If he will make a statement on the cost of his plans to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. [103675]

We are providing a total of £620 million to deliver the infant class size pledge, £200 million of which is for capital, which will provide an extra 2,000 classrooms. We are providing an extra 6,000 teachers, and we will achieve the class size pledge early.

Is it not a fact that the Government originally estimated the cost of fulfilling that pledge at £100 million? Whatever the value of the pledge, is it not grossly incompetent of the Department for Education and Employment to spend six times the original estimate? Does the Secretary of State recognise that, if his Department had worked in partnership with independent schools to offer first-year schools provision, the pledge could have been delivered at a fraction of the cost? Does not that failure to work with the private sector show a lack of imagination on the part of the Minister and his colleagues? Will he welcome the intention of Surrey county council's local education authority to explore the use of independent schools, so that the pledge can be delivered with value for money while building bridges between different education providers in the local community?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he appears to be mixing different Conservative policies, and not addressing the issue of class size. There is no suggestion that class sizes could be reduced by using the private sector. No one has said that the class size pledge, which has reduced the number of children in classes of more than 30 from 500,000 to 180,000, and which will reduce the number to nil within 18 months, could be achieved by buying places in infant classes in private schools that do not exist.

They do.

The hon. Gentleman may say so, but we are spending money on 6,000 additional teachers to make a reduction in classes possible. We are spending on capital to ensure expansion so that more people may have choice. We are keeping the pledge early, by spending at least £300 million of the money that would have gone into the assisted places scheme by 2002. All that will ensure a decent education for every child in every community, not just children for whom a private school happens to be available.

I welcome the figures that my right hon. Friend has announced. It is rich to hear the Conservative party, which did not want to do anything about class sizes, moaning that we are spending too much money on reducing them. Will my right hon. Friend learn from the fact that money for the pledge has been ring-fenced? Will he ensure that all money passed from the Department for Education and Employment is passed on to schools? Will he ensure that much more funding is ring-fenced in future, so that local authorities such as Leicestershire cannot withhold money that the Government have given them for schools?

I am always willing to learn from successful policies. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that resources allocated for education are spent as intended, and that is why I have written to the leaders of every council and education authority. I want all Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Labour councils to fulfil commitments to the electorate to spend that money on education, not highways, repairs or spurious projects. It should be spent on ensuring that every child has a high-quality education. We shall monitor what happens over the next few weeks, learn lessons from that and take the appropriate steps.

While the Government are spending £620 million on keeping their pledge, secondary class sizes are rising. How much would it have cost to keep secondary classes at the sizes inherited by the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that, in order to maintain spending on education as a proportion of national income at the average achieved by the Conservative Government, the Government would have had to inject through the comprehensive spending review not £19 billion, but £32 billion?

Average class size in both primary and secondary sectors fell from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8 in January 1999. We shall soon have the figures for the past 12 months. At the same time, the pupil-teacher ratio across the whole sector fell from 18.9 to 18.8 to one. By the end of the spending review, we shall have spent £200 extra on every primary school child, compared with a drop of £30 during the final three years of the previous Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extra £500,000 has been put into schools in Rotherham this year to fund 18 additional key stage 1 teachers and help to slash the number of five, six and seven-year-olds in large classes? Does he recognise, however, that some schools prefer not to have mixed age groups, and that that can make it harder to reduce all class sizes to below 30? Will he reassure such schools that their approach will be respected as the Government move to keep the class size pledge in full?

Yes, I can give that assurance.

What assessment he has made of the higher education needs of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. [103676]

That kind of assessment is one for the interested bodies in the region to make. We welcome the work being done by the combined universities in Cornwall partnership. In Cornwall, as elsewhere, higher education is critical to economic and social development. We recognise the strong demand for higher education in Cornwall, as shown by the 7 per cent. increase, between 1998 and 1999, of students from Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly who are studying at UK higher education institutions.

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. However, Cornwall lacks the core university facilities that many other parts of the country take for granted. What security can Cornwall achieve in its plans to establish such core facilities? To do so, some assurance as to student numbers is required in the medium term.

