If he will make a statement on progress with the excellence in cities proposals for learning mentors.[123333]

The excellence in cities programme has so far seen the recruitment of 800 learning mentors with a further 600 to come in the new extended excellence in cities areas. The mentors work with schools and with parents and help to reduce disaffection and alienation. In the case of the Wales high school in Rotherham, they have cut non-attendance and late attendance by 60 per cent. They also help to reduce the exclusion of children from school by working with them to overcome their problems.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that learning mentors, alongside on-site pupil referrals and other measures, are a vital part of the Government's programme for tackling disaffection and the problems of disruption in schools? Will he confirm that, under the Conservative Government, thousands of young people were excluded from school and were left out on the streets to commit crimes? Does he also agree that the Conservatives are Johnny-come-latelys on this issue and have no ideas to offer?

Johnny-come-lately is an admirable description of the Leader of the Opposition. He was away at Easter and the spring bank holiday, so he missed the two speeches in which I addressed the issues that he talked about earlier this week. There are 1,000 learning support units in schools across the country, with proper funding and a full education for pupils in referral units such as the Zacchaeus centre in Birmingham, which was funded by the Government's school inclusion grant. The grant enables schools to buy back in the services that they need at the referral unit and it ensures that children can work with mentors and have places when that is necessary. All that has gone on because the Government have changed from £17 million to £527 million the amount of money that is available. A Johnny-come-lately, who was on holiday when these matters were discussed, has suddenly caught up with them now that he is back from swimming with the dolphins.

As part of the Government's laudable aim of achieving excellence in cities, they are setting up new private schools, the city academies that are funded by the state. Ministers have determined that the practice of such centres selecting 10 per cent. of their pupils will raise standards in our cities. Will the Secretary of State explain what has led him to the view that 10 per cent. is the correct percentage? Does he not believe that the optimum percentage might be 5, 20 or perhaps even on occasions 100 per cent?

The initiative has nothing at all to do with mentors or the excellence in cities in programme in general, but it is entirely in line with our diversity programme in which specialist schools have exactly the same opportunity in terms of aptitude not selection. The previous Government were quite happy to use that distinction themselves and it has been dealt with on numerous occasions. No doubt, we shall return to it when I have more time to explain the difference to the hon. Gentleman.

What estimate he has made of the likely effect on employment levels in leisure and similar pursuits as a result of farming land being redeployed for non-farming uses over the next five years. [123334]

We have not made an assessment in the terms that my hon. Friend asks. However, in the past year, jobs in agriculture and fishing fell by 12,000 and jobs in the services grew by 354,000, and some of them will be the result of farm diversification.

It is extremely regrettable that there is a continuing fall in jobs in farming, a process that has been going on for at least 200 years. However, it is encouraging to note that there has been an increase in the population of rural areas—four times the increase in the nation as a whole—and that there has been a similar increase in the number of start-ups in small and medium-sized enterprises in the countryside. Is it not encouraging that certain farms in non-arable areas that employed two or three people on a farm of a couple of hundred acres have diversified to employ hundreds of people in leisure and other industries? That is good for the environment, good for the prosperity of rural areas and good for jobs.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I certainly agree with them. The structure of employment is changing and some of the highest employment rates and some of the lowest employment rates are in rural areas. The role of Government in the process is to enable people to make a successful transition from one job to another and to stay in work.

What additional resources may be available to people who work in agriculture and those with businesses connected with agriculture to ensure that the new job opportunities are long-lasting, full-time, well paid and sustainable?

There are two sources of help. The first is the labour market programme, for which my Department and the Employment Service are responsible, and the second involves the Government measures being negotiated with the Commission, such as the English rural development plan which, for rural areas, is worth £1.6 billion over seven years. In addition, the new rural enterprise scheme will contribute more than £150 million to rural areas between 2001 and 2006. Much of that money will be available to assist in the diversification to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred.

Does the Minister agree that as employment opportunities in agriculture decline, there may be opportunities for businesses in many farming complexes? Will she make representations and give encouragement to other Departments so that there is evidence of joined-up government and the planning service can seek to accommodate farming enterprises that are diversifying?

The figures that I gave in response to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) demonstrate the level of commitment and investment that the Government are making to help rural communities make the transition to which the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) referred. Joined-up government, which involves a concerted effort across government, is the key to success and stability in that.

Does the Minister accept that the present deep economic difficulty in agriculture hits providers of land-based higher and further education in two ways? It slashes the profits and trading income from college farms and, quite understandably, it affects applications for courses. For example, is the Minister aware that, in the last month, the Berkshire college of agriculture has had to withdraw its course for the two-year national diploma in agriculture because of a lack of take-up? I am not being partisan, but the situation is extremely serious and requires careful consideration from the Department, which should consult with MAFF, the two funding councils and the colleges if the essential infrastructure of education and training in land-based industries is to be maintained.

I am happy to examine any individual cases which the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise and am willing to receive further details of the specific example that he gave. It is important to ensure that people are trained for existing jobs and that work-based training and courses offered by further education colleges equip people with skills for the future labour market.

What action he will take on the recommendations relating to education and training in the strategy document for the United Kingdom clothing and textile industry published on 6 June. [123335]

I welcome the report and, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was pleased to announce a 12-point plan to support the industry and help it to adapt and meet global changes. The industry has a turnover of almost £18 billion, has exports worth more than £5 billion and employs 277,000 people, so it has a strong future and must respond and focus effectively on its key strengths. We have accepted all the recommendations on education and training in the strategy document and have worked actively to establish and support two national training organisations to encourage more effective education and industry links.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I agree and confirm that textiles and clothing remain one of our largest manufacturing sectors and have a positive future, provided that they are helped to adapt to compete in world markets, along the lines suggested in the report. However, in the past decade or so, tens of thousands of workers in the industry have lost their jobs and many more face redundancy. What are the Government doing to help those workers?

There have been redundancies in the clothing and textile industry but, each quarter, 8,000 new jobs in the sector are reported to the Employment Service. In areas where there has been concentrated redundancy, such as that in the William Baird case, we have been able to employ rapid response units to good effect to give immediate assistance to people affected by closures. As well as our existing resources, we have identified £2 million of new, additional moneys for the industry.

We have asked the textile and clothing strategy group to report to us by the end of the month with proposals as to how we can establish a pilot to link people who have been made redundant, or who are in danger of redundancy, more swiftly with job opportunities in their locality. We want to know how we can intervene in a fragmented industry where redundancies have a widespread impact. We are also evaluating the effectiveness of the north-east regional taskforce to see whether that has added value.

I welcome the Minister's replies and fully support the views of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). Does the Minister accept that, sadly, the clothing and textile industry will not have a good future unless the large retailers stop pressing down the manufacturers' margins—that would encourage investment and employment—while they themselves operate margins of over 300 per cent?

Will she encourage Departments of State, particularly the Ministry of Defence, to purchase British goods, and not those from overseas? [Interruption.]

I am hesitating because I did not know whether I was hearing a contribution from an old Labour market interventionist or a Conservative free marketeer.

Where does the suit come from?

I have been asked where my clothes come from, and I can tell hon. Members that today I represent the European Union, but my fundamentals are well and truly British.

The Minister has not answered my question.

Order. I do not think that the Minister attempted to answer the question, although it was an amusing response.

Am I permitted a point of order, Madam Speaker?

I am afraid that I do not allow even the hon. Gentleman a point of order in the middle of Question Time. He may return to the point later, if he wishes. The House will realise that I have given the Minister the opportunity to answer the question, and she appears not to want to do so.

I thought that in the first part of my response I was starting to answer the question. The serious point is that, as part of the 12-point plan, we are examining how we can impact on the supply chain to ensure that we protect the textile industry. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the strategy document, he would find that that proposal is incorporated in it.

