raise the money that they think fit for the services that they are obliged to carry out'? Does she accept that, unless boroughs such as Southwark, the one in which she lives when she is in London and which I represent, can do that, the social services, housing and other needs of a community with deprivation such as ours just will not be met—unless the Government give them the money if they cannot raise it themselves?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting forward contradictory arguments. In the beginning, he argued that local government should be able to raise the money that it wished and in the second part of his question, he suggested that it was up to central Government to ensure that it got sufficient, which could then be supplemented locally. The consultation on local government finance is precisely about how we get a fair proportion from central and from local taxation. We have received good representations from a wide variety of bodies on that matter, and I shall look at the initial responses with the working group from the Local Government Association tomorrow.

Can I add my voice to those that are calling for an end to the capping mechanism? Does the Minister, with whom we have been dealing about Derbyshire county council's capping experiment, accept that one of the sad features about that settlement, which cannot be ignored—I lay the blame at the door of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but I will not take that any further—is that we have to pay about £500,000 in re-billing? Can I make a plea that when Derbyshire's settlement is arrived at for the forthcoming year, and we have this bright new dawn with no capping, that extra £500,000 will be taken into account?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Government's commitment to getting rid of crude and universal capping. We have said that this is the last year that that will take place. It is part of our commitment, through the local government finance review, to find our way forward into a new regime, in which local and central Government can be clear about what their responsibilities are and we can work together in partnership to ensure that we get the most efficient and effective response to local people's expectations and needs.

I note that the Minister used a phrase about capping that she used when in opposition, saying that she would abolish this "crude and universal" mechanism. Could she perhaps share with the House a little more of her thinking on the timetable for that abolition?

I have told the House that the current year's settlement will be the last to include the crude and universal capping introduced by the previous Administration. We will pursue a different route next year, and we are discussing that in the light of responses to our consultation document.

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Will she guarantee that she will not use changes in the capping mechanism as the excuse to shift millions of pounds away from shire areas for the second year running? Does she accept that that shift of funding, which was the idea of her Government, not of the previous one, has imposed an average 10 per cent. rise in council tax in shires, a rise entirely of her Government's making?

The right hon. Lady chooses her statistics selectively. The amount going to shire areas has not decreased by anything like that amount. Her predecessor used to complain that we had removed money from London. The difference between council taxes in London and in shire counties was remarkable, but the real difference was that London faced the electorate this year, whereas the shires did not.

I thank my hon. Friend for working to help local government. When she is reducing the cap on local government, will she have regard to the tremendous problems of local government, which the Treasury must do a great deal to ease? The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), referred to a 10 per cent. increase in shire counties, but my authority, Wakefield, had an 11 per cent. increase, showing that there has not been a transfer of resources to our district from the shires. We are suffering in many ways because of 18 years of Tory Government attacks on local government. Will my hon. Friend speed the reduction of pressure on local government finance, which is doing injury to our services?

My hon. Friend knows that we are determined to get a fair settlement for all authorities in the United Kingdom. There must be a balance between central and local government funding. One of the problems is that the previous Administration dug themselves into the deep hole that we all called the poll tax. Getting out of that hole has been damaging to local government, and we are still trying to deal with the consequences. Our local government finance review will take us to the next stage, but it will still take time to achieve real fairness in the system after the appalling damage done by the previous Government.

What estimate his Department has made of the potential for siting new housing development in brown-field sites. [43228]

My Department has made estimates based on past performance. We also encourage local authorities and the regional planning conferences to conduct appropriate surveys. In addition, we have started to develop a national land use database, and we have set up the urban task force led by Lord Rogers to examine how authorities can best use previously used land.

What assurance does that give to those who live in the vulnerable green belt in my constituency that the Secretary of State is not simply shrugging off to the regions the responsibility for enforcement of a higher percentage of new builds on brown-field sites?

I do not think that this Administration can be accused of shrugging off our responsibilities. In our first 12 months, we have published "Planning for the Communities of the Future", and we were the first Government to establish that 60 per cent. of future building should be done on brown-field sites. That is a clear commitment, and we have reiterated it constantly. We are completely satisfied with it, and Lord Rogers's urban task force will identify brown-field sites and begin to prioritise them for the building of houses.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to issue guidelines on soil that will determine the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—organic chemicals, dioxins and radon gas on brown-field sites? That will be important to ensuring that the health of home owners and others who inhabit the sites will not be adversely affected.

As my hon. Friend knows, the contaminated land study was published last December. I think that I could give a fuller answer, but I cannot at the moment. I will write to him.

It is now some months since Ministers announced the abandonment of predict and provide. Many people in rural counties are concerned about the new-build housing allocations that are required of them. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give examples of reductions resulting from the Government's new position?

One of the consequences of our policy since last May is that an additional 30,000 hectares of land will be added to the green belt. That shows the priority that we give the matter. We have left it, in the main, to the individual authorities and panels assessing housing to make the decisions. We have confirmed most of them, and one or two are before the courts. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on those.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is getting a working definition of brown-field or, more particularly, recyclable land? Will he urge the urban task force led by Lord Rogers to produce one as soon as possible and say how it applies to rural areas, which also have recyclable land for use?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That point is in the terms of reference of Lord Rogers's urban task force. We await its report of the end of this year to make such judgments.

Will the Secretary of State explain why, four months after his announcement in the House of a higher target for the proportion of houses to be built on brown-field sites, his Department is still engaged in legal action to force on West Sussex 12,000 more houses than any of the three political parties on the county council wants? Why has Hampshire not been allowed to cut the number of houses being forced on it? Is not this yet another example of Ministers taking the decisions at the centre against the wishes of local people and their elected representatives?

The hon. Gentleman served in the previous Administration. They could not make up their mind what proportion of houses should be built on brown-field sites. They started with 50 per cent., went up to 60 per cent. and then to 75 per cent., before reducing it back to 66 per cent. Whether in government or in opposition, the Conservatives are not clear about what needs to be implemented. We are satisfied that we have got the target right, and we will implement it.

My right hon. Friend knows that I share his enthusiasm for bringing brown-field sites back into use. He will agree that, whenever a brown-field site is used for any purpose, pressure is taken off green-field sites. Will he use his characteristic charm and diplomacy on the Treasury, and on the Chancellor in particular, to ensure that we have the mechanisms to make brown-field sites competitive with green-field sites, because many of us believe that some tax help is needed to raise their competitiveness?

My hon. Friend knows that final decisions on taxation are left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that is normal in all Governments. We are discussing other measures in respect of taxation and planning controls that are important to achieve the overall objective. They are under active discussion and we will report to the House at the appropriate time.

What progress his Department has made in considering the recent recommendations of the boundary commission. [43229]

We are considering the representations received on the Local Government Commission's latest recommendations relating to Cumbria, Hertfordshire, Cheshire and the former Avon. We intend to announce our preliminary decision on them shortly. The commission recently completed consultation on draft recommendations for Surrey, and we expect to receive its final recommendations in September.

There is growing concern in Surrey that, despite the fact that the Government will receive the representations in September, they will not implement them in time for the local elections next May. That means that the recommendations will be five years out of date by the next round of elections. Will the Minister give a commitment to make an effort to implement the recommendations in time for next May's elections, or does his Government' s commitment to fair votes extend only to situations that suit their party advantage?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from correspondence that has passed between our Department and the chief executive of Guildford, that a period of 14 weeks must elapse between the presentation by the Local Government Commission of its recommendations and the first date on which an order can come into effect. I am afraid that that takes us considerably beyond the October date for the compiling of the electoral register, which is the register on which next April's elections will be fought. That is a normal procedure; it has been followed by previous Governments and is being followed by this Government, and there is no political element in it whatsoever.

If he will make a statement on the standard spending assessment formulae for shire counties. [43230]

The standard spending assessment formulae for shire counties are the same as for all other classes of authority that provide the same services.

The hon. Lady will be aware that, during the election, candidates for the Labour party addressed the fact that the standard spending assessment for education in Staffordshire was about half the shire average. They said that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would ensure that problem was rectified in a matter of months. We have had a Labour Government for more than a year, but all we hear is the same old song: we are reviewing the situation.

The review of SSAs we had last year and the additional money that the Government have given to education mean that the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Staffordshire received an extra £17.58 million for education this year.

When my hon. Friend looks at the formula for shire counties and other authorities, will she address the chronic injustice of the area cost adjustment? I know that the matter is under review, but can she give an assurance that the area cost adjustment and its unfairness will play a prominent role in that review?

The area cost adjustment is one of the issues that is being discussed with the Local Government Association this year in the SSA working party. There are differing views throughout local government on what would be a fair system, and one of my concerns, which I urge my hon. Friend to take hold of, is that, although he may perceive injustices in the current system, some of the proposals tabled would result in what he would perceive as even greater injustices. The reality is that we have had a period of severe inequality and injustice in the way in which local government has been dealt its hand; we want to redress the serious injustices, but there is no easy way forward in respect of the area cost adjustment.

If he will make a statement on the proposed powers of the assembly and mayor of London. [43232]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Wednesday 25 March, when we published our White Paper setting out our proposals for a mayor and assembly for London. The White Paper included the proposed powers of the mayor and of the assembly.

I have a great deal of respect and regard for the Minister, but does he accept that, both at home and abroad, the Lord Mayor and corporation of the City of London do an immense amount of good for this country, and that that benefit should not be undermined? Will he indicate that there needs to be a close and sensitive arrangement between the new mayor and assembly for London and the Lord Mayor and the City of London? I speak as one who holds the office of Upper Bailiff of the Worshipful Company of Weavers, which is the oldest City livery company and which seeks to do good, not only in the City, but throughout the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell the House how an assembly in which each assembly representative will represent 500,000 people will bring local government closer to the people of London?

The position relating to the Lord Mayor and the court of common council of the City of London has been discussed on several occasions by me and representatives of the City. We have agreed a clear and sensible way forward which will allow amicable and constructive working relationships between the Lord Mayor of the City of London and the new mayor of London, recognising the contributions that each can make to representing London internationally, which is our main objective.

We believe that it is right that the assembly, like the mayor, should focus on strategic issues that are of Londonwide significance, leaving local administration as the prerogative of the individual London boroughs. In that context, it is sensible to have the larger constituencies, which—if I may correct the hon. Gentleman—consist of about 350,000 electors for each assembly member.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the new structure, it will be important for the assembly to maintain a check on the mayor, and that it should have sufficient powers to do so? Will he consider how assembly members can be given the resources and, most importantly, the time to devote to that job without being financially disadvantaged?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We set out in the White Paper the important role that the assembly will perform in scrutinising the actions of the mayor and keeping the mayor in a proper framework of accountability. To enable that to happen, we have recommended that assembly members should be salaried so that they can concentrate full-time on that important task, providing effective scrutiny as well as good government in London.

The mayor, the new assembly and the development agency are three new tiers between the boroughs and the Government office for London. All those tiers will have a greater or lesser role in planning, and all of them will interfere, which is a natural local government tendency, to justify their existence. How does the Minister propose to curb the tendency for economic planning blight in London?