Many parts of the country do not have their own university as such. However, as I pointed out, the work being carried out in Cornwall by Exeter university, Plymouth university and Falmouth college of arts is encouraging. I know that the Higher Education Funding Council wants an increase in higher education opportunities in Cornwall, as do we.

How many specialist schools will be established within the next two years. [103677]

Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the names of 36 schools that will be designated specialist schools. That brings the total to 480. Current plans mean that there will be 600 specialist schools by September 2001, and 800 by 2003.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that that expansion shows the Government's commitment to modernising the comprehensive system? Will she do all that she can to encourage more schools, especially in the eastern region, to apply for that status?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There has long been a myth about the monolith of sameness in comprehensive schools. The specialist schools programme clearly shows that comprehensive schools do have strengths. They should be allowed to develop and build on those strengths. We should expect them to share their expertise with other schools, as happens under the specialist school programme.

Does the Minister agree that one of the advantages of schools being encouraged to develop specialisms is that teachers and governors can be motivated to develop those schools further? Does she realise that there is a particular interest in developing specialisms in languages, in science and technology and in sport? Will she join me in congratulating France Hill school in my constituency? The school was known for its specialism in sport but, under the inspired leadership of Mrs. Jacqui Pearson, the head teacher, it has gone from strength to strength. The school has recently been given a most successful Ofsted report, and will tomorrow receive its basic skills award.

I congratulate Mrs. Pearson, her staff and everyone who worked in the school and the community to raise standards. It is interesting that, in specialist sports schools applications, the quality of grades needed to secure designation is possibly higher than in any other specialism. The quality of work developed in such schools—both with students and in the wider community—has the potential to transform what is going on in some quite disadvantaged areas.

May I tell my right hon. Friend about the spectacular bid that she will receive from Holmesdale community school in Snodland in my constituency? It will bring together the process industries in the Medway valley and it will be one of the most innovative bids that she will receive. The head teacher, Mr. Ian Hobson, has performed a monumental task; since he arrived at the school, he has dragged it up from a low position, so that it is now going somewhere. If the school can get the status that it wants, that will be the icing on the cake.

I compliment my hon. Friend on his tenacity and admire him for it. He has been lobbying on behalf of the school before I have received the application, which has made it a bit difficult for me to pursue the matter, but that is his job and he does it very well. If the school's application is very innovative, I will look forward to receiving it with greater eagerness than might otherwise have been the case. We hope to announce the results of the next successful round in the summer, and we expect and shall ensure that those schools will have sufficient time to prepare their plans.

The Minister knows that Liberal Democrat Members support the broad thrust of specialist schools. We are, in particular, delighted that very few of those schools have taken the option of selecting by aptitude.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about the specialist school programme. I know that his constituency has greatly benefited from the programme, and he has always been kind enough to recognise that.

What steps he is taking to develop new technologies in beacon schools. [103678]

Beacon schools, like all our schools, are benefiting from the £700 million of investment that the Government are making in information and communications technologies in schools up to 2002. Beacon schools are already using those technologies imaginatively, and they have an important part to play in promoting them in other schools.

When I last spoke to the head teachers of the two beacon schools in Stafford—the primary schools of Barnfields and Oakridge—they both spoke with obvious warmth about their positive experience of beacon school status and the enthusiasm not only in their school but in all the other schools with which they have created links for sharing best practice.

I thank my hon. Friend. I am delighted that the beacon school programme has been so warmly welcomed in his constituency. I assure him that there will be further investment in these technologies. Between 2000 and 2002, we are putting something like £450 million into the national grid for learning in England. We are also developing new and imaginative ways of spreading best practice in such schools. On 2 December, we announced an important new partnership with the IBM International Foundation, which will help beacon schools to develop and will further spread best practice.

There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from schools and industry that the Government's rhetoric and resources are admirable, but that their implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Does the Minister have a sense of priority about the recent report from the Cabinet Office entitled "E-commerce at its best.UK", which contained specific objectives for educational achievement in technology? When does he expect to deliver those objectives, because they are much more accelerated than the ones that his Department has announced?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about our programme for the national grid for learning. I know that he has been a pioneer of many of these technologies for many years, and I welcome that. The reports that we receive from schools suggest that the programme is already having a significant impact. We are working on the standards that we shall expect all children to achieve in the technologies, and we shall make an announcement at the appropriate time.