Does the Minister understand that there is nothing wrong with intervention? The Government may have started out in 1997 with the starry-eyed idea that market forces would ensure jobs for everybody in every part of Britain, but the truth is that we have to intervene, and we always have done. Intervention has recently taken place in Rover and other cases, and there is nothing wrong in that. In mining, too, there has been limited intervention, although some of the money will go into Richard Budge's pocket.

I am concerned about the fact that, in Bolsover, 700 textile jobs have been lost in the last three months, which in a small geographical area is equivalent to the Rover job losses. We all know that there has been a seepage of jobs from textiles for donkey's years, but the Government must understand that there is nothing wrong with intervention; market forces will not resolve the problem in peripheral and coalfield areas. Now that the Government have a chance to move away from the operation of market forces and to understand that, to save jobs in textiles and other industries, we have to intervene. If we do that now, before the general election, everything will be all right.

That is a serious contribution, and there is a real issue about ensuring that, when the Government intervene—this Government believe in active government and intervention—we do so in a way that ensures that jobs are sustainable over time in an economy that is changing and restructuring fast and that we protect and promote not only the interests of workers, but those of consumers who need to buy those products. The intervention has to be of a nature that will ensure that there is strength and sustainability in the jobs. In the clothing and textile industry, we have to focus on the high-quality, well-designed products that we produce here in Britain, of which we are justly proud.

Tubbs Elastics, Sherston, which is in my constituency and is the largest elastics manufacturer in the United Kingdom, is equally concerned—like the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber)—about the future of the textile and clothing industry. In that context, like the textile and clothing industry generally, it is worried that the so-called summit held the other day and the 12-point plan are all about spin, PR and gimmickry rather than actual substance. As an example of that, is the Minister not ashamed that, on the day when she knew that she would answer a question about the textile and clothing industry, she should barefacedly come to the Dispatch Box wearing a French suit? Is that not an example of the Government's approach to industry? Knowing that she would talk about the industry, why could not she have worn a British suit, for heaven's sake?

I tried—[Interruption. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you would stop me presenting each label on every garment that I am wearing today, but I tried to demonstrate that I am a good European by wearing a mixture of European and British clothes. Can I make a serious point? The Conservative party never did anything to support the textile and clothing industry to restructure and ensure that it had a proper, sustainable future. In response to growing redundancies and problems in the area, we have put together a group that has produced a report, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read it. This is the start of action. If he is suggesting that we as a Government should be protecting sectors of an industry that are unsustainable, that is a massive shift in Conservative party policy.

What steps he is taking to improve provision for the long-term unemployed aged 25 years and over. [123336]

The new deal for those who are 25-plus has already helped 40,000 long-term unemployed people into jobs. There are now 55,000 fewer people unemployed for 18 months or more than there were in May 1997, but there is more to do. From April next year, we intend to build on the success of the new deal for young people and increase significantly our investment in the new deals for older people facing long-term unemployment by giving them personal advice and high-quality practical assistance to help them to move back into work.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even though the employment zone in Doncaster has been up and running for only about a month, it has been extremely successful in getting long-term unemployed people over 25 back to work? However, at present those who can benefit from the scheme are selected randomly and I should be grateful for her assurance that, if it continues to be as successful as it is at the moment, the scheme will be extended to all long-term unemployed people in the zone.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and her congratulations on the early success of the employment zone. Random assignment is being used to ensure that the new approach succeeds in getting more of those facing long-term unemployment back into work more quickly. As soon as that success is clearly established, the extra support and help available to some of her constituents will be available generally.

Does the Minister agree that the new deal—one of the actions taken to support long-term unemployed over-25s—has been a failure, not least in North Yorkshire? Will she join me in recognising that the burdens on employers are disproportionate and increase the cost of employing over-25s?

The Opposition have been persistently hostile to the new deal—a programme that, according to independent evaluation, is getting young and older people off benefit and into work. They have always been indifferent to the fate of the long-term unemployed, hostile to the new deal and hostile to our Government's objective of opportunity for all in return for responsibility from all.

It is welcome news indeed that the success of the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds is drawing out important lessons for beefing up the new deal for over-25s. My right hon. Friend will recall that the recent Education and Employment Select Committee report identified transport as one of the most important factors in enabling people looking for work to get to where the jobs are. What progress is she making—with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and with local authorities—to that end?

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Since I appeared before the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have launched a further stage of the travelcard for new dealers, offering half-price travel to enable young people to get to work. We are looking to extend the travel-to-interview scheme and the new job grant will begin to remove some of the obstacles that travel presents. We are determined to remove the obstacles to people getting to jobs. We are extending help to disadvantaged people, extending the opportunity of work and taking the practical action that that requires.

Given that 81 per cent. of participants in the new deal for over-25s are on the advisory process, 45 per cent. leave the scheme to claim jobseeker's allowance, 9 per cent. go to work-based learning, 3 per cent. go to the training and education option, 25 per cent. go to destinations unknown and, in its two years of operation, only 14 per cent. have managed to achieve sustained employment, why does the right hon. Lady not admit that no Government have ever promised so much, delivered so little and blown their own trumpet with such indecent haste?

Well, just tell that to the 40,000 people who have already found work as a result of the new deal for over-25s. We will take no lessons from an Opposition who have always been hostile to helping unemployed people into work and who have tried to thwart everything that the Government have done to extend the advantage and opportunity of work to the unemployed. We are building on the success of the new deal for young people, building on the help with basic skills, numeracy and literacy and preparation for work and removing the practical obstacles that many long-term unemployed people face in getting to work. We are investing six times more in the help that will be available to the long-term unemployed to get them into work. We want the over-25s to get work, and more than 200,000 young people have successfully moved off benefit and into work through the new deal.

How many jobseekers have secured employment through Employment Service Direct. [123337]

Employment Service Direct is part of a £68 million modernisation programme, which uses old technology in the form of a telephone, and new technology in the form of touch screens, to enable people to access the jobs that are available when they need them. Since it was launched last year, 50,000 people a week have used the service and 82,000 have found jobs through it. Those 82,000 are among the almost 1 million people who have got a job since the Government were elected, but did not have a job when Conservative Members were in power.

I am grateful for that reply. I was pleased to learn from my local district manager that jobseekers perceive the service as successful. It means that they do not have to trot out to the jobcentre to access employment. There are also many hotlines in the community through which people can access jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent new service will not only get more people into the job market but increase jobs mobility? That is what we want.

The service is part of a more adaptable and flexible labour market, which works in the interests of growth with low inflation, and offers opportunities that did not previously exist. It is part of the development of the new learning and work bank, which will link learning opportunities and skills to the jobs that are available, help people to prepare their CVs and enable employers to access employers and call them for interview. The service is also more than that. It contributes to the employment service's ability to reach out to those who previously sat at home, waiting for someone to find them a job. It means that we can not only draw people into the jobcentre and help them, but work outwards from the jobcentre to ensure that, wherever there is a vacancy, a person is ready and able to fill it.

Why then did the Government close down the successful job clubs? What advice has the Secretary of State for my 58-year-old disabled constituent who has been out of work for two years, but was previously helped back into employment by the Conservative Government's job club scheme? Why does not the Secretary of State believe that that would help in the case that I described?

Because we replaced what was available with the new deal for those aged over 50 and the new deal for disabled people. They provide a personal adviser service, and a service tailored to the needs of individuals. The personal adviser service provides what were previously job club activities, such as showing people how to write a letter, make a phone call or prepare a CV. The new programme has been much more successful in getting the long-term unemployed and the disadvantaged into work.

What plans he has to ensure that members of ethnic minority groups have equal access to higher education. [123338]

Ethnic minority students are generally well represented in higher education, although some groups still give cause for concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a further £4 million to enhance the £18 million allocated to students from disadvantaged areas. Many of those from the ethnic communities will benefit from those measures.