The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the opinion of the vast majority of Londoners, who recognise the terrible mistake made by the previous Government when they abolished London's democratic citywide government. We are putting right that deficit, and we are doing so with the wholehearted support of the business community in London. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the London First reception in the House last night, he would have heard the business community's clear endorsement of the Government's agenda.

What representations he has received on the condition of the moss roads in the Wyre district of Lancashire. [43233]

My Department has received 51 letters about Lancashire's moss roads. Lancashire county council bid for support for moss road reconstruction work in its transport policies and programmes submission last year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have grievous problems in the Wyre district, where the moss road infrastructure is crumbling? The moss roads are vital to rural community life, but they are unsafe and present threats to anyone who uses them. My constituents desperately need the investment necessary to reconstruct those roads.

As my hon. Friend knows, funding for the maintenance of such roads arrives via the revenue support grant. It is for Lancashire county council to decide how to prioritise those funds for the roads for which it is responsible.

If he will make a statement on progress relating to the public inquiry into Heathrow airport's proposed terminal 5. [43234]

The public inquiry into the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow airport began in May 1995 and is currently expected to end in November 1998. The timing and conduct of the inquiry is a matter for the inspector.

Does the Minister agree that it is a national scandal that an inquiry begun three years ago and unlikely to lead to a decision for another two years is still proceeding? Is he aware of the damage that the delay is causing to British Airways and to the British Airports Authority? Does he agree that the quality of the eventual decision will not be improved by dragging the process out? Has not the time come for a timetable for inquiries into issues of great national importance?

I cannot comment on that particular project, but I can say that the procedures for dealing with issues such as terminal 5 were set up by the previous Administration. On 15 January, I presented to the House plans for modernising the planning system so that issues of national importance such as terminal 5 can be dealt with differently.

I add that, like the inspector, I hope that the local authorities will give their summing-up evidence to the inquiry. Their decision to withdraw is regrettable, and I hope that they will try to make sure that their views are represented at the inquiry.

Is the Minister aware that the line put forward by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is also being peddled by the applicants, who have taken up 30 per cent. of the public inquiry's time? Another 6 per cent. of its time has been taken up by British Airways, and individual objectors—the small men and women—have had only 41 per cent. of the inquiry's time. [Interruption.] Yes, 41 per cent. It is important that the ordinary, simple objectors have their day in court to resist the big battalions of BAA and British Airways.

It is right that everybody gets the opportunity to object to a planning application. Three, possibly four, years is far too long for any planning application to take. We are revising the system from top to bottom. We shall deal not with the symptoms but with the cause—the planning system. We shall revise and modernise the system when we have completed the consultation, which I hope will be by the end of the year.

What proposals he has to improve railway accessibility for people with disabilities. [43255]

We have recently published draft regulations to require all new trains and trams coming into service after 31 December to be fully accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's welcome proposals will work only if the privatised railway companies take note of them and implement them in full? Can he tell the House what penalties might be used against the privatised railway industry if it does not implement in full our regulations and make the public railway system completely accessible to disabled people?

My hon. Friend is right, and we shall not hesitate to take action. We propose that the regulations be enforced by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which will carry out inspections of the new rolling stock at various stages of construction to make sure that all the technical requirements are met. The Department will issue guidance on their operation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that disabled people, more than any other sector of society, are dependent on public transport? Is he aware that RMT's decision to hold a series of strikes will keep thousands of disabled people prisoner in their homes? Will he condemn that action unreservedly on behalf of those disabled people? Does he agree that it does little to enhance rail as part of an integrated transport policy?

All hon. Members want strike action to be avoided and early agreement to be reached between the employers and the trade union. However, the Government's responsibility is to move as quickly as possible to give disabled access to the railways and London Underground, where it is badly needed.

If he will make a statement on the refusal of MEL to agree to the publication of the contract terms for the Birmingham northern relief road. [43256]

This matter is currently under consideration by the courts. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment.

My right hon. Friend will know that there is great concern about many aspects of this private motorway. What are people to think when a Minister of the Crown has to go to the concessionnaire and ask permission to publish the terms of the contract for that road, and has that permission refused? What are people to think when the construction of a privately funded road turns out to involve over £20 million-worth of public money? Does not the whole sorry saga of the BNRR provide an object lesson in how not to make transport policy?

On the latter point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are committed to spending £20 million to help meet the cost of that new junction on the M42. That is partly because much of the traffic on that junction will not be on the BNRR; it is also the result of the agreement entered into by the previous Administration. My hon. Friend's earlier point is the very point that is before the court at present, and I am sure that he would not expect me to comment.

Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that the deceit perpetrated by the previous Government in claiming that the initiative was privately financed has been matched by that of the Labour party, which claimed in opposition that it opposed the BNRR but which now supports it in government? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to abandon that environmentally damaging project?

No. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we set out our position clearly following the receipt of the inspector's report and when we announced our decisions on the accelerated roads review. We do see the need for a new strategic through route, to benefit the west midlands, the north-west and Scotland. Moreover, we very much hope that the new rail terminal at Hams Hall will encourage more freight on to the railway.

What plans he has to encourage more children to walk, cycle and use public transport for their journey to school. [43257]

What measures he proposes to reduce the number of car journeys to school and term-time peak-hour traffic congestion. [43264]

We will shortly publish a White Paper following the comprehensive spending review, which will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution. An important objective will be to reduce car use on journeys to school.

You, Madam Speaker, will know that this week is national bike week. May I commend to you all those people who joined me this morning on the cycle ride to the House? Let me ask my right hon. Friend a very serious question: do not many parents find it difficult to allow their children to progress to school outside the confines of the motor car, because they fear for their safety? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating local authorities such as Scarborough borough council, which is introducing a cycling strategy especially for children, to allow them to go to school safely?

Yes. That is a very important matter. I welcome national bike week, which is this week. The responses to our consultation about the use of the cycle will be embodied in our forthcoming integrated transport White Paper. We believe that we should make it easier for people to cycle and walk, and that will be a key element in our White Paper.

The question of how we encourage people to cycle or walk to school is important. Between 1975 and 1994, the use of cars taking youngsters to school more or less doubled, from 12 per cent. to 27 per cent. We look to local authorities to think of imaginative schemes to improve that situation. I congratulate Warwickshire county council on the improvements that it has made regarding Myton school. The council built a bridge over the River Avon, which has enabled the number of people going to school on foot or by bicycle to increase—to more than 700 walking and more than 400 cycling each morning.

Many Labour authorities have introduced innovative schemes. In Leicester, 20-mph schemes, among others, have reduced accidents by about two thirds. Many of us hope that, following publication of the White Paper, such schemes will be promoted throughout the country, not left to one or two authorities.

We certainly see that as an important issue. It is one reason why we should like to decentralise some decision making, to allow local authorities more resources and powers to encourage such developments.

We were sorry not to see the Secretary of State on the bike ride this morning, although we were delighted to see the Minister for the Environment bicycling to work for a change.

When does the Secretary of State expect to publish the White Paper? There have been very encouraging noises, with which most hon. Members would agree, but we have yet to see the substance; it seems to have been delayed—according to newspaper reports—by another month.

On peak-hour congestion, will the Secretary of State encourage fellow Ministers to use public transport, bicycle and walk, as question No. 29 suggests?

Yes, I would certainly like to encourage that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is very much involved in achieving such objectives. I flew in from New York this morning—and I do not think that anyone has considered cycling from there yet. As I said in my first reply, the White Paper dealing with integrated transport issues will be published after the comprehensive spending review.

I am sure that cycling from New York will shortly be Liberal Democrat policy.

May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)? We are more than a year into the life of this Government and there is still no comprehensive transport policy. Why are we still waiting for the Government's White Paper, and when did the Secretary of State first learn from the Treasury that he would not be allowed to publish a White Paper until his whole Department had been vetted by the Treasury?

I suppose that I should offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on appearing at the Dispatch Box for the first time in his new capacity. He should not believe everything that he reads in the press. We are conducting a proper and intelligent discussion and we shall publish the White Paper after the comprehensive spending review, which will determine expenditure for the next three years.

The right hon. Gentleman has never said that before.

Whether or not I have said it before, it is a proper decision. I do not know when the comprehensive spending review will be concluded or when it will come before the House. Governments make judgments about such matters. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise us for not producing a White Paper after only 12 months in government. I spent an awful lot of time undoing the mess that I inherited from the previous Administration, trying to find the £5 billion that is needed for the underground and a similar amount for the channel tunnel rail link. The previous Administration did nothing about those messes, and I have spent considerable time securing a more successful conclusion involving a public-private partnership that is now offering a tremendous amount of investment in our public infrastructure.

Those of us who took part in the parliamentary cycle ride this morning appreciated the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment joined us on the ride and that the Minister for Transport in London was here to greet us when we arrived at the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that a great gift to cyclists would be a reduction in the number of motorised vehicles and the separation of those vehicles from pedestrian and cycle lanes. Can he confirm that the White Paper will encourage local authorities to put in place such schemes in order to make cycling less hazardous?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are already encouraging local authorities to do that. When they see our White Paper, they will realise that it is an important part of achieving an integrated transport system and a better environment.

If he will make a statement about his plans to reform drink-driving laws. [43258]

We recently consulted on a range of proposals further to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink driving, and will make a statement in due course.

As the key to reducing the number of deaths on our roads is a crackdown on hard-core drink drivers and the tough and rigorous enforcement of existing laws and limits, do the Government intend to reduce the blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg—especially as Downing street has made its concerns known?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we certainly need to crack down on hard-core drivers who continue to drink heavily before operating a motor vehicle. In our consultation document—the consultation has concluded—we propose a range of measures that we believe will reduce the death toll on our roads as a result of drink driving. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that we need an effective package of measures that will drive down further the number of people who are killed as a result of drink driving.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many drivers would prefer not to have alcoholic drinks if cheaper soft drinks and non-alcoholic beers and lagers were available? The 400 per cent. mark-up on non-alcoholic lager is an outrageous rip-off and an absolute disgrace. We should consider making representations to breweries on reducing the price of such drinks. That would save us having to investigate this issue, although many of us think that it is high time that it was sent to the Office of Fair Trading.

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. There are still far too many people who are not complying with existing legislation, so it is vital that we achieve more compliance.

If he will make a statement on progress on the Jubilee line extension. [43259]

Tunnelling and track laying for the Jubilee line extension are complete; 58 of the 59 new trainsets have been built, and the last is under manufacture. Work on station fit-out and electrical and mechanical equipment is well under way. On-site testing of the signalling and communications software has begun. London Transport has undertaken a thorough review of the programme, and plans to open the entire line in spring 1999.

Will the Secretary of State accept from me that the Jubilee line extension is extremely important—almost as important as the Birmingham northern relief road—but will come as poor deliverance to travellers unless he can sort out industrial relations on the London underground?

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman considers the Birmingham northern relief road alongside the Jubilee line. That road was delayed for well over 10 years owing to the previous Administration's failure to make any decision whatever on the matter. I agree that the Jubilee line extension is an important first new underground line for this generation. It will provide many interchanges, and will be an important part of the integration of London's transport system, and absolutely essential for the millennium.