Although many of us welcome the initiative of beacon schools and the resources that they receive, will my hon. Friend remember that the average school is crucial? In an average school in our constituencies, too often only a nominal one hour a week is spent on the computer. Students cannot use the computers in their classrooms during the lunch break—they are locked out—and they have minimal access to them after school. That is the truth in many of the schools that we visit. Will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts to make sure that average schools open up so that this country can become the leading information-learning country of Europe at the very least?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the needs of all schools. The Government are committed to ensuring that every single school and every single child in this country can benefit from these technologies. That is why we are making the investment that we are. We are investing not just in technology and hardware, but in training teachers through the new opportunities fund, which is providing £230 million to make sure that every teacher in every classroom knows how best to make use of the technologies. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to do that.

What steps he has taken to enable local education authorities to improve a secondary school's infrastructure if pupil numbers are substantially increased. [103679]

My Department provides financial support where a local education authority has shown that there are insufficient school places in an area to cope with the projected increase in pupil numbers. This support covers the additional teaching area that is needed, as well as any necessary expansion to schools' ancillary areas.

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, there seems to be a breakdown between the policy intentions that she has outlined and the reality for the Lytham St. Anne's high technology school in my constituency. She may be aware that it has received a great many extra pupils over the past few years, but the infrastructure of the school has not expanded to meet that demand. For example, there is a restriction on the number of pupils who can take school dinners, because they have a problem in getting them through in the lunch hour. Is there any further guidance that she can offer me on the steps that could and should be taken by Lancashire education authority to deal with that problem? If not, the school will not be able to function as effectively and efficiently as it should to serve the extra pupil numbers.

Given the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed about school infrastructure, I am sure that he will welcome the doubling of investment in school buildings that will be made under this Government.

May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the more than £170 million package of infrastructural improvements that has been put together for the Bradford district school reorganisation? I commend to my hon. Friend, for example, the project at the Salt grammar school in my constituency, where a new 29-classroom block is being planned to provide for extra pupil numbers. I urge her closely to monitor the financial package in the Bradford district so that we can complete the important transition to the new system on time and to budget.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the significant resources that the Government put into general investment in school buildings and surplus place reorganisation, and the capital expenditure that that necessitates. I can assure him that we monitor carefully the spending that goes into surplus place reorganisations to ensure that that process takes place and that it is based on value for money; and to ensure also the objectives that the authority has set down.

Does the hon. Lady agree that school sixth form may require expansion to meet demand? Does not the issue of where the capital funding will come from remain unsolved? At the same time, the safeguards that the Government have developed for funding the continuation of sixth forms, let alone their expansion, depends on the flimsiest of defences: a single year of baseline numbers. There is also the threat of withdrawal of sixth forms by the Learning and Skills Council for alleged inadequacy. Does not this amount—in the view of schools and local education authorities—to a set of proposals for 16 to 19-year-olds that aims a pistol at the heart of sixth forms?

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, given the clear objectives that have been laid down by the Government in relation to post-16 education: to bring at last some coherence to the system that funds education and training, to promote high standards for all our children post-16 and to protect school sixth forms that are doing a good job.

If he will make a statement on progress made by child care partnerships in meeting targets set for them under the national child care strategy. [103680]

The early years partnerships and child care partnerships at local level were given a target in the current financial year of creating 82,000 places. By the mid-year point at the end of September, they had tripled that half-year target by creating 76,000 of the 82,000 places. That is more than the number of child care places that were created over the last four years of the Conservative Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the child care strategy is another example of the Government delivering on their election promises, and that it will go a long way towards helping families?

That strategy will have the role of providing developmental care for young children, including an additional 48,000 free places for three-year-olds in nursery school that would not have been available but for the Labour Government. It will also free families to make choices about returning to work and about their arrangements to support family learning.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Pre-School Learning Alliance—I am sure that he, like me, has great respect for that organisation—reports this year that 1,500 playgroups have closed and 1,700 more are likely to close as a direct result of Government policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is a helpful contribution to policy?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that, over the past two years, we have provided £500,000 to help to protect playgroups and other providers when the market changes locally and parents consequently make different choices. Eighty per cent. of the funding that we are making available will go into the private and voluntary sector to provide new places when parents want them. Parents also have the choice of a nursery place rather than a pre-school place.