I congratulate the many universities that reach out to different communities. For example, London Guildhall has excellent links with the local Bengali community. The university of East London also does good work. There is good work from universities throughout the country.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the Dearing report, which, in 1997, highlighted the persistently low participation of specific ethnic groups in the pre-1992 university system? Does he know that entry applications for 2000–01 show that the position has not improved and that percentages have decreased in some ethnic areas? Does my hon. Friend know that ethnic groups are concentrated in specific post-1992 universities, and that Dearing identified one of the reasons for that as their ethnic-friendly policies? Will he ensure that the pre-1992 universities also have such policies and do not carry a tag of institutional racism?

It is vital that all our education institutions, including all our universities, have equal opportunities policies—not just pieces of paper, but practice to back them up. In my constituency, one third of the people are from the various ethnic communities. Increasingly, we need to look at the individual communities, rather than the aggregate, because the experience of access to universities and other institutions is very different. Of course, our universities need to be sophisticated. I am not complacent, but the numbers going to universities from ethnic communities in general have increased. We still have a lot to do.

Does the Minister accept that those of us who attend graduation ceremonies at universities in London and outside are constantly and favourably impressed by the number of members of ethnic minorities who have secured higher education qualifications, under both the present Government and the previous one?

Of course, we congratulate those young people, their families and their teachers. However, I am concerned that young men from the African-Caribbean community, many of whom have great ability and are working well in the schools, tend to be under-represented in many of our universities. That is one area in which we are not complacent; there is still much to do.

Does my hon. Friend agree that getting a place at university should be based on ability and what one knows, not on having a toffee nose and a public school education? I urge him to continue to put pressure on universities to do more to improve access. Will he consider carefully the proposals from the Sutton Trust about how the Government can help in that process?

The Sutton Trust, for which we all have great regard, produced its report this week. It tells us that the chance of getting into a top 13 university is approximately 25 times greater if one comes from an independent school than if one comes from a lower class or lives in a poor area. We are working on that, with summer schools and bursaries from the universities for many of those youngsters, and we are working with universities, many of which are doing good work. Indeed, many at Oxford are doing good work. That is what we should encourage. We should move on and make sure that each and every one of our young people, whether rich or poor, black or white, from north or south, has a good chance, with good A-levels, to get into our good universities.

Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with black Afro-Caribbean boys in particular is that they are four times more likely to be excluded from school, and therefore not to participate in the education service or go to university? What is the Minister doing about that? Will he comment on the College of Law research published this week, which shows that black and Asian students graduating from university are 30 per cent. less likely to find a place in a law firm than their white counterparts? Surely that is a disgrace at the other end of the market.

I certainly understand the last point, and none of us is complacent about the extent of racial discrimination in this country. It has implications not only for Government, but for many institutions, including those connected with the law.

With regard to exclusions, there is a difficulty, but the numbers are improving. I am aware that not only our Department, but many schools and local authorities are working extremely hard on that issue. We need to work with parents, families and mentors in the community to get it right. We can play a major role. Education maintenance allowances will enable more children this summer to think about staying on in education. Much remains to be done—it is a big issue and we are working on it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key elements of the problem is that the funding basis of the further education college system, which is such an important gateway to higher education, was highly fragmented? Much still needs to be done to ensure that that conduit to higher education is made more effective than it was under the previous Government.

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we are legislating for new learning and skills councils from April next year. The 47 local councils will be responsive to local needs and demands—the needs of business and employers, and also the needs of individuals—to make sure that demand and need lead the system.

We have invested record amounts in further education, because we regard it as a sector for the 21st century. We must ensure that it plays a major role in both social inclusion agendas and the economic development of local communities.

Magdalen college, Oxford, has offered three ethnic minority candidates places to read medicine this autumn, in preference to other applicants. As the Prime Minister has refused to do so, will the Minister now repeat the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that that is an absolute scandal?

I have great affection for the hon. Lady, but she is a poor substitute for Jeremy Paxman.

Come on, answer.

People should have equal chances of getting into our best universities, whatever their socio-economic status. At present, many children who secure top A-levels do not have those equal chances. It is a scandal that we have that inequality in Britain. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we think that it is a scandal and we are going to do something about it by applying practical measures. The Opposition are complacent. They concern themselves with the elite, while we are concerned with all children.

The Minister speaks of the standard of entrants. The Government have said that they want places at medical schools to be ring-fenced for certain categories of students. People would prefer their doctors to have been selected on the basis of merit rather than political correctness. Given that rhetoric and waffle are now attracting slow handclaps from middle England, will the Minister set aside the waffle and set out for the House exactly what the Government are suggesting, and whether it involves dropping standards of entry for medical students?

It certainly does not. Given the Prime Minister's clear target—to expand universities so that 50 per cent. of our young people have access to university education—there will be excellent places, with quality maintained, for all children with decent A-levels: yes, from the private sector, and yes, from the public sector. It is crucial for us to get the best in our universities. At present, as the Sutton Trust has demonstrated, too much talent from working-class communities is being wasted. We are determined to redress the position.

The hon. Lady may not like that answer. I may not receive a pot of jam from her.

Sexist!

It is not at all sexist. I know that the hon. Gentleman's application to join the Women's Institute was declined, and I can see why. What I said was not sexist at all. I will take a pot of jam from the hon. Gentleman, or from other hon. Gentlemen.

We are concerned about equal access to our top universities. That is what our party is about, and as a Government we are working on achieving it.

What guidance is given to Ofsted inspectors regarding short inspections of secondary schools. [123339]

The guidance given to inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education will depend on the purpose of the inspection. Some schools are inspected because they are subject to special measures or have serious weaknesses; others may be visited to check the progress that they are making. As part of the regular cycle of inspections, more flexibility has recently been introduced so that effective schools are inspected less often and resources can be directed to those that are less effective.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the anger felt by teachers, parents and the local education authority in my area following a short inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of one of the largest secondary schools in the country. Would she care to say how schools can plan ahead with any confidence if HMI fails to abide by the minimum standards set out in a document published in January? I have a copy here.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far-reaching implications for schools throughout the country? Would she care to respond to letters sent to her by me, and by the leader of the local education authority? Will she support demands for an annual debate in the House on the activities of Ofsted, so that the House can impose some accountability on the organisation?

I do understand. My hon. Friend has spoken to me a number of times, and also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the feelings of staff at Crown Woods school. I think that my hon. Friend has acted properly, and that the school has acted properly. In the first instance, the school wrote to Her Majesty's chief inspector. We have made it clear to the school that it has the right to go to the adjudicator, Elaine Rassaby—a woman appointed under this Government so that schools have access to a second opinion.

Two things are now important: first, that the school follows the proper processes, but secondly—I say it in the kindest way—that staff at the school do not let their anger detract from their core job, which is raising standards. I trust that they will not do that. We should await the response and see what happens.

On the accountability of Ofsted, as my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on Education and Employment almost annually now interviews HMCI and, on more than one occasion, the Committee's report has been debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome that and hope that it will continue.

What advice is the Minister giving to inspectors about exclusions in schools? Many schools that are failing have a lot of disruptive pupils, yet head teachers tell me that, for budgetary reasons, they are scared of moving those pupils out of school because, as soon as they do so, they lose the bonus given by the Government for keeping disruptive pupils in school, disrupting other children's education.

Schools do not lose money for excluding children. Under the present Government, for the first time, money that used to be kept by the local authority in case children were excluded and had to be educated elsewhere is devolved to schools—more money to schools, rather than to the local authority. That is what we have done. It makes sense, if we give money to schools to ensure that children are not excluded and a child is then excluded, that the money goes with the child so that the child can be educated. That is exactly right.

I would be surprised if any school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency had been told by Ofsted inspectors that it should not be excluding children, but it is right that, when Ofsted inspectors go in, they look at the range of provision in the school. That will include looking at those children at risk of exclusion and ensuring that the school has a proper discipline policy.

Just so that there is no mistake—because there has been much mischief making and headline grabbing this week by the Leader of the Opposition—I believe that every hon. Member is united: our clear message to parents, teachers and pupils is that, where a child's behaviour is such that it distracts other students from learning, the head has every right to exclude that child from the school, so that others can get on with learning and teachers can get on with teaching.