Having visited the Jubilee line, does my right hon. Friend share my view that it is a shining example of civil engineering excellence that has brought much-needed regeneration to an area of London which has probably suffered more job losses than any other part of the country? Does he agree that, if the Conservatives had not abolished the Greater London council, the Jubilee line would probably be up and running, alongside the Woolwich rail tunnel and metro, which are well on target for opening in the new millennium?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Jubilee line is a good piece of engineering. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be sad that it was delayed for 12 months, although, to be fair to the people involved, one delay was caused by the failure of a tunnel at Heathrow, which had implications for construction for six months, and the other was caused because the signalling system was not as modern as we had hoped. That cannot reflect on the management of the Jubilee line—I am satisfied that the management is doing well and that the line will be opened in the time that I have mentioned.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the concept of the Jubilee line was one of the great achievements of the previous Government, and that it is in danger of being ruined by this Government's incompetence? Will he repeat the confirmation that he has just given, or will he accept that there is serious danger that it will not be running at full capacity by the millennium? Will he attempt to remedy that by increasing work on the line from 16 to 24 hours a day? Will he deny reports that contingency plans have been drawn up for bringing in visitors to the dome by coach, through the Blackwall tunnel, because the Jubilee line will not be able to cope with the volume of traffic? In short, will he stop messing up a good Tory project?

As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not consistent with the truth. He should consider what has happened on the Jubilee line and the reasons for the delay, which I have mentioned. The extension will be completed: it was started by a publicly owned enterprise and it will be finished by a publicly owned enterprise. The previous Government decided to invest in private entrepreneurial business such as the channel tunnel link, which failed totally. We have had to reorganise it, so he has been a bit unfair in his ideological comments.

The hon. Gentleman should examine the amount of traffic that is expected to be carried to the dome by the underground—which is about 40 per cent., so it makes sense to consider alternative transport. Not everyone will travel by the underground. People will go by bus, by train and by other means of transport, including a river service, which we have brought back and which the previous Administration could not maintain. We are not doing too badly after all.

If he will make a statement on the sinking of the Rema merchant shipping vessel. [43260]

The marine accident investigation branch will be investigating the loss of the Rema. It is intended that a report detailing its findings will be published in due course.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will be aware that men from Castleford went down on the Rema, and that this week some of their relatives have been out to the spot where the ship sank to pay tribute to them. Will she ensure that the forthcoming consultation paper on fishing vehicles accidents is widened to include evidence on marine vessel accidents, such as that of the Rema? I also urge her to consider improving support for the relatives of those involved in fatal accidents, who may be in great distress, unable to have an inquest and bury their loved ones, and unsure of where to turn to find out what happened.

The consultation document to which my hon. Friend referred will exclusively look into the appalling record of tragedies in the British fishing fleet. If it were expanded to include merchant vessels, the Rema would be excluded because she was sailing under a foreign flag. However, it will address the issue of flag-state implementation and the Government's commitment to working with the International Maritime Organisation and the European Commission to ensure that substandard ships are taken from the oceans of the world, because they carry with them the risk of appalling loss of life and pose a threat of pollution.

My hon. Friend referred to those who suffered a grievous loss in that accident. The Government will certainly consider all the issues that she raises. I feel sure that the entire House would wish to extend their condolences and their sympathy to her constituents.

What discussions he has had with vehicle manufacturers about the steps they are taking to reduce emissions. [43261]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I have held discussions with manufacturers and their suppliers. We have established a cleaner vehicle task force to advance work in this area.

I thank the Minister for that answer. The Government of the United States are working with approximately 300 manufacturers of cars and car components on the programme for a new generation of vehicles. The Americans and the Japanese seem to be more advanced than we are with the development of alternative fuel vehicles. Has the Minister had any discussions with those Governments? If so, has that advanced our position?

Yes, the Government are active in this area. The cleaner vehicles task force has been involved in all these matters. Indeed, the foresight vehicle programme of the Department of Trade and Industry supports the research to which the hon. Gentleman referred. These are important matters, and we want to encourage alternative fuels. Technology has the potential for great advances in this area.

Given that the Government are keen to promote low and nil-emission vehicles, will they take a leaf out of local government's book and draw some lessons from the experience of a consortium of United Kingdom local authorities through the Zeus project? They are funding the procurement of some low and nil-emission vehicles in concert with other European cities, which, by working together, have been able to lever into place a market for such vehicles. Will the Government use their market power in the procurement of vehicles to make a real difference by buying those vehicles in numbers, so that the prices will come down and the technology will advance?

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the ALTER project at Chester only a few weeks ago. It is aimed at encouraging a number of European cities to exclude vehicles that emit such pollutants. We are also doing a great deal at home. As the hon. Gentleman said, many local authorities are making good progress. The Government often prime those developments with grants from the Energy Saving Trust.

If he will make a statement on his policies to improve rail passenger safety. [43262]

Railways are already one of the safest forms of transport but we cannot be complacent. We look to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, as the safety regulators for the railways, to use their advisory and enforcement powers as appropriate to see that rail safety standards are maintained and improved where necessary.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that one of the most important lessons that we must learn from the tragic accidents on the railways in recent years, including the accident in Watford in 1996, is that we should put in place a system that prevents trains from going through red danger signals? Does she agree that the safety of passengers must be paramount and that they must have confidence in the recommendations resulting from any inquiries. Will this Government—unlike the previous Administration—translate those lessons into law?

My hon. Friend will be aware that, on 21 May, the Health and Safety Commission launched a consultation on a draft regulation that would require train protection systems to be fitted to all trains and at all key junctions by 1 January 2004. The consultation period ends on 21 August. My hon. Friend also referred to the crash that took place in her constituency. The findings of that inquiry will be furnished to the inspector who will be holding the Southall inquiry. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that safety is of prime importance, not only to passengers' sense of security, but to the Government.

Will the Minister confirm that she and her officials will be in touch with the German authorities to find out whether there are any lessons to be learned from last week's tragedy, in case there are implications for the operation of our railway system?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive has already made contact with its German counterpart and will be kept informed of everything that is discovered from that appalling accident. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport sent his condolences to the German Minister, which I am sure the House and the country would endorse.

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, leave out lines 15 to 26 and insert—

'(2) Those matters are:

(a) the standards of professional conduct of teachers;

(b) the standards of medical fitness required to teach;

(c) the powers which it needs to perform its functions under section 2 of this Act;

(d) recruitment to the teaching profession;

(e) the training and career development of teachers;

(f) methods of teaching;

(g) methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers; and

(h) methods of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching.'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 115, in page 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.

Government amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 11.

Amendments Nos. 120 and 115, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and myself, go to the heart of chapter I of the Bill, which deals with setting up General Teaching Councils. The amendments concern the powers that such a council should have, its responsibilities and its ultimate functions.

The issue has been the subject of much debate both in another place and at the various stages of the Bill. The Government have moved slightly, and clause 2(2) as it now stands is different from the provision in the original Bill. An amendment was made in another place, and although the Government defeated it in Committee in this House, they chose to take part of the recommendation in the amendment tabled in another place into subsection (2).

The Government have moved a little way, but they need to move further. Amendments Nos. 120 and 115 probe them further about exactly what they believe the General Teaching Council is being set up to do. We are probing for clarification, especially about the advice that it will give the Secretary of State—such as whether it should be general and what its nature should be.

The General Teaching Council should be the body that protects the professional status of the teaching profession. I believe that, if it established, enhanced, maintained and improved teachers' professional standing, teachers would welcome it. However, I fear that the body proposed in the Bill will not be a General Teaching Council that will fulfil those functions.

The Government are missing a golden opportunity to reinstate the professional status of teachers and to bring about the recognition of that status. That is important, because we have a growing crisis in our schools—a crisis of teacher supply and recruitment. Any hon. Member who visits schools in his or her constituency, as I have been doing since I was elected, will hear head teachers talk about the difficulty of finding teachers with particular educational qualifications, especially in certain subjects. Science is a good example. I was in a school in my constituency last Friday, and concern was expressed about the difficulty of obtaining a qualified physics teacher.

There is also concern about the fact that when any post, especially a senior post such as that of head teacher, is advertised, a limited number of people come forward. The Government could help to address that problem through the General Teaching Council that they are to set up. Sadly, however, the GTC that they propose in the Bill will not meet that requirement.

Some might say that to refer to a crisis in our schools is rather too emotive, but that is not my description. The report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment on teacher recruitment, published last autumn, said:

"Many of the submissions to our inquiry, and to that of the previous Committee, argued that there was a 'recruitment crisis' in initial teacher training. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals … stated that 'the recruitment crisis in initial teacher training continues to escalate', while Mr Nigel Gates, until recently the admissions tutor for a university ITT course, referred to 'a rapidly deepening and very real crisis'. A similar phrase was used by the Secondary Heads Association. The NUT argued that, as 'every single indicator measures in a negative way', there was a 'crisis' in teacher supply."

The Select Committee itself came to the conclusion that its inquiry

"leads us to believe that the situation has deteriorated and that the Government must act to prevent serious shortages worsening."

Some might ask why the establishment of a General Teaching Council can play a role in helping with the developing crisis in our schools. The answer is best given by my experience in talking to some student teachers in the school in my constituency that I visited last Friday. I asked what had brought them into the teaching profession. One student was rare, in that he was a maths graduate coming into teaching. Maths graduates are really needed—there is a paucity of them. I asked why they thought that people were put off coming into teaching. Pay was discussed, but some said it was not just about pay—it was about the image of teaching, how teachers were recognised and whether or not they had professional status.

In introducing the General Teaching Council, the Government could have created a body which would truly have nurtured the professional status of teachers and would have helped to overcome the image problems that the student teachers identified as one of the real reasons why people are not coming into the profession and why we have this growing crisis in our schools.

At first sight, it seemed that the Government were going to fulfil that demand. In a debate in another place, the noble Baroness Blackstone said:

"Teachers are our greatest educational resource. Teachers, in particular, head teachers, are at the heart of our drive to raise standards."

She went on to say that the Government

"are determined to restore pride and professionalism to the teaching profession. There has long been agreement that a key element in this is the establishment of a general teaching council … An effective GTC will be an engine for change and a driving force in our new deal for teachers."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 1997; Vol. 584, c. 253–55.]

Sadly, the Bill—and clause 2 in particular, on the functions of the General Teaching Council—shows that the Government have failed to follow even their own words of expectation about what the General Teaching Council should do to provide for the professional status of teachers. They have not delivered on the early promise. That is why we are probing the Government with amendments Nos. 120 and 115.

The concerns have not been raised only by the Opposition. Information has been sent to me by a number of outside organisations—for example, the Local Government Association, which, in a paper that it sent to a number of hon. Members, said that it

"has a concern that the GTC operates, and is seen to operate, independently."

As we know from the clause—and from the Bill in general—the GTC will be a body which primarily advises the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will very much oversee the work of the GTC. It will be far from independent, as the LGA requires.