At a recent meeting in Scotland of single-parent organisations, there was unanimous welcome for the money that the Government have provided for pre-school care and care out of school hours. However, the organisations asked what steps had been taken to help parents who need full-time care, or those who work unusual hours—for example, nurses who work shifts and find it impossible to find care for their children.

There are some interesting experiments in care during working hours to offer family-friendly, flexible working provision, including in the national health service. I will write to my hon. Friend with some examples that can be passed on to the trust and health board in her area, so that parents can use not only formal provision, but excellent child-minding provision, which plays a key part in creating flexibility and ensuring that children receive decent, high-quality care during unsocial working hours.

Whatever the Secretary of State claims in his answers about the number of child care places that are made available, the Department's figures show that the number of places in playgroups and with child minders fell last year. In March last year, the Government said that they would spend £8 billion on child care. In his recent speech on social exclusion and the politics of opportunity, the Secretary of State confirmed that £470 million would be invested in child care in England during this Parliament. Is the difference between the two figures the first sign of the pain that education will suffer as the Government try to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge on NHS spending—or was the figure of £8 billion simply an aspiration?

The difference is accounted for by the fact that the £470 million constitutes the direct investment in ensuring that the infrastructure is in place. The total sum for the period to which the hon. Lady refers includes: the working families tax credit disregard, which will invest directly in the parent's choice of provision; investment in nursery education; and the sure start programme, which will play a key part in meeting the needs of children and families and enhancing their capacity to develop informal as well as formal care in the community.

In what ways his Department is helping parents to find out about the child care places in their area. [103681]

All partnerships are developing information services based on minimum service standards. ChildcareLink, a freephone national child care information line, and child care website was launched in December. A separate project to provide local information points in outlets such as supermarkets and doctors' surgeries was piloted in the autumn.

Does the Minister agree that it is essential that mothers and fathers, especially in Portsmouth, North are able to gain not just access to child care, but information on education and employment—in other words, joined-up information? Does she agree not only that access to child care is important but that confidence that child care facilities are of high quality is equally so?

I agree entirely that joined-up information is what parents and families require. The pilots that we have run in supermarkets provided information not just about child care places, but about jobs available locally, training opportunities, benefits and community health services. I also agree that parents will take advantage of the new child care places only if they are assured that those are of a high quality.

It is not going to be easy for parents to find out about child care places if playgroups are closing. Can we have a straight answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Why have 1,500 playgroups closed, and why does the Pre-School Learning Alliance suggest that 1,700 will close this year? In a rural area such as mine, playgroups are vital.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has left the Chamber. He seems to have gone for an early, and probably a long, lunch.

If he will make a statement about the new deal in Scotland. [1036821

The new deal is working in Scotland. The latest figures show that more than 19,000 young people and more than 2,500 long-term unemployed adults have found jobs through the new deal. We are on course to meet our manifesto commitment of getting 250,000 young people off benefit and into work across Britain.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that, despite the opposition of all the parties in Scotland, long-term youth unemployment in Scotland has decreased by three quarters, from just over 16,000 to just over 4,000? Does she agree that the nature of the problem has changed, away from an entire generation that had been ignored and unemployed to a much smaller number of hard-core, long-term unemployed young people, where unemployment may be endemic throughout the family? Can she assure the House that, as the new deal develops and the nature of the problem changes, she will bear those experiences in mind?

I thank my hon. Friend for those perceptive comments, which reflect a clear understanding of the challenges facing the new deal. He is right to say that, building on the success of the new deal to date, we are turning our attention to providing more intensive support for young people coming on to the first stage of the new deal—the gateway—who lack basic skills and for whom that lack, unless it is addressed, will be a long-term obstacle to their employability. That is an important practical step towards tackling the problem of inter-generational unemployment, to which my hon. Friend referred.

rose—

Order. I remind hon. Members who are rising that the question relates entirely to Scotland. I call Mr. Beggs. If he is prepared to put a question relating to Scotland, I will take it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I represent the constituency in Northern Ireland closest to Scotland.