If he will make a statement on the development of specialisms in secondary schools.[123340]

Under the Government's specialist schools programme, schools can specialise in one of four areas. Specialist school numbers have more than doubled since 1997, with just over 500 specialist schools operating from September this year. Those schools are continuing to prove their effectiveness in raising standards: the average percentage of pupils achieving five or more GCSE A* to C in 1999 compared with 1998 improved by two thirds as much again in specialist schools, compared with all other schools.

I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees that specialist schools have a vital role to play in raising standards and in increasing diversity. My particular reason for raising the question is that we are creating a fresh-start school in Corby—Corby community college. It is about to head off into a brand new future, building on the success of two other schools that have merged. It will really help that school to make a fresh start if it becomes an arts and media specialist school, to match the technology school that we already have in Corby. When that application comes in, will my hon. Friend give it sympathetic consideration, so that every child in Corby gets the best possible start to their education?

My hon. Friend is a strong and persistent advocate for schools in his constituency, and I am sure that he will continue to be. I offer my best wishes to staff and students of the newly formed Corby community college as they take forward the important job of raising standards for their children.

My hon. Friend is right—one of the important points about applying for specialist school status, which is increasingly popular among schools, is that, in producing a development plan that shows how the school intends to raise standards and to benefit the wider community, the focus on that activity itself helps to raise standards. I assure him that, as always, we will consider any forthcoming applications very carefully.

Grammar schools specialise in academic excellence. What is the Minister's definition of a "pretty standard" grammar school? Will she confirm, as a matter of fact, that Blackheath high school has never been one?

That question confirms our view that the Opposition's attention is based on a few schools, whereas our attention is based on raising standards in all schools. The Conservatives have a shadow Minister for grammar schools. I understand, from reading The Birmingham Post, that they now have a Conservative candidate who calls himself the Midland's spokesman on grammar schools. I think that it is about time that the Opposition concentrated on all the schools in this country, and all the children in this country, as the Government intend to do.

What action he is taking to combat social inequality in access to new technologies among learners. [123342]

We are taking steps to ensure that, in future, every school leaver will have the opportunity to use and develop competence in those new technologies. They are essential, and we have to ensure that not only those pupils who are fortunate enough to have a computer at home are able to use them. Two out of three people in socio-economic groups A and B have access to a computer at home, whereas only one in five of those in socio-economic groups D and E have access.

We are making good progress in improving computer:pupil ratios and internet access in schools. In 1997, only one primary school in six had access to the internet; today, about two thirds do. Every school in the country will have access by 2002. We are also taking action to ensure access for adults. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given a commitment that, by 2005, all those who want it will have the opportunity to access the internet.

We are establishing about 700 computer learning centres to serve the country's 2,000 most deprived wards, and 50,000 free computer training courses are being made available to jobless—[Interruption.] I think that Conservative Members would like—[Interruption.]

Order. Has the Minister finished?

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I have not quite finished. We are taking important initiatives—[Interruption.]

Order. We have reached only Question 9, and I deprecate that we are not making better progress. We have had long questions, and we have had very long answers from Ministers. Will the Minister now bring his answer to a conclusion?

I am happy to return to the subject in the future, Madam Speaker.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome his commitment to gaining the widest access to information technology. He clearly demonstrated that commitment on a recent visit to my constituency. I very much welcome his comments on the serious issue of the digital divide between those young people who have access to computers at home and those who do not. What further action can we take to encourage industry to tackle that social exclusion, and how can we monitor the effectiveness of the Government's initiatives to bring computers to those who are the many and not the few?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for re-emphasising the importance of tackling the digital divide. We are working with the private sector to do precisely that. I know that Conservative Members have absolutely no interest in those essential new technologies. They have proposed absolutely no policies whatsoever on them, and have demonstrated their complete lack of concern with bringing those opportunities to everyone in the United Kingdom, other than to a privileged few. They have continued to demonstrate that attitude today. The Government, however, will continue to ensure that everyone has access to those opportunities.

The Minister mentioned that some schools are now kitted out with internet-capable computers. I represent a partly urban and partly rural constituency, where there are people who simply cannot afford to have their own computers at home or to pay online charges, even with reduced costs. What steps will he take to ensure that, when the school day ends at 3.30 pm, all those schools with computers will be opened to young people and adults so that they can access the computers?

I am glad that at least one Conservative Member recognises the importance of the matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that. We particularly understand that it is sometimes difficult for schools in rural areas to have access. That is why my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry have been pushing forward development of broadband wireless as a means of accessing the internet. I think that such access will be particularly valuable for schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We also have a range of initiatives designed to help schools stay open longer, so that they can provide access to those technologies in schools to the whole community. We are encouraging applications, from all communities that serve deprived areas, for new computer learning centres. I hope that there will be some applications from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

If he will make a statement on the initiatives undertaken by his Department to address skill shortages in the engineering and IT sectors. [123344]

This is, of course, a serious question. Briefly, the number of undergraduates enrolling in computer studies is increasing. With the national training organisations, the university for industry and the new Learning and Skills Council, we are tackling the issue. We are keen to ensure that more women enter careers in both computer science and engineering.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. He will know, as I do, that there are a significant number of vacancies within the UK for qualified engineers and information technology literate individuals. These people are desperately sought. I welcome the significant number of initiatives that have been taken by my hon. Friend's Department to promote the understanding of science, engineering and technology. What further initiatives does he have in mind to promote the public understanding of science, and thus possibly induce more young people into an exciting career?

One of the relevant new initiatives is the new Connexions service—the youth support service—for 13 to 19-year-olds. It is designed to give each and every child first-class information and guidance about learning opportunities and careers. The role of the national training organisations is also important. I shall be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with my hon. Friend.

The Minister will be aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that funding for universities needs to be reformed. It has suggested that engineering courses will have to cost rather more in tuition fees than, for example, arts courses. The figure of £6,000 has been talked about. Does the Minister agree that a £6,000 tuition fee, far from encouraging people to study engineering, would put them off? If so, how does he reconcile that with the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday? He said that

we simply have to change the system of finance. Virtually every major country around the world has had to do the same, and I think that it is right that the Government make the difficult … choice to reform student finance.—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 282.]

We have made important and sometimes difficult decisions, not least about student finance. Unlike the previous Government, who compromised quality and quantity by reducing unit costs, we are maintaining standards. We are funding the university sector. There will be no top-up fees, which we have legislated against. Such fees do not represent the right approach. The approach that we have outlined is the right way ahead.

What plans he has to extend education maintenance awards to other areas. [123345]

Early signs from the existing education maintenance allowance pilots are very encouraging. Clearly, paying young people to continue their education has the potential to make a real difference to their lives and choices. We are extending the number of pilots to 41, and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that one of them will be in east Lancashire.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will recognise that in Burnley and in east Lancashire there is certainly more deprivation than elitism. In Burnley, there are far too many people who are unable to go on to further and higher education. Anything that the Government can do to encourage people to take that route will be welcome.

That is absolutely right. Although the needs and abilities of youngsters at 16 will vary, we must ensure that all young men and women have first-class training and education. Education maintenance allowances are a vital part of the strategy, but there are other parts to it.

Who qualifies for this money?

It is designed to help those from low-income backgrounds to gain access to education and training after the age of 16. We are piloting the scheme. The early results in terms of increasing participation and diligence in studies are most encouraging. It is a useful pilot and we are encouraged.

If he will make a statement on provision for children aged under five years in the private, voluntary, independent and maintained sectors. [123346]

All four-year-olds now have access to free nursery education, and for the first time in Britain, because of a Labour Government, we are specifically funding the expansion of free places for three-year-olds. By March 2002, we shall have funded 190,000 free nursery places and two out of three of our young three-year-olds will have access to a free place.

