To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many grammar schools exist in England and Wales; and what the number was a year ago. [89206]

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for reviewing standards in LEA areas with selective secondary education systems. [89215]

There are 164 maintained grammar schools in England—the same number as one year ago. Wales has none. We continue to look at ways to support an increase in standards in schools in all local education authorities. That is an important matter for local education authorities to consider in their own local circumstances, and reach conclusions on how standards can best be improved. The House may be interested to know that a couple of months ago I asked Ofsted to send me a paper on the educational standards in the local education authority of Kent. I am considering that paper now.

Is the Secretary of State aware that whereas the grammar schools felt more secure than for many years as a result of the policy initiatives of his predecessor, they are just a little worried that he might not be quite so positive about the matter? Before he contemplates changes, would he at least accept that grammar schools provide a unique opportunity for able children from working-class homes? Will he pay a visit to Southend on Sea, where our four grammar schools were in the top 100 achievers in the whole of England and Wales in the A-level results, and where, despite this, we find that the other schools performed extremely well?

I know that this has been a matter of concern to the hon. Gentleman for some time. The assurance that I can give him is that my fundamental focus, and that of the Government, is on pursuing the best possible educational standards in every part of the country for every pupil in every way that they operate. That is the approach that we will follow. Grammar schools can be confident that there will be no ideological attack from me or my party on these matters. They can also be confident that we will look carefully at the educational standards for the whole population in each of the areas that they serve.

I was extremely encouraged, both by my right hon. Friend's answer today and by his comments to the Select Committee. Does he agree that we must judge the matter on the facts? The facts as gathered by people such as Professor Jesson are that children in comprehensive schools do significantly better than their cohorts in grammar schools, and that in areas such as Kent, which is exclusively selective, we have a far higher proportion of failing schools than we should have. Is it not right that if we are to drive up standards, we must drive out selection?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is standards and an assessment of standards based on the facts. As my hon. Friend suggests, I have had an opportunity to examine the research commissioned by him from Professor Jesson. I was interested that it stated that grammar schools in Kent and Medway do less well and are performing at lower levels than other grammar schools in the country, which is in itself an interesting point. I was interested, too, that the last comparison made by my Department between the results of grammar and comprehensive schools in 1999 showed that 100 per cent. of pupils in the top 25 per cent. of comprehensive schools ability range achieved five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 96.4 per cent. achieving that at grammar schools. The fundamental point that I want to make, and which I sought to make before the Select Committee, is that the judgment must be based on educational standards for everybody, and it must be based on the facts and the factual assessment of those standards.

Who was it who coined the phrase "sink schools" and in what context?

I have no idea. I remember the phrase from the period in office of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a respected supporter. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shouts "Alastair Campbell" across the Chamber. I am open to correction by the hon. Gentleman at all times, but I am pretty sure that Mr. Campbell never used the phrase "sink schools", and that the phrase was generated during the period of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of one of the problems of the selective system that has been highlighted by the heads of the 21 secondary modern schools in Buckinghamshire—notably, the differential funding, which means that they are in deficit, while the grammar schools have a £2 million surplus? Is he concerned about the effect that that is having on the standard of education provided for disadvantaged children, who are over-represented in those schools, particularly ethnic minority pupils?

I am aware that there are issues of funding between schools. That is principally a matter for the local education authority concerned, but I return to the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman): in Buckinghamshire, as in Kent, the judgment must be made on the basis of educational standards for all pupils in the county, and on the basis of factual assessments of that, during which comparisons of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) makes are worthy of consideration.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Labour Members frequently seem to be stuck in a time warp when they start to speak about academic selection? Whatever the failings of secondary moderns in the 1950s and 1960s, today's secondary modern high schools are achieving results only slightly below those of all-ability comprehensives. In English and maths, they are better than a third of comprehensive schools. At GCSE, they are better than a quarter of comprehensive schools. His own Department has designated 11 secondary moderns as beacon schools and 36 as specialist schools. Is it not time that Ministers joined us in celebrating the achievements of secondary moderns and grammar schools instead of knocking them?

I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the genuine educational achievement of schools of all types. There are outstanding secondary modern schools, grammar schools, comprehensive schools and private schools. In each of those categories, however, there are also schools that are less than outstanding and which need serious work. That is why I focus, as will my Government throughout, on the issue of standards for everybody—[Interruption.] Lese majeste is a failing of which I am, I hope, not often guilty, Mr. Speaker, but I am on this occasion and I apologise to you for it. The Government whom I am proud to serve—[Laughter.] I believe that it is important to restore the concept of service following the approach taken by the previous Government on these matters. The Government whom I serve will focus on educational standards in all schools, celebrate high-quality schools of all types and seek to raise the standards of lower-performing schools of all types. That will be our approach throughout. We will not take the sort of ideological, backward-looking approach that characterises the Conservative party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of up-front tuition fees on access to higher education. [89207]

Since means-tested contributions to tuition fees were introduced in 1998, numbers in higher education have increased and there has been no fall in the proportion of those entering it from the bottom three social classes. We will shortly publish our review of higher education, which I can assure my hon. Friend will reflect our continued commitment to widening access. I can confirm that, as the Prime Minister has already told the House, there will be no massive increase in up-front tuition fees.