That will not do.

I am now proceeding to my question, Madam Speaker.

The Minister should be aware that the substantive question relates entirely to Scotland and her answer must relate to Scotland.

I accept your guidance, Madam Speaker. I can confirm that the experience of the new deal in Scotland is representative of that across the United Kingdom. The key issue is the promotion of employability as an important part of maintaining economic stability and the benefits of economic growth.

rose—

Now we shall see how close Yorkshire is to Scotland.

I understand that the new deal programme in Scotland has underspent considerably in respect of initial projections. Has the Minister had any discussions with her colleagues in Scotland about how to reallocate those resources, and can she explain how future new deal enhancements such as those she described will take place, given the Scottish dimension and the devolution of the programme to the Scottish Parliament?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The new deal is a United Kingdom programme and I regularly meet the Scottish new deal task force, to which I pay tribute. Certainly the initial costs have been lower than anticipated, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly in the pre-Budget report the ways in which we shall intensify support for young people and those older people who have been unemployed long term. We shall announce detailed proposals on both sources of additional help in due course.

My constituency is not the nearest to Northern Ireland, nor to England and Wales, but it is one of the nearest to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy).

My hon. Friend makes two important points. He referred first to the level of long-term unemployment in respect of which the new deal will build on its success and work harder in areas where unemployment rates have traditionally been highest. We have to redouble our efforts there to ensure that the young and older long-term unemployed people are given the skills to get them off benefit into work.

What steps his Department is taking to support the role of trade unions in developing skills. [103683]

What steps his Department is taking to support the role of trade unions in developing skills. [103684]

We have made £12 million available to all trade unions. What we are doing involves 100 projects, and 50 unions working with employers. They have already managed to provide basic skills and development courses for 200,000 employees. That has introduced new possibilities for negotiation and bargaining in the workplace, brought together employers and trade unions in regard to the positive skills agenda, and ensured that more than 1,000 learning representatives have been appointed throughout the work force.

I welcome the establishment of the union learning fund, but how many other unions might be able to take advantage of it, and what will be the priority in tackling the need for basic skills?

The programme has been massively oversubscribed by trade unions wishing to be part of it. As I have said, it involves unions working with employers and, in many instances, working together. Basic skills, including skills in information technology, are a key priority.

Women now constitute 47 per cent. of the work force and 46 per cent. of trade union membership. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the principles of equal opportunity apply to all applications to the fund, so that women will have an opportunity to fulfil themselves through the trade union movement?

I can give that assurance. We are keen for part-time workers to be able to take advantage of the scheme. Along with the local trust in Ipswich and Gardner Merchant, Unison has provided an across-the-board programme of basic in-service training. The National Union of Teachers, working with the Royal College of Midwives, has introduced an exemplary scheme offering information and communications technology training for its members in continuing professional development.

I want to ask about the development of skills by trade unions in my county of Leicestershire. I have here a document sent to me by the six teachers' unions, expressing their wish to develop skills in Leicestershire schools. They say that, unfortunately, because of the reduction in standard spending assessment, 39 per cent. of secondary schools are reducing staff and, moreover, that 30,000 secondary pupils will be in larger classes next year.

First, I will not accept that. Secondly, the SSA has not been reduced, and nor has the revenue support grant to match it. The SSA is going up by 5.3 per cent., and the Department has directly invested £50 million in addition to that. Over the spending review period, there will be a real-terms increase of 16 per cent. on education, twice as much as the last Government invested throughout the last Parliament.

As a member of the proletariat and a strong supporter of constructive trade unionism, and recognising that no one in the country has done more to create the climate in which such trade unionism can flourish than my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, may I assure the Secretary of State that Conservative Members accept that unions can assist in developing skills?

That is precisely why we have indicated that at least 40 per cent. of the places on the new learning and skills councils will be for those who have immediate or immediate past experience of business and commerce. Just to put the record straight for the London TEC Council, a total of £5 billion is going into adult learning.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the different tradition of the Workers Educational Association and university extramural education for trade unionists, from which at least three Members who are currently in the House have benefited and from which many others have benefited in the past? Is anything being done to refurbish and remobilise that tradition, which has significant benefit in the spin-off for communities in that non-vocational education is developed?