The House will want to know how many extra places for three and four-year-olds have been created in the past two years. May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the diversity of provision, which stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives failed nursery voucher system?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in the issue and I congratulate her on that. We have a fantastic record on expanding places and ensuring diversity. Eight out of 10 of the new places that we have created for three-year-olds are in the private and voluntary sector. For the first time since funding has been provided for nursery education, there has been an increase in the number of places available for four-year-olds in the private and voluntary sector—a sector that the previous Government did their best to destroy.

May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 12 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.

TUESDAY 13 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.

WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.

THURSDAY 15 JUNE—Debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 16 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

MONDAY 19 JUNE—Debate on the royal commission report on the reform of the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TUESDAY 20 JUNE—Opposition day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE—Second Reading of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 22 JUNE—Debate on the security and intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 23 JUNE—Debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 June there will be a debate on European document No: 6230/00: the White Paper on Environmental Liability, in European Standing Committee A. On the same day, there will be a debate on European document No: 7828/00: Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, in European Standing Committee B.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 14 June 2000: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Documents: 6230/00, White Paper on Environmental Liability. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xiii (1999–2000).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 7828/00, Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xix (1999–2000).]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I am sorry, but I take points of order after questions.

The House is grateful for the details of next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. I welcome the long-awaited debate on the Wakeham report, six months to the day after its publication. We hope that the Government will have something positive to say in that debate, so that they can dispel the widely held view that they wish that that issue would disappear.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister trailed a statement by the Home Secretary on the Burns report on hunting. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be an oral statement, and tell us on which day it will be made?

There is mounting interest, not least among spending Ministers, in the comprehensive spending review. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Chancellor hopes to make a statement on the outcome, and will she confirm that there will then be a debate on it in Government time?

Might we also have a debate on voluntary organisations, led by the Prime Minister, to give him an opportunity to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) that the Women's Institute has done a sterling service to the Labour party by proving to the Prime Minister that people will not play a scripted part in choreographed politics?

Can the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on foreign affairs, led by the Foreign Secretary? There are many issues causing concern, not least the tragic death of Brigadier Stephen Saunders in Athens, on which the House will want to express its sympathy to family and friends. While we welcome the recent statements, they are no substitute for a structured full-day debate on foreign affairs. Will she also find time for a debate on the housing Green Paper—a subject that the House has not discussed for some time?

Finally, can the right hon. Lady say anything further about the date of the summer recess, so that our staff and the staff of the House can plan their lives?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks, and for welcoming the debate on the Wakeham report and the reform of the House of Lords. He says that it is some time since the report was published, which is true. In fact, we scheduled the debate earlier and moved it at the request of the Opposition. As for the content of the debate, it will be—as I have made clear from the outset—a debate in which the Government wish to hear the views of the House. As for the notion that the Government hope that the issue will disappear, those who hope that it will disappear are those who hoped that it would never be raised in the first place, and they are on the Opposition Benches.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Burns report, which we anticipate will be delivered soon. I cannot tell him for certain today when a statement will be made, but I expect that the Home Secretary will make a statement. I shall keep him informed through the usual channels. Similarly, I shall draw his remarks on the comprehensive spending review to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—but the timing is not yet settled.

I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for the Prime Minister to lead a debate on the issue of voluntary organisations. Participation in general debates by Prime Ministers was not a pleasure that we ever had during the days of Lady Thatcher or her successor. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would enjoy taking part in such a debate, although the pressures on his time are very great. As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about people taking a scripted part in politics, I have actually read the Prime Minister's speech—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not done so, and I understand if that is the case. It was excellent.

It is surprising that people objected to those unexceptionable remarks about the strength and importance of the health service and the need for reform. To some degree, one does wonder why it happened—[Interruption.] That is, of course, a matter for other people to decide. There is certainly some irony in the fact that an organisation that one would have thought would welcome remarks about the importance of traditional values chose, in some small quarters, to object to them.

The right hon. Gentleman also requested a debate on foreign affairs. I know that the whole House will wish to send its sympathies to the family of Brigadier Saunders, who, tragically, was murdered this morning. Fortunately we do not often lose public servants to such a fate, and the incident is much to be regretted. I know that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made public statements, and the whole House will wish to join in sending our sympathies to the family. I have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a full day's foreign affairs debate, and I am aware that the Opposition are seeking such a debate. I remind him that I have announced four separate days of debate on various issues and an Opposition Day, so we are finding time to debate issues as well as the Government's legislative programme.

I have also taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the housing Green Paper. He will know that the consultation on that is still under way, and the Government will respond in due course to the fruits of that consultation.

I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 796.

[That this House congratulates the Board of Science and Education of the British Medical Association for the publication of its report 'Eating Disorders, Body Image & the Media' which considers the role that the media can play in the causation of eating disorders; notes that eating disorders have one of the highest mortality rates of all psychiatric illnesses, and are an increasing problem in modern western societies; welcomes the Government summit which is to take place on this issue on 21st June; and calls upon the Government to implement the recommendations in the BMA's report which call for clearly defined targets for the reduction in the number of eating disorders through preventative measures, extra resources to be given for mental health services, specifically eating disorder clinics, and increased public education on the connections between dieting, physical activity and health, and the health risks associated with eating disorders and being underweight.]

It concerns the excellent report by the BMA on eating disorders, body image and the media. My right hon. Friend will be aware that eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa, are on the increase and are affecting ever younger people, especially girls. The Government will hold a summit in the near future, and I am sure that the BMA's report will be discussed there, but can my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the issue in Government time? There is a worrying trend of growth in such illnesses.

I know that this is a subject in which my hon. Friend has taken great interest, and it arouses great concern in the House and more widely. She is right that the Government are giving full consideration to the recommendations of the report and very much recognise the seriousness of the issues. I fear that it is not likely that we will be able to find time on the Floor of the House in the near future to debate those issues, although Westminster Hall is another option. However, I assure my hon. Friend that, by that or some other means, the Government will look at the matter very carefully.

First, may I ask to be associated with the condolences extended to the family of Brigadier Saunders? I am sure that that feeling is shared by all hon. Members.

Secondly, will the Leader of the House bring forward the report from the Review Body on Senior Salaries on hon. Members' office costs allowance, and will she be able to find time for a debate on the matter in the next couple of weeks? I draw her attention especially to the very tragic experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). Several of my colleagues have received advice from the police and others about adopting necessary security measures in their constituencies so that they can proceed with their normal parliamentary duties.

That is becoming a significant factor in the allocation of hon. Members' resources for the coming year. [Interruption.] When it comes to choreography, Conservative Members are better than the WI. Back-Bench Members are precisely the ones who find themselves in the difficult circumstances that led to the tragedy in Cheltenham.

Dad's army.

Get a bodyguard.

I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the matter carefully and bring a report to the House.

Finally, may I draw the right hon. Lady's attention—

You're safe in here, son, don't worry.

May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 804, which relates to Burma?

[That this House recognises and supports the Committee Representing the People's Parliament in Burma which has been established due to the military junta's refusal to comply with the 1990 election results and allow parliament to convene since that time; notes that the Committee Representing the People's Parliament has already received statements of support from the European Parliament, the Danish Parliament, the Belgian Parliament and the Norwegian Parliament; and believes that international recognition of this kind will serve to strengthen the pro-democracy movement in Burma.]

A number of legislatures in western Europe have offered their support for the People's Council representing the Parliament. Will she find time for the House to do the same?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for associating his party with our remarks about the death of Brigadier Saunders.

The hon. Gentleman requested a debate on the SSRB report. If I recall correctly, that report was produced before the terrible events that took place in Cheltenham. I recognise that many hon. Members have taken advice as a result, especially for staff members in their constituencies, and that there is some concern about the financial implications. However, the SSRB did not report in the context of those issues, and perhaps the best way forward would be for the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks to the board's attention. I shall do the same, as I know that the board keeps such matters under review.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to Burma. It has been the policy of successive Governments to recognise states rather than Governments or political parties. The question of recognition is therefore more difficult than it appears at first sight. However, we keep the matter under review, and we continue to put pressure on Burma to improve conditions at home.