The LGA went on to say that, if the GTC was to be successful in giving teachers "a clear professional voice"—what the Minister for School Standards himself has said the GTC should provide—

"the Secretary of State, and other stakeholders … will have to demonstrate their trust in the profession by giving, and being seen to give, real powers to the GTC."

I suggest that a power merely to give the Secretary of State general advice is not the sort of power that the LGA was thinking of in terms of developing the General Teaching Council to maintain and protect the professionalism of the teaching profession.

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:

"From … concern for the quality of education for all learners comes our commitment that a General Teaching Council should establish agreed professional standards."

It said that it wanted the public to be

"assured that these standards and that advice are genuinely independent of any constraints to quality that may for pragmatic, economic or political reasons be proposed by Government and gain the professional respect to act as a single voice for the teaching profession."

Similarly, the Association of University Teachers said that it

"would like to see the GTC provided with executive powers rather than advisory powers".

Sadly, the clause will not achieve those results.

The Government have shown yet again that the reality of their proposals does not live up to the rhetoric. The Minister for School Standards can say all that he wants about the need to establish a clear professional voice for teachers and to restore morale for teachers, who for too long have had too little say in determining the shape and future of their profession—

Hear, hear.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." I suggest that he thinks about the Government's proposals very carefully, as they will not restore morale by providing teachers with a clear professional voice. The body that the Government are proposing will largely be a talking shop to maintain the register of teachers; it will be subservient to the Secretary of State.

Like so many of the Government's education policies, the proposals for the General Teaching Council will not give powers to people who are involved in education—they will not give teachers powers over their profession—but will ensure that powers are vested at the centre in the Secretary of State. The Government are missing an opportunity to create what is gravely needed—an independent council with real powers to maintain and enhance standards in the teaching profession.

Amendment No. 115 would delete clause 2(6), which states:

"Any advice given by the Council … shall be advice of a general nature."

I hope that our concerns about the council will be echoed by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who said in Committee:

"Matters such as standards of teaching, the conduct of teachers and medical fitness to teach are crucial. We do not want the GTC to give general advice on those, but specific and detailed advice … If the GTC is to play its role in raising standards, its advice needs to be clear and specific."

In response, the Minister for School Standards said that, if the clause did not refer to general advice,

"there would be a danger that the general teaching council's comments would refer to individual teachers."

As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out:

"The Minister is arguing for such comments to be anonymous; I am not sure why he is arguing that they must be general."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 2 April 1998; c. 44–47.]

There is a very real difference. I hope that the Government will confirm today not that, as the Minister suggested in Committee, it will be open to the council to provide specific—rather than merely general—advice, but that they expect the council to give such advice.

I suggest that the Minister thinks about that carefully. If he wants the General Teaching Council to be able to help the teaching profession to regain its status and to improve its image, and if he is to find a way in which to encourage young people—and others, perhaps later in their careers—to enter the teaching profession, he must ensure that teaching is regarded as a proper profession. In establishing the council, the Government have the opportunity to ensure that that happens.

Sadly, the Government are missing that opportunity—they are simply setting up a body with the name of General Teaching Council so that they can say, "We did it. We promised that we would set up a general teaching council and we have. So there is no problem, is there? The teaching profession is okay, professional status is assured and the GTC is in place."

The reality is that, by establishing a body that will be seen not to have any teeth and not to be having the effect that they proclaimed it would have, the Government could be setting back the necessary work to re-establish the professional status of teachers in everyone's eyes. One concern is that the Government may well say, "It's all very well talking about the GTC in its early stages; we see it as an evolutionary body that might in due course take on other powers," but it will require primary legislation to change the body set up in the Bill, as has become clear in a number of the Minister's answers. So, far from being merely an evolutionary way forward, the Government are establishing what they believe to be appropriate for the GTC.

4 pm

Amendment No. 120 would introduce within the list of matters on which the GTC can advise the Secretary of State, in addition to the standards of professional conduct of teachers, the standards of medical fitness required and recruitment to the profession, methods of teaching and methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers. Assessment of performance is becoming increasingly important and it is a matter about which there is concern within the profession—genuine concern about how appraisal systems are operating and, in particular, how appraisals undertaken through the medium of the inspection of any school are being undertaken. A number of teachers have raised that issue with me.

If the General Teaching Council is truly to be a body for and of the profession, it should have the opportunity to look into methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers and making recommendations. It is more important for it to be an independent body that establishes those methods and the professional standing of the teaching profession, but sadly the Government are not going down that route. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the possibility of at least including within the GTC's remit the recommendation that it should study methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers.

The amendment would also introduce the power for the GTC to advise on methods of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching. That is an area about which there is always much dispute between those who favour particular teaching methods. To suggest that the GTC has nothing to say on that issue, as appears to be the case judging by the original proposals in the Bill, is to miss the opportunity that setting up such a body offers to support the teaching profession. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will deal with those issues and say why the Government have so far not been willing to take them on board within the powers of the GTC.

As I said, that body, as it is being set up, will not fulfil the requirement out there in the education system and the education sector—the real feeling among teachers that they need to be treated as a profession and that the GTC could be the answer to that problem. I know that from talking with teachers about the GTC. Yet again, the Government have, sadly, failed to deliver. In this, as in so many other areas, the reality of their proposals does not match their rhetoric.

Not one Scot was involved in the Standing Committee, which was no one's fault—it was the fault neither of the Whips nor of the Selection Select Committee, but merely the way things happened. It does entitle me to ask succinctly a question that I believe to be relevant to the Bill, because we are still one country, are we not? I have given notice of the question to the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who was in his place a moment ago.

What is the latest estimate of the shortage of teachers of physics, to a lesser extent of chemistry, and certainly of maths, in Scotland? Manpower advance prognostication is difficult at the best of times, and a few years ago it was generally thought that there was a surplus of teachers. I understand that the surplus may, over a year or two, have turned suddenly into a deficit. I am asking only for the facts, which are not very different from those in England.

It is perhaps a truism to say that teachers feel undervalued, but that truism bears some relation to the fact that the status of teachers has declined socially and culturally over a generation or so. That may be due to many things, some of which the amendments address. It may be that what was once perceived as a vocation is now seen as a job. It may be because of a general challenge to authority figures, or it may be partly the result of the changing nature of teaching and learning, and the changing role of the teacher.

It is certainly true that teachers need to have their value recognised once again. Their professional standards must be high, and must be recognised as such by society. To achieve that, the General Teaching Council should be independent and professional and able to deliver judgments on the competence of individual teachers and on the quality of teaching per se. Unfortunately, the Government's proposals do not satisfy those criteria.

The GTC will be a creature of the Government rather than a genuinely independent professional body able to make objective assessments both of teachers and on more general teaching issues. In that sense, the proposals are a missed opportunity, and they will be seen to be so by teachers and by history. We had a real opportunity to have a renaissance in the social and professional status of teachers. I would have welcomed that, as teachers are vital.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, it is time that people in positions of authority recognised, and stated, that teachers make a vital contribution to our children, our nation and our future. I am unashamed to make such a comment; too often, we forget our teachers, who are genuine heroes. Duty and self-sacrifice, the hallmarks of good teachers, are unfashionable values; perhaps we place more emphasis on starry glamour, although I will say no more about that, and do not intend to point a finger in any particular direction.

The GTC offers an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of teachers, to restate the importance of teaching and to raise professional standards. Our amendments would make that happen by increasing the GTC's independence from Government, because it must not be seen as a creature of the Government. I hope that the House will support the amendments if they care as much as my colleagues and I do about teaching, learning and the teaching profession.

I had the opportunity to speak on the General Teaching Council on Second Reading, and it does not seem nearly three months since then. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for taking us through what occurred in Standing Committee; I have read the proceedings, but I did not immediately understand them, and I was not a member of that Committee, so I am catching up. From what she said on Second Reading and in Committee, I understand the motivation for the amendment that she moved so well.

On Second Reading, I and others, not least Labour Members, made the point, powerfully reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), that the creation of the General Teaching Council was an opportunity to give recognition and status to the teaching profession, with the council perceived not simply as a creature of the Government but, to some extent, as a creature of the teaching profession. I qualify that by noting that it is important that, although most of the council's membership should be drawn from the teaching profession, it should include people with an interest in the quality of teaching, such as parents and employers.

In Committee, it was sensibly noted that those who teach in further or higher education should be able to see that the General Teaching Council, through the school system, is delivering young adults capable of benefiting to the greatest possible extent as they move into further or higher education. That is not the subject of these amendments, so I will not dwell on it, but the Government could have done more to achieve that through the council's composition.

The Government could have done more to seek to use the General Teaching Council as a body responsible for, and capable of, promoting teaching as a profession. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made those points in Standing Committee, and may do so again. As the Government have not done those things, our amendments would help to reinforce and expand the council's role by giving it some responsibility for giving advice, which would help the teaching profession to regard it as a body that enjoys the status it demands of the council. The Local Government Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has sought such a role for the council.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, matters such as methods of teaching, assessment of the performance of teachers and the vexed question of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching are important issues that go to the heart of the quality of teaching and of our school system. As the General Teaching Council has no specific responsibility to act on those issues, many in the teaching profession and outside will regard it as an essentially bureaucratic body exercising a bureaucratic function, perhaps usefully in respect of medical fitness and related matters concerning the conduct and dismissal of teachers. It will not be regarded as acting positively and proactively in the system to help to deliver higher-quality teaching and to raise the status and competence of the profession.

I say that advisedly, because I do not regard that exclusively as the role of the council, even if the amendments are passed. Whatever happens, there are separate roles. First, the General Teaching Council is a statutory body for giving advice to the Secretary of State and others as necessary in bringing together teachers and those with interests in the teaching profession and the school system. Secondly, it is important to recognise that there should be a self-regulatory body in the teaching profession responsible for self-promotion to try to improve the quality of teaching.

On Second Reading, I asked the Government to endorse—I again ask for positive comment—the initiation of a college of teachers whose aims would be to promote the teaching profession, to give its members a network of support, to forge relations with other learned professions and to advise the Government from an independent stance on professional issues.

I know that, in Standing Committee, reference was made to the desirability of not, at this stage, drawing exact parallels between the GTC and the General Medical Council, or between the college of teachers and the royal colleges in the medical profession, with which I am a little more familiar than with the teaching profession. Even so, the structure of institutions created within the medical profession over a far longer period has merit, and, even if this is not a case of moving at one leap to a structure for the teaching profession that has exactly the same characteristics, there is every reason to give oneself the flexibility to move in that direction.

I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead had to chastise the Government for their fixed sense, at this stage, of what the responsibilities of the GTC should be and for not building in flexibility. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to try, through the amendment, to expand the GTC's role and increase the flexibility available to it. In time, both that body, with an expanded role, and a college of teachers, with an independent, teacher-led role, might give the teaching profession the greater status that it richly deserves.

Mr.—

Brady.

Mr. Brady.

I am clearly not speaking often enough in the Chamber. I shall endeavour to put that right, with your help, support and encouragement, Madam Speaker.

My hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) wisely referred to the importance of building in a degree of flexibility to enable the GTC to evolve over time and allow it to assume the role and functions that Opposition Members and, I suspect, Ministers want.

The Minister for School Standards will recall that, in another Standing Committee of which we were both members, one of his colleagues said that I had appeared to be painting a picture of Altrincham and Sale, West as a sort of educational nirvana. I plead guilty to that charge, because we are in many ways as close to that stage as can be achieved. My constituency contains some extremely good schools, and, partly because of their local standing and the results that they achieve, there is higher morale among the members of the teaching profession in my constituency than in many other areas.

On Monday, I had an interesting discussion on the subject of the GTC with teachers at a school in my constituency. I have to report to the Minister that their view—an unfortunate one, which highlights the Bill's failure—is that the proposed GTC is a completely wasteful bureaucracy and an empty shell, which offers them nothing and which might load on extra bureaucracy and burdens. That is not to mention the fact that it might load extra costs on teachers by levying a compulsory registration fee on those becoming members of the GTC, which would have to be paid alongside their teaching union membership fees.

I suspect that the reason why so little has been made of the GTC during the Bill's passage lies in some of the tensions in respect of the teaching unions and the question of how the teaching profession should redefine itself—whether it should move in the direction of the medical profession and become a proper self-regulating profession which would not take strike action and in which the role of trade unions would diminish as the role of the GTC and other self-regulatory bodies increased. The direction that the Bill appears to set may be laudable, but I fear that the Minister for School Standards has suffered a loss of courage in drafting the specific provisions in the Bill.

Impossible.

The Bill does not make proper provision for the GTC to assume the role of a genuine self-regulatory body. I have the highest regard for the Minister of State, but he occasionally marches in a slightly different direction from that taken by other Labour Members, so it is understandable that he is sometimes less than entirely open about his ultimate objectives.

The movement away from some of the LEA powers that have caused so much damage to many schools throughout the country has been whole-heartedly welcomed in many schools and by many teachers. The Minister should take heart from that. [Interruption.]

The Under-Secretary mutters about the impossibility of a failure of courage on the part of his hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, but the Minister should take heart from the proposal, which represents an opportunity for the Government to do something of value for the teaching profession and to enhance the standing of the profession. The opportunity is sadly missed in the detail of the General Teaching Council in the Bill.

Taking my courage into my hands, I shall deal first with the three Government amendments, which are technical, and then with the meat of the debate—the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

Amendment No. 11 is a simple amendment which will allow the costs incurred as a result of a teacher being a member of a General Teaching Council to be borne in exceptional circumstances by the General Teaching Council. We are confident that, in most cases, the costs of an individual teacher and the time necessary for the teacher to attend the GTC can be met from the school's budget. Indeed, many schools would see it as a benefit if a member of their teaching staff served on the GTC. The teacher would gain a depth of experience as a result of exchanging views with other professionals, and benefits would accrue not only to the teacher, but to the school.

However, amendment No. 11 recognises that the burden of those costs may be too great for some schools—for example, a small rural primary school with perhaps only two or three members of staff would have to provide supply cover if one of the teachers was away attending meetings of the GTC. We would not want to place that burden on the relatively small budget of such a school. The amendment would allow those costs to be met by the GTC, which we consider an appropriate way forward.

Amendment No. 82 closes one of the loopholes which we have identified. If a teacher is ineligible to register as a teacher—for example, in Scotland or Northern Ireland, having been disqualified because of activities or conduct in one of those countries—he or she should be disqualified from registering as a teacher under the General Teaching Council for England or for Wales. Amendment No. 82 achieves that objective.

Amendment No. 83 is a purely technical amendment which brings clause 3 into line with clause 19. As those three Government amendments are uncontroversial, I hope that they will meet with the approval of the House.

Like the hon. Member for Maidenhead, I visit many schools. Indeed, I had the pleasure of visiting a school in her constituency as a guest at its prize-giving evening—a very good school it was, and I was pleased to discharge that responsibility.

Many teachers are doing a good job, often in difficult circumstances. That was not said often enough by the previous Government, but I am glad to acknowledge it on behalf of the Government. One of our reasons for establishing a General Teaching Council is to give the profession a unified voice. The GTC will be a body independent of the Government, but will work with them to raise standards in our schools.

That is the teachers' objective and the Government's goal. Opposition Members speak about the roads down which the Government are travelling. The Government are united in their desire to raise standards in our schools—not just in a few schools, but in all our schools, for all our children. That will require a sea change in thinking about our school system. At present, far too many schools are not offering the quality of education that our children deserve. It is the Government's responsibility to do what we can to raise standards, and we shall do precisely that.

One of the key ways in which we can raise standards in our schools is to ensure that the quality of teaching is improved. We can achieve that by establishing a General Teaching Council, which will raise teachers' morale and give them a voice. That is why we are keen that most of the council's members should have teaching experience and should only recently have left classroom teaching.

The two Opposition amendments would not add much to the Bill, and one—No. 115—is potentially damaging. Amendment No. 120 would change the functions that the General Teaching Council will carry out by adding to the list in clause 2(2) two new functions: the assessment of performance of individual teachers and the assessment of the effectiveness of different methods of teaching.

It may help the hon. Member for Maidenhead to know that our legal advice is that the assessment of the performance of individual teachers is covered by the references to standards of teaching in clause 2(2)(a) and to the training, career development and performance management of teachers in clause 2(2)(d). Our legal advisers' view is that the assessment of the effectiveness of different methods of teaching is also covered by the reference to standards of teaching in clause 2(2)(a). We have therefore dealt with the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady in moving the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.

On amendment No. 115, it is simply untrue to say that the Bill does not give powers to the General Teaching Council. As we said yesterday, we shall give the council a power of regulation over individuals who go on the register as qualified teachers. The council will have the power to strike off that register people who are professionally incompetent or who have been involved in serious professional misconduct. However, it is important to draw a line between that responsibility and the council's need to advise the Secretary of State on how certain functions should be discharged.

We are drawing a clear distinction between the General Teaching Council's power of regulation over the register and its advisory role in addressing broader teaching issues of how standards are to be raised in our schools. We do not want the council to be drawn into disputes involving individual teachers, which is why it is important to retain clause 2(6), which provides that the advice given by the council should be of a general nature. That will allow the council to use case studies and individual examples to demonstrate practical ways in which the Secretary of State may want to pursue policy objectives. We believe that the present wording will do that, and will not create the confusion that amendment No. 115 would.

I listened with interest—as I did on Second Reading—to the argument by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in favour of founding a college of teachers. There is a danger of duplication. We are about to establish a General Teaching Council. If a college of teachers came on the scene, how would that complement the work undertaken by the Teacher Training Agency, which is responsible for recruitment, the promotion of teaching as a profession and the provision of teacher training courses? How would a college of teachers link with the General Teaching Council? There is a danger that, at this time, a college of teachers would not be helpful in developing a clear and coherent vision of the progress that we want.

4.30 pm

The hon. Member for Maidenhead spoke about the crisis in the supply of teachers. There is indeed a crisis, but it was not created in the past 13 months. The Government are tackling the genuine problems in teacher recruitment, which were created by year after year of indifference and complacency by soft Governments, representing the party to which the hon. Lady belongs.

The previous Government's incompetent handling of the teachers' pension fund helped to cause the crisis in teacher numbers. Last year, there was a massive exodus of teachers, often with considerable experience—good teachers, who did not want to leave the profession, but who were forced out of because the guillotine came down in terms of pension arrangements. Thousands of good teachers were lost to the profession, and to our children.

Today, we hear Conservative plaudits about a General Teaching Council, but when the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Sir Malcolm Thornton, introduced a private Member's Bill to establish a general teaching council, supported by hon. Members now in government and by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Conservative Government Whips—one of whom was the present shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—killed it off. They did so not 10 years ago, not 18 years ago, but in the past three years. When Conservative Members say that the General Teaching Council will play an important role in establishing and re-creating the teaching profession as something that should be valued, people should bear in mind their record, which has condemned teachers to lacking a voice to speak on their behalf.

The Government are taking action. Within months of taking office, we made the establishment of a General Teaching Council a commitment in our White Paper. It appeared in the Bill, and we are now introducing legislation to put it into effect.

The present Government do value teaching as a profession.

May I ask the Minister about the teachers who left prematurely, often against their will, because of the pension arrangements? Is there any chance of re-entry, even for three to five years, in the present situation, for those who realise that it may have been a mistake to leave—they may have been forced to leave, incidentally—because of the pension arrangements? Is there any possibility of arrangements being made for them to return, even for a short time, as some of them would wish to do, having been away from teaching for a year, and having found that there is no other work for those of their age?

As always, my hon. Friend raises a consideration that is important and relevant to the debate. We must consider how to encourage people to return to the teaching profession. The Government are mindful of the fact that, currently, the number of qualified teachers who are not teaching—more than 400,000—exceeds the number of those teaching. That number has increased in the past 12 months because of the exodus of teachers as a result of pension fund changes. My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I shall consider whether there are ways of attracting people back into the teaching profession. There may be difficulties concerning individual pension arrangements, but the matter certainly deserves detailed consideration.

The Government value teachers and recognise that they play a vital role in offering our children the best quality education. The General Teaching Council will fulfil the important role of speaking on behalf of the teaching profession. That view is fragmented at present, and the General Teaching Council will put the interests of the profession first and raise standards.

The most disappointing aspect of the speech by the hon. Member for Maidenhead is that it reflected only producer interests. The hon. Lady quoted time and again teacher unions and associations, and prayed in aid the Local Government Association, but she did not mention children and parents. It is a fine state of affairs when the Conservative spokesperson refers not to children and parents and to raising education standards, but to producer interests. That comes as no surprise. The Government recognise that we must put standards first, but the Opposition have not learnt the lessons of defeat. They are concerned about structures and producer interests, and they have lost the plot in education.

This Bill, coupled with the School Standards and Framework Bill, will raise standards and ensure that we provide children with the quality education that they deserve. We are turning our backs on past discussions about structures and the interests of the few. We are putting our children first and improving standards throughout the education system so that they may have the best possible start in life—good-quality education. We intend to deliver on that commitment, which is why I shall invite the House to reject amendments Nos. 120 and 115, and will push the three Government amendments.

It is the Government who have lost the plot when it comes to education. They cannot raise standards in our schools if we do not have teachers in the classroom. The Government have failed to address that problem: they barely recognise the crisis in teacher recruitment and supply.

I have some figures regarding teacher recruitment. According to the figures for secondary initial teacher training targets and intake, there was a teacher deficit of 477 in 1993–94. In 1994–95, there was a deficit of 1,090; in 1995–96, the deficit was 1,774; and in 1996–97—the last year of the previous Government—there was a deficit of 2,920. Why did the previous Government fail to address that problem?

This Government will make the problem worse, because they have done absolutely nothing to improve the situation. The Government are facing a problem with their class size pledge. That was identified by the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was commissioned by the Local Government Association—an organisation that is Labour-controlled, not Conservative-dominated. The report, which was published last week, clearly shows the problems facing the Government in terms of implementing their class size pledge—which they are failing completely to do at present.