Through the national learning and skills councils, the WEA will, for the first time, have direct access to overall national resources, which will be a major boon in sorting out the current disparities in funding throughout the country. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are keen to learn from the experience of the extramural provision from which he and others have benefited and to replicate it through the residential colleges, which continue to do an excellent job in providing mature students with adult learning on access and diploma courses, which often lead to people not only going into higher education, but returning to the workplace and their community to which they can then contribute the skills and potential that they have been able to develop on those courses.

If he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for financing performance-related pay for teachers. [103685]

For an initial period starting in September 2000, we will establish a special grant to target resources for the performance threshold additional to, and separate from, schools' delegated budgets. Schools will be able to draw additional funds from the grant via their local education authority for each teacher who is promoted to the upper pay spine. There will be no quota on threshold successes.

Does the Minister accept that, after two years, ring-fenced funding will disappear and schools will be required to meet those threshold payments from their own hard-pressed budgets? Does that not amount yet again to another deferred pay scheme for our hard-pressed teachers?

The hon. Gentleman is rather ungenerous. He talks about hard-pressed budgets, but I have just made it clear that we have held money back centrally to fund teachers who go through the threshold, that there will be no quota and that that money will be paid.

Last week, I met secondary head teachers at schools in Enfield, North, and a more committed, positive and enthusiastic group one could not wish to meet. They are doing their very best for secondary school pupils in my constituency. They raised the issue of financial resources to support implementation of performance-related pay arrangements. I should like to clarify whether they will be able to use available financial resources to pay for supply cover while they are going through the appraisal process.

I add my thanks to those that my hon. Friend has already given to secondary school teachers in Enfield, North. She was kind enough to update me on that meeting, and I am very appreciative of all the work that those teachers do. I understand their scepticism. Under the previous Government, they spent 18 years being asked to implement initiatives, but without a penny to support that implementation. I think that that history is why they are still so sceptical about initiatives.

I listened very carefully to the Minister's answer to the original question on this topic. Performance-related pay for teachers, however, is yet another example of the Government saying one thing but doing another. The Minister talks about the provision of central funds, but the reality—as she herself said in answer to the original question—is that that money is being held back centrally and top-sliced from money provided to local authorities to provide the £150 million required this year to meet pay increases for teachers going through the threshold, despite the fact that Ministers promised that all funding for the scheme would be provided centrally, from the £1 billion that was being allocated.

The hon. Lady has a vivid imagination. The reality is that, even if we exclude the money for threshold payments, the SSA increase to local authorities is 5.4 per cent. If we include the money that will go to local authorities and schools as part of the threshold payment, the increase would come to 6.1 per cent. If she wants an argument about increases of 5.4 and 6.1 per cent., I will have it. But let us be clear: under the previous Government, in not one year did SSA increases anywhere near enough to touch either of those increases.The truth is that, after the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 November, funding to authorities as part of the SSA increased by £154 million.

If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the exclusion of pupils found in possession of controlled drugs while on school premises. [103686]

Circular 10/99, "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support", issued to maintained schools last July, makes it clear that it is for head teachers to decide whether to exclude permanently for all drug-related incidents, although in some cases excluding for a fixed period may be a more appropriate course of action. We are planning to write to schools very shortly to clarify and simplify some of the exclusion procedures.

Although I welcome the fact that head teachers should be responsible for exclusions of pupils in possession of controlled drugs, will the Minister say what provision is made for children who are excluded? Are they sent to specialist centres, where they are given treatment to come off drugs? Is the decision about when those children are considered fit enough to return to mainstream education only for head teachers, or is it to be made in consultation with parents and others?

The hon. Lady has made a very important point on the need for schools, with other agencies, to develop policies on keeping children in school—whenever it is possible to do so, without disrupting the education of others—and on ways of ensuring that children who have come into contact with drugs are adequately treated. That is why we are doubling the support available for early intervention on exclusions and truancy and giving the help that all hon. Members want us to provide.