Is it not rather important that regular reports should be made to the House of Commons when British troops are in action? Would my right hon. Friend consider a statement being made to follow the response made yesterday evening by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to a question that I asked about what had happened with regard to a grenade that caused so much trouble for Brigadier Shirreff of 7th Armoured Brigade and his colleagues?

My hon. Friend said:

It is certainly difficult at this stage to do so, but people should not automatically assume one particular source.—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 389.]

Obviously, the authorities locally are conducting investigations, but is not it important that the House should know the results, as the broader question concerns what exactly is going on in Kosovo?

Is not it also important for the House to have some explanation as to why significantly more armament is being dropped on Iraq? That was revealed in answers to questions asked in last night's debate by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).

Defence Ministers come regularly to the House, both to debate and to make statements. They endeavour to keep the House as fully informed as possible. It is, of course, not always possible to anticipate every issue or air every question that may come up on defence. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence endeavours to keep the House informed and will, I know, continue to do so through our regular debates and statements.

Will the Leader of the House, in the forthcoming European debate or in an early statement, ensure that, for the first time, we get an accurate and straightforward account of the Government's European policy? In particular, will she ensure that Ministers answer the question about when they wish to abolish the pound, because they will be speaking against the background of a very successful "Save the Pound" weekend, led by the Conservative party?

Will Ministers also tell us for how much longer they wish the House to have the main power to tax people in this country, given the strong pressures in the draft treaty of Nice to give away huge chunks of our right to independent taxation? Is the right hon. Lady aware, for example, that it is no good defending ourselves in relation to the withholding tax in current negotiations and saying no, because if we sign the draft treaty of Nice in its current form, it could be pushed on us even if we objected to it?

The House is under no illusions—it knows exactly what the Government's European policy is. It has been repeated ad nauseam in the House, and was repeated again at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. Either Conservative Members are wilfully refusing to pay attention or they have difficulty in grasping a simple, straightforward statement of policy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have clearly indicated that only when the economic tests are met would the question of belonging to a single currency even arise.

As for the power to tax and the withholding tax, the withholding tax famously remained in play, despite claims from the Conservative party that it vetoed it when plainly it did not. The Government have continually made it clear that we will resist attempts to erode our freedom to run our own tax affairs as we choose, and we are doing so very successfully.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for her response to my advances over recent months? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not want to be greedy, but she has now given us the 1999 annual debate on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, whereas this is the year 2000. When does my right hon. Friend plan to hold the debate after next?

I am sort of grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. I recognise that he has been asking for this debate for some time—but to ask for another one is pushing his luck a bit.

May I remind the Leader of the House of the question that I asked her on 27 January, which appears in column 586 of Hansard, in which I asked her to initiate an annual debate on road safety? She will be only too aware of the appalling accidents that have happened in Derbyshire. In the year to May 1999, some 17 people lost their lives on roads in Derbyshire; up to the May bank holiday this year, the figure is 35. That is an appalling rise, and. I believe that it is also reflected in other counties. It is time that we had an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House.

I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern. The whole House is conscious of the devastation that such a level of accidents causes to the lives of individuals and to the community. The Government have, as the hon. Gentleman will know, made available substantial increased investment for transport, but it takes time for that investment to bear fruit. However, where road safety is concerned, such statistics cause alarm and require careful investigation and thought.

There has been increasing concern about some of the criticisms in Ofsted reports on individual schools and local authorities, and there is continuing concern about some statements by the chief inspector of schools. Given that the responsibilities of Ofsted are due to be extended into the post-16 sector—the new Connexions service—and have been extended into the inspection of pre-school provision, and in view of Ofsted's unique nature as a Government agency beyond ministerial accountability, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea not just to have a debate on Ofsted in the near future, but to establish an annual debate in the House on its role and performance?

Of course I understand that that issue is of considerable importance, and is one in which hon. Members—not least my hon. Friend—take a great interest. However, I fear that his request for a debate in the Chamber is yet another on the list of all those that we simply cannot satisfy. Of course there is the additional facility of debating time in Westminster Hall, to which my hon. Friend might care to direct his attention.

As for annual debates, we once added up the many issues on which Members on both sides of the House had requested such a debate, and came to the conclusion that if we were to grant all those requests, we should never do anything else.

The Leader of the House told us earlier of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm to debate the voluntary sector. She may have noted that on Thursday 15 June there will be an opportunity for him to do so; a debate will be held in Westminster Hall on the role of the voluntary sector in national life—recognising and promoting volunteering.

Will the right hon. Lady advise us how many Ministers will be absent next week addressing the Women's Institute? If the number is significant, will that have as devastating an impact on the business of the House as it did on the Prime Minister?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is business questions, and it is not usual to ask for a debate while pointing out that such a debate will, in fact, take place. His question is thus rendered rather superfluous.

It would be a mistake on anybody's part to assume that the Prime Minister was distressed—[Laughter.] Like all of us, he is slightly regretful when people do not appear always wholeheartedly to agree with him. However, he is a man who has encountered disagreement in his time, and expects to do so again.

As I have already said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), what the Prime Minister said in his speech was unexceptionable; I should have thought that 99.9 per cent. of the British people would agree with it. Probably, only someone who actively did not want to agree with it would find something to disagree with.

The most disturbing aspect of the comments made after the Prime Minister's speech went completely unnoticed by the media; it is a constant theme, which I have long believed is a besetting sin in British public life—the notion that politics is something that has nothing to do with everyday life. Everybody in this House either does know or should know that it is through the political structure that many of the decisions that most affect people's lives are taken. If people are concerned about the health service, about post offices and a whole range of other issues, that is what politics is about.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to use her considerable influence to persuade, coerce or cajole a Health Minister to come to the House to give an explanation about a private cosmetic surgeon, David Charles Herbert, whom I have named several times in the House? He is probably operating today, has actually been accused of mutilating at least 80 women, who have sent their complaints to the General Medical Council and to the Secretary of State for Health, yet the GMC says that it cannot, under current legislation, suspend that cosmetic surgeon. We deserve an explanation.

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in such matters and has long raised concerns about them—not only with this Government but with the previous Government—on behalf of those who have suffered and been affected by people carrying out plastic surgery. I am aware of her concerns about the role of the GMC. However, I fear that I cannot offer her either time for another debate on the matter or an immediate statement. As she knows, Health questions will take place in the near future, when I am sure that she will continue her many efforts to raise and to press that matter.

The right hon. Lady will be aware that her Government have made dramatic changes to the constitution and to the way in which the House of Commons operates. The one thing that the Government have not done—but which, I believe, they promised to do—is to restore status and authority to the House of Commons and to Back Benchers. Proposals to achieve that have been outlined in a report by the Liaison Committee entitled "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive". May I make a plea on behalf of all Back Benchers that the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that important report, so that the House and Back Benchers can have meaningful authority and status and the power of the Executive can be properly held to account? Will she find time for such a debate?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have pointed out to the House before, the Government have added to opportunities for scrutiny both through the number of statements that we have made—since the general election, on average, one has been made every two sitting days—and through the opening of Westminster Hall, which allows more time for debates and for the study of Select Committee reports. Of course I recognise the wish for a debate on the Liaison Committee report, and the hon. Gentleman will recognise the fact that I am finding time for some of the many debates that people wish to hold. An interesting and important report has been produced, but it has profound implications for the operation of House—

It does; it would restore some authority to the House.

The report makes many proposals that would make a substantial difference to all Members of the House and to the roles that they can properly exercise. I very much hope that many more Members will read the report than I suspect have yet done so. They will then realise the implications of what is being proposed.

Although today hon. Members will rightly be concerned about the death of Brigadier Saunders, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the plight of another British citizen overseas? He is my constituent, Mr. Mohammed Chaudhry, who is the subject of early-day motion 810, which has been signed by 100 Members from both sides of the House.