One of their problems is that, if they are to reduce class sizes, they will have to increase the number of teachers standing up in front of children. Furthermore, if they are not to force children into schools that their parents do not want them to go to, which would deny parents their choice, they will have to increase the number of classes.

The hon. Lady knows that the class size pledge relates to primary school pupils and to infant classes in particular. Can she confirm—perhaps I shall be informing her—that primary initial teacher training targets for this year are over-subscribed, as they are for next year?

They have been for years.

The Minister will have heard the sedentary intervention of hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to whom I shall give way.

Is the hon. Lady aware that, over approximately the past 10 years, there have always been four times the number of applicants than places at that level? Is she also aware of leaks suggesting that the number of applicants for primary teacher training over the past 12 months is likely to be down by about 15 per cent?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out those figures, and he is absolutely right about the normal over-subscription of such places. I have not seen the leaks, as he describes them, about a reduction in the latest primary school figure, but I look forward to the Minister giving the figure from the Dispatch Box.

I shall give the figure now, although it has not yet been published. The 1998–99 courses have been over-subscribed, which means that we are in excess of the targets. In respect of the recruitment of the additional 1,500 teachers for this September to deliver our class size pledge, it might help the hon. Lady if she knew that the 65 authorities have met no problem whatever in recruiting those additional teachers to begin the process of cutting infant class sizes to meet our pledge.

I suggest that, in future, the Minister listens to the comments made by those on the Conservative Front Bench and on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He referred to the over-subscription of courses but, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, that is not the point. The Minister will have to do better when he next comes to the Dispatch Box—but, as we know, he has problems with figures.

We have heard thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who apologises for having had to leave the Chamber before the close of debate on the amendments, and from my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), but it is noticeable that the only contribution from the Government Back Benches was that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who raised a particular issue relating to the position of certain teachers with certain qualifications in Scotland. It was also noticeable that the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, had been in the Chamber before the hon. Member for Linlithgow made his speech, but was absent during it. He has subsequently returned.

The Minister scuttled off.

As my hon. Friend says, the Minister scuttled off.

I assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is my old friend, has access to me at all times. If I had had any idea that he would make a speech, I should have been impelled to stay in the Chamber to hang on his every word.

I look forward to the hon. Member for Linlithgow receiving an answer to his question.

Despite the number of former teachers on the Labour Benches, we have heard no contribution other than that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the nature of the General Teaching Council and its importance in establishing the professional status of the teaching profession. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, we must recognise the contribution that teachers make. I am happy to echo the Minister's comment that many teachers in our schools do an excellent job, sometimes in difficult circumstances, but they often think that their contributions are not fully valued. I have mentioned the problem of restoring the image of the teaching profession so that teachers' contributions can be fully recognised and valued. That is what the debate is about, but the Government have missed the opportunity to deal with the issue, which is sad.

4.45 pm

We should be encouraging more people—be they young graduates, young people or older people who have had a career in industry, commerce or business and want to give something back and impart knowledge to young people—to go into schools and into the teaching profession. The Government are doing nothing to encourage that. So far, a working party, chaired by Lord Puttnam, has been set up—it is no surprise that one of its main contributions has been a cinema advertisement. As a student teacher said to me recently, that is not good enough, and it will not bring people into the teaching profession.

We need something more. The General Teaching Council was and still is an opportunity for the Government to ensure that we show teachers that they are truly valued. The Minister referred to the setting up of a single voice for the teaching profession. It is interesting that he emphasised that aspect: what positions does he think that the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers will take after the setting up of the GTC, and are all Labour Back Benchers as clear about his intentions for it as they might be? My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that the Minister's thinking is not always entirely in line with that of other Labour Members, although, as we see time and again during statements and debates on education, he is generally out of line with his boss, the Secretary of State.

It is important that we value teachers, and for precisely that reason we want a GTC that will be of the profession and for the profession—a truly independent body that will establish standards for teaching and take them forward. The Minister said that we made no reference to standards in the classroom, but standards of teaching relate to standards in the classroom. We want to ensure that every child receives the appropriate education and that the standard of education is high. To achieve that, we must ensure that we have teachers of high calibre standing up in front of our children and delivering quality education.

Our proposals about the different powers of the GTC, especially in amendment No. 120, would have gone a long way to achieving that, although I note the Minister's comments about the Government's legal advice on it. In respect of amendment No. 115, I was sorry to hear him make the same argument on whether the GTC should give general advice. Yet again, he referred purely to individual teachers. We are not suggesting that advice given by the GTC to the Secretary of State would be about individual teachers, but there is a difference between the GTC being able to provide specific advice and expecting it to provide specific advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire compared a college of teachers to the royal colleges in the medical profession, but I prefer to consider the GTC in relation to the royal colleges. The Government's proposals will not allow the body of the profession—the teachers themselves—to decide the professional standing and standards that teachers should use in the classroom in imparting knowledge to children. That is the end of the chain.

Is that the end of the hon. Lady's speech?

No, it is not quite the end of my speech, but almost. The hon. Gentleman will just have to wait a couple of minutes.

The quality of teachers is paramount in ensuring the quality of education that children in our schools receive. The Government have missed a real opportunity with the General Teaching Council. They could have established a body that played an important part in ensuring the continued professionalism of teachers and in enhancing professional standards. It is with some sadness that we view the Government's proposals but, having heard the Minister's response, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—

'(5) Subject to subsection (6), stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer to the General Teaching Council for Wales effected by virtue of subsection (3).

(6) No instrument (other than a statutory instrument) made or executed in pursuance of subsection (3) shall be treated as duly stamped unless—

(a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for this section be liable, or

yy(b) it has, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it has been duly stamped.'.

I am tempted to speak for 50 minutes on stamp duty and the Welsh General Teaching Council. However, I shall say only that this is a technical amendment. We intend to establish a General Teaching Council for Wales and a General Teaching Council for England at the same time. The need to do so was a view overwhelmingly expressed in the consultation exercise carried out by the Welsh Office. However, amendment No. 10 is a safety measure in case that does not occur. It will allow an orderly transfer of the responsibilities and duties of a General Teaching Council if such a council needs to be established for Wales and for England. If they are to be separated at a later date, the amendment would allow that to happen as easily as possible.

I hope that, with that brief explanation, the House will agree to Government amendment No. 10.

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 60 and 64.

I trust that my brief cameo appearance will be equally non-controversial. The new clause amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and arises from the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to establish, with effect from 1 January 1999, a Scottish Further Education Funding Council, as recommended by the Garrick committee, which was the Scottish committee of the Dearing committee.

At present, the 43 incorporated FE colleges in Scotland are exempt from certain anti-discrimination provisions in sections 19 to 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, by virtue of the fact that they are currently funded by my right hon. Friend. Educational institutions funded by a "relevant body" are also exempt. Unless the Scottish Further Education Funding Council is listed in section 19(6) of the 1995 Act as a "relevant body", those colleges will cease to be exempt.

New Clause 4 designates the Scottish Further Education Funding Council as a "relevant body" for the purposes of section 19(5) of the 1995 Act. The existing Further and Higher Education Funding Councils in England and Wales and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council are listed as relevant bodies in section 19(5), so adding the Scottish Further Education Funding Council to that list will ensure that the Scottish colleges remain exempt and are treated in the same way as other colleges and HE institutes elsewhere.

The amendments to clause 39 and the long title of the Bill are consequential to the insertion of new clause 4. I commend the new clause to the House.

I do not intend to speak for any length of time on this issue. I note that the new clause would bring the proposed Scottish Further Education Funding Council into line with other similar bodies in the rest of the country. Clause 19(5) is in part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Government have today announced the timetable for introducing part III of the 1995 Act. That has been a long time coming, and many disability organisations have been concerned about how long it has taken the Government to make that announcement. I welcome the fact that it has finally been made today.

I appreciate the hon. Lady's welcome for what has been done. However, I remind her that the Government have been in office for 13 months. Although she was not in the House previously—otherwise I am sure that all those measures would have been taken—the Tories were in power for 19 years.

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 9—University college, etc., not to be treated as university.

Government amendments Nos. 74 and 81.

The new clauses and amendments implement recommendations of the Dearing report on higher education. The Dearing committee recommended that the names and titles used by higher education institutions should be clear and consistent. At present, too many institutions are using unofficial titles that have not been properly authorised and have no clear meaning, which can be confusing to students and others. There is currently no clear statutory control over such unofficial titles.

The Dearing committee also believed that there was a place for a new category of "university college" for higher education institutions that fall short of full university status but have the power to award their own degrees. The Government accepted that recommendation, but there are some technical obstacles to implementing it under the present legislation in England and Wales.

We have decided to tackle both those problems by the new clauses and amendments. New clause 7 proposes a statutory duty on institutions in the further and higher education sectors in England and Wales not to supply or offer educational services under a name including the word "university" unless that name has been properly authorised. For that purpose, a name can be authorised by, or under, any statute or royal charter. Existing properly authorised names will not be affected.

To cover any cases to which the existing powers of authorisation do not apply, the Privy Council will, under the new clause, have an additional power of approval. For the avoidance of any dispute on that point, a name will not be regarded as authorised by, or under, a royal charter just because the charter allows a university to make arrangements for affiliation, association or accreditation of other institutions. In our view, that does not, in itself, entitle a university to authorise other institutions to change the names under which they present themselves to the public to include the word "university".

The amendments create a statutory prohibition but not a criminal offence. Injunction proceedings may be brought in the courts to enforce the prohibition.

New clause 9 deals with a technical obstacle to the approval of the proposed new "university college" title in England and Wales. It does not affect the position of University college, Oxford or University college, London. The provisions cover institutions in England and Wales only, because that is where the problems exist. However, institutions in England and Wales invite applications from students throughout the United Kingdom, so the statutory prohibition of unauthorised names applies to the offer of educational services throughout the UK.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a few institutions in England have been awarding their own degrees and higher degrees without using the title "university" or "university college". I draw to his attention the Bolton institute of higher education, which has been seeking university status since 1991. I understand that a decision will be made in the next few weeks after a long campaign that has been particularly active recently. I remind my hon. Friend that we are looking forward to a positive decision, and if we receive one, the town of Bolton will go wild.

The thought of Bolton going wild is almost too much. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on their sterling work on behalf of the Bolton institute of higher education. They have lobbied long and hard, and with good reason. As my hon. Friend has just told us, the matter is currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who will inform the institute of his conclusion soon.

We intend that the provisions that facilitate the approval of university college titles will be brought into operation quickly. The statutory prohibition on using unauthorised titles will be brought into operation after a reasonable interval to allow institutions to take it into account.

The new clauses and amendments will provide a clarification of the names and status of higher education institutions which has been needed for some time, and I commend them to the House.

I read the new clauses and amendments with interest, particularly the proposal that institutions that use the title "university" without proper authorisation will be outlawed. The university for industry is one of the Government's innovations. How do they propose to get around that—or are we to assume that the university for industry will be no more?