When he last met Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the impact on employment prospects of European directives relating to British business. [103687]

My right hon. Friend and I often meet ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss various matters, including matters relating to the European Union. Ministers at both Departments represent the UK on the Social Affairs Council, which provides a forum for discussion of European employment legislation.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Many of us know that she is a reasonable person. We concede that membership of the European Union has brought some benefits to business, but does she accept that some European directives have damaged industry? She will be aware, for example, that the sale of Armitage Shanks in my constituency was a direct result of a European directive resisted by the previous Government but rapidly accepted by the Labour Government. Will she read the report to be published by the Institute of Directors early next week, which undertakes a cost-benefit analysis of the European Union for business? Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement on the report when it is published?

I am happy to study that report when it is published. Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Trade and Industry believe that the implementation of European directives should not pose undue regulatory burdens on business and should strike a proper balance between fairness at work and the need to keep costs and burdens to a minimum. Yesterday we published figures that show that there are more people in work than ever. We can be proud of that record. We intend to work with our European partners to build on that and ensure greater employability and more people in work in the UK and across the European Union. We shall be working together in Europe, not barking on the fringes.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I hope that it is a point of order.

It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you will know that I do not raise points of order that are out of order. However, is it in order for the Minister to imply that I—who was one of the four hon. Members interested in the issues debated last night—oppose the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, when I do not? Is that not a gross slander?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Order. Perhaps I shall have a point of order one day, but, so far, I have not had one today. I tell the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) that the Minister and other hon. Members will make their speeches in their own way, and that it will be for him to try to rebut the case that they make.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not speak while I am on my feet; it is very bad manners. Does he have a point of order? He cannot make a point further to the previous point, because it was not a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night, your colleague, the occupant of the Chair, ruled that no filibustering had occurred. Just now, the Minister said that there had been filibustering, contrary to the ruling of the occupant of the Chair.

I did not hear the Minister say that.

The intervention by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) demonstrated that he is contradicting some of the other Conservative Members who spoke last night. Conservative Members are going in every direction on the issue. That is the very point that I was making, and that is what they were seeking to disguise from the public.

rose—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way shortly.

"damage the very fabric of our parliamentary democracy." — [Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 938.]

I deeply resent the Minister's implication. Earlier today, the Leader of the House mentioned the debate on the definition of "temporary" unemployment and the short, but very civilised discussions that I had with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on proposed change to the law. I did not make a speech on the issue, although I could have done, but chose to address it in brief interventions on the Minister. Conservative Members are trying to improve legislation, as it is our duty to do, and I strongly resent the Minister's implication that we were doing anything other than that.

As we proceed, I shall show how few Opposition Members were prepared to make speeches in debate of what they now claim to be such an important Bill.

Will the Minister give way?

This must be the last time.

The Minister is showing signs of not knowing his elbow from his posterior in parliamentary terms. Does he not recognise that, if more right hon. and hon. Members had made speeches, the debate would have been even longer, causing him to complain even more? Will he accept what should be clear beyond peradventure—that many hon. Members regarded features of the Bill as ill-considered, confused and, in some cases, downright stupid? Why does he not grow up and stop impugning the integrity of right hon. and hon. Members?

The way in which the debate was conducted yesterday was clear for all to see, including members of the public who were watching. At times, very few could be bothered to come to listen to the long, discursive speeches conducted by some Conservative Members. They will know what was going on.

rose—

I had said that I would not give way again, but I shall give way to the right hon. Lady—how could I refuse her?

Does the Minister agree that it is when there is agreement between the parties that Bills should be examined minutely? That is the time when Back Benchers in particular should have an opportunity to give a Bill a close examination. Is that not a good principle?

The right hon. Lady is being disingenuous. She knows well from her long experience in the House the difference between a proper examination of a Bill and a deliberate attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House. That is what was going on yesterday.

"The Opposition do not object to scheduling Report stage for Monday".— [Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 306.]

I am not disagreeing with what the Minister has said about the timetable, but will he confirm that the Government originally proposed the remaining stages for Monday but, as a result of representations that there should be a longer gap, the timetable was changed by two days, which at least gave us some time between consideration in Committee and the remaining stages? That was far preferable to the original Government plan, which would have been unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides.

I accept that there was a discussion between the usual channels, and that agreement was reached on the way in which we should proceed—an agreement which was broken by at least some Conservative Back Benchers yesterday.