[That this House notes with grave concern that Mohammed Chaudhry, a British citizen, has been held without charge by the Saudi authorities since his arrest on 23rd June 1999 following a five month internal investigation first by Colonel Abdullah Al-Mugari of the Military Police and then by Colonel Ali Johani from the Ministry of Defence into variances resulting from stock-take amounting to approximately £1.5 million of medical supplies at Riyadh Military Hospital where Mr. Chaudhry worked in storage and distribution; notes that the stock-take was cancelled in writing by the Chief Executive of the hospital before the variances could be completely investigated; notes that the investigating authorities never carried out a stock-take to establish facts; notes that, despite the fact that no further questioning by the police investigating the case has taken place since the first few days after his arrest, Mr. Chaudhry, who has always denied any wrong-doing, remains in prison, without access to his lawyer, whilst other employees, including his immediate superior, Captain Meshal, are free; believes that a year is more than sufficient time to investigate any crime of this nature, and that the continued detention of Mr. Chaudhry is a breach of natural justice and internationally accepted human rights; and therefore calls on the Saudi authorities to either release him to return home or, in the unlikely event that there is any case to answer, to bring that case forward against Mr. Chaudhry to enable him to defend himself in open court.]

Mr. Chaudhry has been detained without charge and without access to legal advice in Saudi Arabia for nearly 12 months. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about that case, in particular, and about diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in general? Further, does she agree that British and European citizens should be advised not to visit or to work in Saudi Arabia while their basic human rights cannot be guaranteed?

My hon. Friend has been extremely active on behalf of her constituent, with whom the whole House sympathises. I know that she will be aware that the Foreign Office has been extremely active on Mr. Chaudhry's behalf and has continually pressed the Saudi authorities at the highest level to release him and to conclude their investigations as soon as possible. I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on the matter in the near future. However, my hon. Friend will know that Foreign Office questions will take place on 20 June, and I will certainly draw her remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. I know that he will urge those who are dealing with the Saudi authorities to step up their efforts.

May we have a debate on the directive emanating from article 13 of the European convention on human rights? It will have a significant impact on Church bodies and Church schools. For example, our counsel's opinion is that if a Church school was to insist that a teacher, other than a teacher of religious instruction, should be of certain denomination, it could be taken to an industrial tribunal. A Church body will be able to insist that a minister is of a certain denomination; it would be bizarre if it could not. However, it will not be able to insist that other members of staff are of a certain denomination. That is significant and important.

Before the Leader of the House says, "Well, we can discuss that next week", I point out that that would be in a general debate on important European issues such as the euro. We need a specific debate on this important directive. The issue has been before the Scrutiny Committee and it has decided, against the advice in the report submitted to it, that other aspects of the directive should not come to the Floor of the House. However, there will be hell to pay if we do not have such a debate on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a dispute about whether the effect of those proposals is as he described. Indeed, that is precisely why he wants to debate this important matter. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on such a specific issue on the Floor of the House, but it is suitable for debate in Westminster Hall.

May I join other hon. Members in calling for time to be set aside for a debate on Ofsted, annually or otherwise? That would enable us to examine the need for greater accountability and transparency, and ensure consistency of inspectors' standard of performance.

Two years ago, a school in my constituency suffered badly from the diabolical behaviour of a registered inspector. When the school and I pursued complaints, Ofsted refused to say how many complaints had been made against the individual. Eventually, we were led to believe that the person concerned would not continue to inspect. I was therefore greatly dismayed to read a few weeks ago that the individual, Mr. Piers Bilston, was named as the inspector involved in causing distress to another teacher, which led her to commit suicide. Those are important matters, so we should have a debate on Ofsted.

My hon. Friend identifies an important and powerful concern as a result of his constituency experience. He will accept that Education and Employment questions have just taken place, and I fear that we shall be unlikely to find time for such a specialised debate in the near future. I therefore recommend to him the attractions of Westminster Hall.

The Leader of the House said that the European document on environmental liability was going to European Standing Committee A. She may not be aware that, yesterday, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny decided that the document should be debated on the Floor of the House. The Minister responsible for such matters in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has also given a detailed analysis of the document, which highlighted massive changes in United Kingdom law, changes to the burden of proof and extensions of liability, both strict and otherwise.

The consequences of that involve enormous damage to British enterprise and companies, and raise the question of GM technology and biotechnology, so the matter must be debated on the Floor of the House. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that, in line with the decision made properly yesterday by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was correctly convened, the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House?

No, I cannot confirm that. I was aware of the view expressed yesterday by the European Scrutiny Committee on what I accept is an important matter. The Government did consider the Committee's advice, but it has long been the practice of successive Governments to discuss such issues in the appropriate Committees, which is why the matter is scheduled for debate in European Standing Committee A.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the three early-day motions that deal with the Stewart report and the siting of mobile phone masts, which are causing a great deal of concern generally and in my constituency? In Edgware and Mill Hill, for example, masts seems to sprout all over the place like oversized weeds, without the benefit of planning consent. Will my right hon. Friend find time to organise a debate so that we can examine the implications of that, especially the safety aspects? When mobile phone masts are sited next to schools or in residential areas, naturally that is worrying for parents and constituents in the locality.

I am aware that concern has been expressed. Indeed, my hon. Friend has taken great interest in the matter on his constituents' behalf and Members on both sides of the House have received representations on it. Of course, the Government are keeping the issue under careful review and are considering, for example, the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no requirement for planning consent for such masts.

I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter on the Floor of the House. I believe that it has been debated recently in Westminster Hall, but I am sure that the issues would benefit from a further airing there.

The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised a strange case. The European Scrutiny Committee was set up to represent the House; it was properly constituted yesterday and decided that document 6230/00 on environmental liability should be considered not in European Standing Committee A, but on the Floor of the House.

The document is of fundamental importance. There is an explanatory memorandum from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), which shows that the Government are, for understandable reasons, undecided about what to do. I am a member of European Standing Committee A, and few members turn up to its proceedings, yet night after night, we all go home early from the House at 10 o'clock. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to give the House a chance to go into the detail of the document and to show that the House is paramount.

The hon. Gentleman said that this was a golden opportunity. The unworthy suspicion has crossed my mind that the golden opportunity was presented to Opposition Members who found themselves in the majority on the Committee and decided to refer the matter to the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for the importance of the issue. There is an Opposition day on 20 June, as I have announced, and I am sure that he and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will be able to press the matter on their Front-Bench colleagues.

Why does my right hon. Friend not accede to some of the requests of Tory MPs to have a day's debate on the Floor of the House for this and a day's debate for that? We could delay the beginning of the recess way beyond the start of the grouse shooting season on 12 August, even though the shadow Leader of the House keeps requesting the date of the recess, and I have an idea that he wants an early start so that he can get off.

On a more important matter, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that some of us do not believe in the Liaison Committee report? We do not believe in extending the sloppy consensus and in handing over power to three unelected Select Committee Chairs. If we move towards sloppy consensus and away from the class divide, this place will finish up as non-political as the Women's Institute.

The best thing that I can say is that, as always, I take a close interest in my hon. Friend's remarks. He is right to identify the fact that the Liaison Committee's proposals are profound in their implications and their potential impact on the House. They need to be properly considered and weighed, and no doubt that will happen over time.

Pursuant to the right hon. Lady's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Liaison Committee report, is she advancing the novel theory that the House should consider issues with shallow implications before it considers those with profound ones?

No, I was not making that assertion. A matter that I did not refer to, because it is under discussion, is the fact that the Liaison Committee has invited me to give evidence to it on its report, which I am perfectly willing to do, although it is slightly unusual for a Committee to take evidence after a report has been issued. I have presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Committee would want the debate on the Floor of the House to take place after that, rather than before.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Home Affairs Committee has recommended a weakening of the double jeopardy rules, which go back 2,000 years to Roman law and provide fundamental protection of the rights of the individual British citizen. Weakening those rules might allow us to resolve a few short-term injustices at the expense of having much greater injustice in the long term. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we can have a debate urgently, and certainly before the Government make up their mind? I give her notice that I cannot envisage circumstances in which I would be prepared to vote for a weakening of the double jeopardy rules.