The university for industry essentially does not exist, except as a pilot in Sunderland, where some superb work has been done by a combination of partners, including Sunderland university, Gateshead further education college and Sunderland training and enterprise council. They have used that as a working title. The university for industry is under consideration and has a pathfinder prospectus, but it has no legal standing. We shall examine its status in due course, but at the moment it is not a problem.

The Opposition welcome the move to clear up any confusion in the exact status of our universities, as that could cause great damage both to students who may be misinformed and to reputable institutions. I am delighted that the Government are following the recommendations of the Dearing committee. Would that they had done so in other parts of the Bill.

Some years ago, I had a constituency case involving a person from Singapore who felt deceived in respect of the quality and standing of a particular educational establishment in Britain. Is the new clause really about fraudulent presentations, or presentations that are not quite what they are made out to be, affecting foreign nationals?

The intention is not to give the impression that the sector is run through with fraudulent claims about the quality of courses delivered. There is a great deal of confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has just mentioned one excellent institute, and there are many others. Since the incorporation of higher education institutions and the intensification of competition for students, there is a great temptation for higher education institutions to assume that they can throw the cloak of a university across their shoulders. There has to be a guarantee of the quality of education offered by those institutions, and that is the primary reason for the new clause. However, where there are fraudulent claims, the Government clearly have a role to investigate them thoroughly and to ensure that justice is done.

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 78 to 80.

The new clause relates to the charitable status of further and higher education corporations. It confirms that they are exempt charities.

Provision to confer exempt charitable status on higher education corporations was first introduced by the previous Government in the Education Reform Act 1988. The same arrangements were made for further education corporations in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The status gives certain financial advantages, for example in respect of rate relief and VAT.

The new clause re-enacts existing provisions about the charitable status of further and higher education corporations on a consistent basis with comparable provisions in the Schools Standards and Framework Bill. It is essentially for avoidance of doubt that further and higher education corporations have exempt charitable status. It does not seek to do other than maintain the status quo, and I commend it to the House.

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 106, in clause 29, page 28, line 26, at end insert

'subject to no employee being entitled automatically to more than eight hours of study or training leading to a relevant qualification.'.

No. 101, in page 28, line 30, at end insert

'but regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1)(c) may not provide for a standard of achievement higher than NVQ Level 2'.

The proposals stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). We have heard much during our debates about the benefits of higher and further education being spread fairly among the individuals who pursue them; the firms that benefit from those individuals' efforts; and society as a whole. The costs, too, should be spread fairly. The purpose of new clause 11 is to achieve such a spread under part III of the Bill, which would otherwise place an onerous and damaging cost on businesses, particularly small businesses.

I should make it clear at the outset that, in moving the new clause and the amendments, we are not in any way being anti-training. We believe strongly that 16 and 17-year-olds should be fully trained to the level of which they are capable, to allow them to take a full place in the work force and play a full part in society, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.

The problem in this instance is that the Government's good intentions will have ill effects. In that respect, the proposals differ slightly from others in the Bill, where the Government seem to have started off with malevolent intentions. I do not accuse them of that in this case, but their proposals will have unintended ill consequences.

My text comes from the Minister for School Standards, who is regrettably no longer in his place, speaking at a conference in Germany, snappily entitled "Die Bekämpfung von Arbeitslosigkeit in Zeiten der Globalisierung", which I think means, "The problems of unemployment in times of globalisation". The Minister made several cogent points in that speech, telling his audience, safely many miles away from his colleagues in this country, that we must address the issue of non-wage costs; that the cost of over-regulation can be high; and that, in Germany, as I have often heard my right hon. and hon. Friends say—indeed, I have made the point myself—for every £100 spent on wages, an employer must add £31 in non-wage costs, whereas in Britain things are better, since non-wage costs are only £15. That is all entirely valid stuff.

The Minister went on to say:

"We can no longer bury our head in the sand over this issue. Costs do matter. Over-regulation and high non-wage costs put European firms at a competitive disadvantage, and that costs jobs."

He is absolutely right. I therefore find it rather strange that he is putting his name to a Bill that will achieve precisely the ill effects of which he warns us.

If the Government will not accept our new clause and amendments, the problems that part III will bring about will be particularly acute for small businesses. The costs of the measure are estimated to be £130 million in a full year. Research from the Library shows that between 80,000 and 130,000 businesses could be affected by entitlement for time off for study or training. Of those businesses, 80 per cent. are likely to be employing fewer than 25 people.

Further research has shown that the £130 million, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred as the measure's likely cost, will be incurred if only 50 per cent. of eligible 16 or 17-year-olds decide to take up the opportunities. Therefore, costs could be much higher, and would fall disproportionately on the businesses that are less likely to be able to afford them.

If I may, I shall anticipate the response of the Under-Secretary. I dare say that he will produce a letter from the Confederation of British Industry.

I was not going to.

Oh, well, I shall do the hon. Gentleman a favour, then. The CBI says that it accepts the need for something along the lines of the Government's proposal—indeed, that the cost will certainly be affordable for big businesses. Further down the scale, however, they may not be so.

The unreasonableness of the burden falling on small businesses is the reason for amendments Nos. 106 and 101, which try to inject some certainty into the level of obligation that small businesses will be letting themselves in for. How big a commitment are they meant to make? The Bill uses the potentially weasel word "reasonable" to decide the level of commitment. What may seem reasonable in the calm recesses of the Department for Education and Employment may not seem reasonable to a small firm employing one or two people which is struggling or which wishes to expand to employ more youngsters but which will find it more difficult to do so under the Bill.

The effect on small businesses could be serious; more serious still, however, is the potential effect on the very 16 and 17-year-olds whom part III is meant to help. We must ask ourselves what options a potential employer of 16 and 17-year-olds will have. The first option is to take on a long-term liability—giving employees the chance to take time off to study, which may not be practical in many businesses.

The second option is to reduce wages to make up the costs that the business will incur. That must be unpalatable to the Under-Secretary; he would not want the measure to be used as a weapon to drive down wages for 16 and 17-year-olds, although that could be one of the unintended consequences to which I referred.

The third option is even worse: no jobs will be offered at all to young people, who will find it increasingly difficult to get work. We all know that many new jobs are created in the small business sector, and anything that makes that more difficult seems actively counter-productive.

The real fear about the third option concerns its interaction with the Government's new deal. I pay tribute to Baroness Blackstone for devising an extremely good example to illustrate how interaction between the two policies could be deadly for the employment prospects of many 16 and 17-year-olds. She gives the example of three young people. The first is aged 17, and has five GCSEs and one national vocational qualification at level 2. The second is aged 18 and on the new deal welfare-to-work scheme. The third is aged 17 and has only one GCSE.

The first young person could be employed full time at a cost to the employer merely of a salary. The second comes to the employer with a weekly bounty paid for by the Government of £60, plus £700 up-front costs to cover training. The third—the one who is meant to be helped by the measure—comes to the employer at the cost of a full salary and with the right to have regular time off for education and training at the employer's expense, which could last for more than a year. What is any rational employer likely to do? He will not employ the person whom part III is meant to help. Under the two policies, the Government are effectively saying that it is fine for 18 or 19-year-olds to receive welfare-to-work subsidies, but it is not fine for 17-year-olds to do so. They will be less likely to be employed.

The hon. Gentleman is doing the reputation of small businesses no good. Many small businesses—he will know some of them; I certainly know many of them—are already investing a great deal in their young work force because they understand that, if they are to increase their competitiveness, they must explore that group's potential and quality. We are talking about 115,000 or 120,000 young people who very often go to what I am afraid to describe as dead-end jobs in firms that have no will to train them or help them to improve themselves—and so, indirectly, improve the firms. Surely progress must be made on that. That is what the Government are trying to do. Why does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that?

I accept what the Government are trying to do; why does the Under-Secretary not recognise that they are failing? They are making it more difficult to employ such youngsters. I refer the Under-Secretary to the words of Baroness Blackstone, who has recognised the difficulty. She, as we know, has one of the finest minds on the Government Front Bench of either House, and has pointed out, with tremendous delicacy,

"a potential issue here concerning the interaction of two important commitments".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1998; Vol. 91, c. 33.]

Translated from the higher Mandarin that Baroness Blackstone is capable of speaking, that means, "There are two flatly contradictory commitments here, boys, but let us hope that nobody notices."

Unfortunately, people have noticed. More seriously, small businesses will notice. Precisely the small businesses to which the Under-Secretary referred, which may want to provide training for their employees, will find it more advantageous to provide such training under the new deal for those aged 18 or over than they will for 16 and 17-year-olds. Given the interaction between the two policies, any rational small business—even one deeply committed to training its work force, for all the good reasons that the Under-Secretary gave—will at best be less inclined than they would have been a year or two ago to take on 16 or 17-year-olds.

I hope that this is an unintended consequence and that the Government are merely guilty of incompetence. Anything worse would be impossible to contemplate. Our new clause tries to rescue the Government; it is generous of us to do so. It attempts to deal with the problems of costs affecting small businesses. It would not necessarily mean an imposition on public spending because it is permissive—it allows the Secretary of State to spend money if he wishes to alleviate the costs for the businesses affected.

That does not need to be all the costs or at all times. At different phases of the economic cycle, small businesses will be more or less likely to want to take on new employees or be able to bear the costs of their taking time off. During an economic downturn, fewer jobs will be available, and small businesses will be more pressed and therefore less inclined to give young workers time off for training. At the margin, they will be less likely to take them on.

The Bill will make it doubly unlikely that 16 and 17-year-olds will gain access to the labour market during an economic downturn. That would be a tragedy. We all know that young workers tend to be the last in during times of growth and the first out when there is a downturn. The Government's measures would accelerate that undesirable process.

We want a proper spread of the costs among all those who benefit from training. We are not anti-training. We all recognise that it is vital for young people who are not in full-time education to receive training. However, the Bill will do the opposite of what the Government intend, which is why we have tabled the new clause and the amendments.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), because I want to dismiss most of what he has said. His speech was a sad reflection on the Conservatives and a slur on the many small companies that play a vital role in training young people. That is particularly disappointing, because training benefits not just the companies concerned, but the country, giving us a better-educated work force.

Companies have spent £10.6 billion on training in the past year, but many small companies do nothing. They are sponging off the others. Why should the taxpayer yet again pick up the tab for the worst companies? We have had the same debate on the minimum wage. The taxpayer always seems to have to subsidise the worst companies—those that do the least training, those that provide the worst health and safety conditions and those that pay the worst wages. That is the spiral of inefficiency of small companies that do not want to invest in their work force. Every 16 and 17-year-old has the right to training.

The hon. Member for Ashford referred to the CBI briefing note. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will not refer to it, but I shall. It said that the CBI fully supported the idea of the right to study, and accepted the obligations that that placed on employers. That is right. There is a genuine partnership between the Government, employers and individuals. The Conservatives use words such as "compensation", "onerous", "dangerous" and "liability". Given that we are talking about one of the most positive measures in the Bill, such words are a sad reflection on the Conservative party.