My hon. Friend certainly makes an important point in identifying the serious implications involved in such proposals. He will know that that point was a recommendation of the Macpherson report—as ever, taken up on a knee-jerk basis by the Leader of the Opposition—and that the Government are taking the matter seriously and have referred it to the Law Commission, which is considering it carefully. The Government will consider the Law Commission's views carefully when it has finished its deliberations. He will also know that his concerns were expressed by several hon. Members on both sides of the House when the matter was last raised—not least by the then shadow Home Secretary, who suggested that it should be approached with caution. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's leader unfortunately did not take that advice.

In a more bipartisan way, can I ask the right hon. Lady to consider a debate into the shambles that passes for the Government's transport policy? Would not such a debate enable us to discover whether there is any truth in the rumours coming out of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that, once again, the funding of bypasses will take place? Would not that mean that the people of Kingskerswell, which is in my constituency, would know whether they must wait another seven years before they gain any relief, or whether they could remind themselves that under the previous Government's proposals, the building of their bypass would have started by the end of this year? People, probably including Ministers, do not know what the Government's policy is, and it is about time that we had a debate so that we could discover it.

Was not the hon. Gentleman a Minister in that Department?

No, I was not.

The hon. Gentleman was certainly involved in discussions with that Department under the previous Administration. On the building of a bypass in his locality, yes, such proposals were indeed scheduled, but he will know that, given the lamentable failure of economic policy under the previous Government, the chances of funding being available for such things were always very problematic. Under this Government, almost an extra £2 billion has been put into improving roads and local public transport, and we shall continue to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is urgent need for a debate on local government finance for two reasons? First, the inadequacies of the current system are producing much eliminable misery, especially because of the inadequate financial basis for social services departments and others. Secondly, major changes have been brought about in the system, for example, by the change to resource accounting and the ring fencing of certain housing budgets, which could have the effect in my patch of losing Dacorum council some 40 per cent. of its revenue next year. Those matters are sufficiently grave to warrant urgent consideration.

Of course I understand the concern that my hon. Friend rightly expresses on behalf of his constituency. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, but oral questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place next Tuesday and my hon. Friend, too, may find that he can secure a debate in Westminster Hall earlier than he could on the Floor of the House.

May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given her prior notice because it is not one which she could normally be expected to answer unprepared? Will a Defence Minister make a statement in the House about what investigations, if any, the Ministry of Defence police are making into the circumstances whereby The Mirror acquired a stolen laptop computer with military secrets on it, given that fat t that my attempts to establish from The Mirror whether money was paid to the thieves rather than the police being informed of their identity have been rebutted with a degree of hysteria and abusiveness? It is a serious matter if a national newspaper pays thieves for stolen property to get headlines. Have any investigations been undertaker? I should be most grateful to the right hon. Lady if a statement could be made.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise the matter as that has enabled me to discover that an investigation—handled in the first instance by the British Transport police—is indeed under way. He will recall that the event took place at Paddington. The Ministry of Defence police are assisting with identification of property and so on. I fear that I cannot undertake to provide a Defence Minister to make a statement in the near future, but I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, and he has shown assiduity in raising the matter. I suspect that it might be possible for the MOD to make some information available to him and I shall certainly draw his remarks to its attention, but I understand that it is not yet in a position to do so.

Have Ministers given my right hon. Friend any indication of when they will introduce proposals to reform leasehold regulations, particularly those for the purchase of freeholds? They are of particular importance to thousands of home owners in Grimsby and Cleethorpes who have purchased leasehold houses and whose leases are about to expire. Certain freeholders charge more than the market value of a property for the purchase the freehold and many residents have lost homes for which they have paid mortgages. That is a scandal and I hope that Ministers will introduce proposals as soon as possible so that no more of my constituents lose their homes.

My hon. Friend makes an important point and, like all hon. Members, I am sorry to learn of the problems that have affected some of her constituents. The Government wish and intend to publish a draft Bill in the not-too-distant future, which would give the House an opportunity to debate those issues and whether their handling can be improved. As she will know, it would then be a matter of trying to find time for legislation. As she is a regular attender of this event, she will also have noted the many occasions on which Opposition Members have seemed to wish for the Government not to introduce any legislation. She has powerfully made the point that people wish many things in this country to change. That requires the Government to act.

It is some three months since the Commissioner for Public Appointments published her report, which found that the Government had engaged in a systematic politicisation of health service appointments, but we have still had no statement or debate in the House on a damning document which criticised them in trenchant terms. As primary care trusts are being set up and appointments to them are being made, is not it particularly important that we should have a statement or a debate? It is essential that the abuses of the process of making public appointments should be stopped and cleared up before those appointments are completed.

It was made clear at the time that the appointments were made through the proper Nolan process and that no one was appointed who had not come through it. The appointments were not simply made by Ministers. However, when the report was published, the Secretary of State made it plain that he nevertheless felt that there was room for further improvement—the appointments process was, of course, put in place by the previous Government—and he has made those changes.

I thank the Leader of the House for her gracious hospitality in giving Lady Members the welcome opportunity to see Admiralty house this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] May I raise a matter with which she is familiar from her days at the Department of Trade and Industry and that is of great interest to the Women's Institute: pylons and the overhead transmission of electricity through the Vale of York and neighbouring constituencies? The Yak of York and particular parts of it such as Tockwith regularly lose their electricity supply and the fact that it is to be further jeopardised by pylons is a source of great concern. Will she make time for an early debate on the Floor of the House so that we can consider the merits of underground transmission?

I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for her kind remarks, although I fear that she has stirred up a demand from those around her. I have taken that on board.

I am aware of the anxiety about electricity supply in the hon. Lady's part of the world. She knows that the issues are technically difficult and have been the subject of much discussion and careful consideration. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future. However, its complexity and relevance to constituencies such as that of the hon. Lady makes it an issue that might well be aired in Westminster Hall. I also point out that Trade and Industry questions will take place on 15 June.

Business questions are an important part of the parliamentary week. Is not it therefore a shame that, of the Government's army of 400 Back Benchers, only six manage to stay for the duration? At its peak, only 15 or 20 attended. That may show that the Government are running out of steam. If they are not, will the Leader of the House dismiss press rumours that the state opening of Parliament will be delayed until January or may not occur, and confirm that it will take place, as usual, in November?

We do not tend to discuss the date of the state opening of Parliament on the Floor of the House at this stage. As ever, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the papers.

I share the incredulity of the Leader of the House about the Women's Institute's lack of gratitude and failure to recognise how lucky, privileged and honoured its members are to be living under this Government. In the light of that astonishing lack of gratitude, do the Government intend to publish their annual report, as they have done in the past two years? If so, when will it be published and how much will it cost the taxpayer? Perhaps they have rightly decided to kybosh the entire project and spend the money on essential services for the people of this country.

I am afraid that I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman offhand about the status and timing of the next report. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recall from previous exchanges on the matter, some 20,000 British citizens bought the report and paid their own money for it at W. H. Smith. Clearly, not everyone shares the hon. Gentleman's view of it.

When are we to have the much delayed debate on small businesses? Given that 99.6 per cent. of Britain's firms employ fewer than 100 people, and that they account for 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, produce two fifths of our national output and now face a sea of regulation, which is deeper and more hazardous than at any time in our history, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important to hold a debate without delay to tackle the anxieties of those enterprises?

As I have already said, I have found time in the current programme not only for an Opposition day, but for four days of debate on general issues. Although there is an undertaking to consider small businesses on a fairly regular basis, there is no commitment to an annual debate on the subject, for the reason that I identified earlier.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that The Economist intelligence unit and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which considered separate matters—financial matters, such as taxation and product regulation—pointed out that our light regulation is one factor that makes the United Kingdom one of the best places in which to do businesses.