The arguments about a possible conflict with the new deal fly in the face of all the evidence, as some of the training and enterprise council research shows, because the schemes relate to different groups of employees. We are talking about 115,000 or 120,000 young people who leave school and enter the work force with the opportunity to gain experience of work and continue their education. Fewer than half the 16-year-olds who leave school and go into work have GNVQs or level 2 NVQs. For 19-year-olds, the figure is only 70 per cent.

The hon. Member for Ashford attempted to quote in German from a speech made some time ago by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. In Germany, there is a genuine understanding of the need for a firm to work in partnership with the individual and the Government to increase its productivity. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken at recent seminars and conferences about the decline of British productivity relative to that of our European counterparts.

We need a genuine cultural shift to recognise that training—for young people in particular—is positive for the nation and for the companies concerned. Until we make that change, our productivity and our economy will suffer. Only when we can compete with the Germans and other European countries on the basis of the skills and productivity of the work force will we benefit.

I have worked in employment training on several Anglo-German schemes. On average, our 19-year-olds were at a level equivalent to that of 16 and 17-year-old Germans. We are two to three years behind in skills even at that stage, and we are falling ever further behind by not giving our 16 and 17-year-olds the right training.

I would like to make many other points, but I do not have much time. The measure that we are considering is positive. We want a highly skilled, high-wage, high-tech economy, not one that competes on low skills and low wages. That is one reason why the Conservatives lost the general election. Using words such as "onerous", "dangerous" and "liability" about one of the most positive measures in the Bill is a sad reflection on the Conservative party.

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the new clause and amendments. I am frustrated, because we spoke at length in Committee about the impact on business, and put a strong case to the Government, explaining why we wanted to help them to ensure that there were no unintended casualties of the Bill. I remain unconvinced by some of the arguments that I have heard. We are talking about compulsory paid training being imposed on business, which causes difficulties.

We have theorised about the impact of the Government's measures during the debate. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that the impact of the new deal had not started yet. I am particularly keen to participate in the debate, because one of the pilot schemes for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds is being run in my constituency. I have kept in close contact with the private company that has been selected to deliver the new deal in my area. Many hon. Members might think of Solihull as an affluent area, but it has pockets of serious deprivation and high unemployment among young people. Applying the new deal tests some of the theories that we have been discussing.

The impact on business, small or large, is not neutral. If an employee asks an employer to be allowed to go to a local college to obtain qualifications, there is an effect on company productivity. A replacement has to be found. There are recruitment costs and two staff appear, from the point of view of productivity, to be doing a job that was formerly done by one.

From my conversations with Capita, which is responsible for delivering the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in Solihull, it is clear that there will be an impact on 16 and 17-year-olds. Capita is actively going out to local employers marketing the benefits of the new deal—the benefits of taking on the 18-to-24 age group for the job vacancies that arise. The 18 to 24-year-old will come with a £60 a week job subsidy and a £750 training golden handshake.

In contrast, the 16 to 17-year-old school leaver will walk in at the door looking for a job with less maturity and less job experience, if any. So it is not unrealistic for Capita to point out to me, as the local Member of Parliament, that it, too, sees the problem that the 16 to 17-year-olds will lose out.

One can theorise about the impact on 16 to 17-year-olds, but I strongly urge the Minister to examine the areas where the pilot schemes are in place, and find out what their impact is today. Businesses are in business to make money, to be profitable, to invest, to grow and to contribute to the local economy. Is the Bill asking them to pick up the tab for the failures of the education system?

5.30 pm

Subsection (c) of the new section 63A that clause 29 would insert into the Employment Rights Act 1996 mentions the need to provide educational opportunities for someone who

"has not attained such standard"

within the statutory education system. We know that that reflects the facts of life, and that some 16 to 17-year-olds—I have many in my constituency—become disenchanted and under-achieve in the education system. For them, school seems to have lost its meaning.

None the less, are we right, through the Bill, to ask businesses to turn round and pick up the cost for providing training at a basic level of attainment that we would otherwise have expected young people to achieve through the education system? I suggest that we are asking too much of businesses.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said about the economic cycle. The new deal is being launched in relatively good economic times. The new Government have a golden economic legacy, and thus a period in which to launch the initiative, the aims of which we share, to encourage young people off welfare and into work.

However, these are the good times. What will happen to such initiatives in the bad times, when the recessionary cycle bites? In my constituency and the surrounding areas, west midlands manufacturing is already in the bad times. The recession is already biting in manufacturing, making it even less likely that businesses large or small will take on young, relatively inexperienced employees.

It is not unreasonable to suggest compensating business for the impact of our asking it to take on the burden of the failures of the education system. It may surprise Labour Members to hear Conservatives asking for that, but we share—

May I try to penetrate the cloud of gloom that the hon. Lady has brought into the Chamber concerning what I regard as an inspiring initiative? Would she care to tell us about some of the benefits for business of the new deal, of employing young people and of giving opportunities to young people who may have been failed by the education system but who thrive in a work environment, given the proper support of a business sector which I would say has a greater commitment to the new deal than the hon. Lady has?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has just joined us. We are talking not about the new deal but about its bearing on 16 to 17-year-olds' right to study. The point that we are making is about the impact of the introduction of the new deal on that group. I am not trying to be gloomy; I am trying to be practical.

The fact is that manufacturing is in recession, and it is looking hard at recruitment—

When manufacturing came out of recession in the early 1980s and in the early 1990s, was not one of the problems that the sector found a massive skills shortage, because the first thing that companies had done in the recession was to stop training? Is that not evidence of the need to continue training? Other European countries could pick themselves up out of recession more quickly because they continued to train during periods of recession.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention allows me to return to a point that he touched on in his speech. There are fundamental differences between the practical training available in this country and training in Germany for 16 to 17-year-olds, which he cited. In this country we do not have the equivalent of the Handelschule. Being a student of such matters, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is a clearly designated school of training for applied skills, of which there is no equivalent in the British educational tradition—although perhaps the Minister should consider the idea.

In Germany such schools remain within the education system. We are not looking at the German example and replicating their successful schools of practical training if we ask business to do the job for us. The hon. Gentleman should know that it is important to make a distinction between the British and the German education systems. Otherwise one could go away with the impression that German business was doing all that. As for our competitiveness, I remind the hon. Gentleman to look closely at unemployment rates among our young people and among those in countries such as Germany and France, because they are revealing.

I wholly endorse the new clause, which seeks to compensate business for bearing an unfair burden. Amendment No. 106, reasonably, imposes a time limit. Why should the requirement from business be open-ended? Our amendment comes close to the old concept of "one-day" day release—the idea of eight hours of study, for which the employer pays. For the requirement to be open-ended would be unreasonable.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am just about to finish my speech.

In Committee we tried to help the Government by warning them—people can call it gloomy if they like, but I consider it realistic—that the 16 to 17-year-olds are a group of people in British society whom, probably unwittingly, they would disadvantage under this part of the Bill. The Prime Minister used the term "the Loaded generation" to define a group disaffected from statutory education. That is the group that is likely to suffer if the Bill is passed unamended. That is why I support the new clause and the amendments.

Yesterday, concern was expressed from all parts of the House that more young people from low-income families should be entering higher education, so I am disappointed that all those Members are not here this evening to celebrate this part of the Bill.

We are genuinely concerned to ensure that young people aged from 16 to 18 are encouraged into education and training. Rather than relating that subject to the new deal, I encourage Members to read the Select Committee report on further education published last week. If the Government take that on board, more young people will be encouraged and enabled to stay on at school between 16 and 18, and therefore to enter higher education.

However, that will not happen immediately, so young people going into work deserve that level of training, encouraged by the Government—

Does the hon. Lady believe that society has an ethical responsibility to fund that, or should it be funded at random—by businesses and individuals, for example?

We certainly recommend that all corners of society should contribute. The hon. Gentleman may say that education is expensive, but I am sure that business and industry, and our community, would agree that lack of education is even more expensive. We need to encourage business to make its contribution, and I think that the Opposition have underestimated the contribution that that sector is already making, and the good will involved.

I shall now talk briefly about the two amendments. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) talked about eight hours, but the amendment does not say whether that means eight hours a week, a month or a year. The amendment is sloppily worded and should have been refined before being brought to the House.

Young people who, for whatever reason, do not stay on at school deserve to reach their potential at some level. Initially, we need to encourage those young people who have not reached GNVQ level 2 but, in the longer term, young people who are out of education but who are able to reach higher levels must be encouraged. Otherwise, there will be a discouragement to employing such people.

The amendments need to be rejected out of hand and we should support the original wording of the Bill, which is to be celebrated and not detracted from in any measure by this House.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, I have attacked the Government. This time, I wish to support them, and for exactly the same reason—the value of education. The Conservatives' amendments show that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The value of education is crucial if we are to build a modern and prosperous economy.

The problem for small businesses has always been one of time. If a small business employs somebody, it needs that person to do the work. As a former senior lecturer in further education, I know that it was up to the colleges and the providers of education to make sure that provision was there as and when the businesses needed it. Therefore, it is up to the providers of education to fit in with the needs of small businesses and to make sure that their requirements are met. The problems can be easily overcome.

The official Opposition may be worried about the effect on small businesses, but it would be worse to have untrained and unqualified staff. Added value is required to build a prosperous and modern economy, and that must mean the added value of an educated and trained work force. If we want quality and raised standards, they must be paid for and planned.

The Conservatives' amendments offer nothing positive. They seek to lower the time available for study and the qualifications gained. Their aim is negative and off-target. In this case, the Government have got it right, and I certainly support them.

The speech by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) epitomises the dilemma faced by the Conservative party. The party remains in chronic denial, clinging to a miserable reactionary position—a worm-ridden lifebelt. In 1968, we used to refer to people like the Tories as Poujadists. What a horrible bunch they are when they act like that.

The Conservatives want to deny young people in society the opportunity to take time off from work to enhance their own employability, to acquire new skills and—indirectly—to enable firms to become more profitable, so that their region can become more competitive and the country can benefit. All the Conservatives can do is to defend a miserable minority of reactionaries who always cry "injustice" whenever anybody asks them to put up some money on behalf of their employees and the country.

We will not wear it. There will be a right for young people aged 16 and 17 to take time off to study. It will benefit them, and all of us, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ashford will see fit to withdraw this reactionary nonsense.

The speeches from Labour Members—epitomised by the that of Minister—combined economic illiteracy and soft-headed good thoughts in about equal measure. The Government are happy to make pious speeches on the importance of training, but they are not happy to put their own assets where their mouth is. As long as somebody else is paying the bill, it does not matter.

The Government are happy to make moral speeches about how important it is to introduce training, but they do not have the guts to do as previous Labour Governments would have done—to increase taxes. They have decided that the way forward is to have hidden taxes on business. In this case, they think that small businesses do not matter, so they can impose the burden on them. To describe the small business sector of this country as "miserable reactionaries"—as the Minister just did— epitomises what Labour really thinks. Underneath the gloss of new Labour is the hatred of small business and enterprise—