I am very pleased with that reply, but will my right hon. Friend also assess in the review process the effect of differential tuition fees on access, even if they are paid back as deferred loans or a graduate tax, as that is a source of worry to me?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. We are considering the matter extremely carefully. I repeat what I said a moment ago: our commitment to access will be a central aspect of the review, which I hope to announce shortly.

Is it not now high time for the Secretary of State to acknowledge the clear implications of a written answer given to me only on Tuesday this week by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education? It showed a doubling in the percentage of participation by students from unskilled families in the six Conservative years from 1991 to 1997, but that that process came completely to a stop after the imposition of tuition fees by the Labour Government. Does he not understand that his arbitrary 50 per cent. target for total participation by young people in higher education is logically and practically a totally different matter from widening opportunity for all those who are qualified and suitable to attend our universities? He needs rigorously to keep those issues apart.

It disappoints me, but I have to agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. Throughout the important discussion on these matters, I have distinguished between the very important issue of the proportion of the age group that goes into higher education, which is a very significant consideration and is now about 43 per cent. of the population, and the balance in that intake of people from different social classes. Those are different questions and both are very important. On the first, which he raised first, I believe that the 50 per cent. target is very important indeed. Looking at our competitor countries, we see that it is exceptionally important that people are educated to such a level. It is also important, however, carefully to consider the appropriate qualifications and degrees to be offered to the 50 per cent. who are coming through. That is what my review will do.

On the second question, the difference between the chances of access to higher education of the higher and lower social classes is a public disgrace. The previous Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was a Minister, must bear responsibility for that. However, I shall be frank and admit that our Government must bear responsibility for our period in office. When I make my statement on those matters, I shall present measures to tackle them.

What disadvantages does my right hon. Friend personally perceive in allowing different universities to charge students different top-up or tuition fees?

There are advantages and disadvantages to that policy, as with other policies. If my hon. Friend wants me to list the disadvantages, the first is the overall amount of money and the impact on access about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked. The second is the courses that would attract higher fees in the case of differential fees, and the implications for more expensive and cheaper courses.

However, there are also important advantages. They include universities' ability to raise more resources, of which they are desperately short, and to develop a better contractual relationship with people who are coming to them. Major questions about the quality of teaching for many university students need to be raised.

There are therefore great advantages and disadvantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) has been an active participant in the debate, and I hope that he, like me, will examine both the pros and cons.

Given that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly have condemned top-up fees as socially divisive, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not introduce any changes to the system of financing higher education in Wales without the consent of the National Assembly?

I will not confirm that because a discussion is taking place between all my colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Wales and colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales. I shall not say to any participant in the debate, whether a political party such as the hon. Gentleman's or an organisation, that there is a veto on change. I shall try to achieve consent and agreement about positive changes to the university and higher education system in both Wales and England.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have made substantial progress in moving towards the 50 per cent. target for participation of those under 30? There have been tremendous changes, and that is a great success. We must now switch to ensuring a much more socially diverse entry.

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we should not lose sight of the fact that we want high quality higher education that delivers for all those who have the potential to benefit? We must not forget that that must be financed from somewhere.

My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. First, we must tackle standards. Secondly, the quality and nature of the degree qualifications are important to the student, employers and the future. Different issues arise if we envisage 50 per cent. as opposed to 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the population entering higher education. They must be properly tackled. Thirdly, those who claim that we should simply forget about expanding higher education are wrong. I believe that we must do that. Those who claim that we should expand higher education but ensure that it properly serves our society and economy are right. I hope that we will follow that approach.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will take to help reduce teacher shortages in Essex. [89208]

Essex has benefited from the full range of Government measures that were introduced since 1997 to improve teacher recruitment. They include training bursaries, golden hellos and extra pay flexibilities. That has helped full-time equivalent teacher numbers to increase throughout Essex from 12,580 in 1997 to 13,650 in 2002. From 2003, Essex schools' budgets will rise through the local government settlement, and there will be further increases in the following two years.

Does not the Under-Secretary understand that the Government have increased bureaucracy and damaged discipline, thus demoralising teachers not only in Essex but throughout the country? Does he realise that several schools in my constituency have massive teacher vacancies? Will he consider extending London weighting to my constituency so that teachers there can be paid at least the same as those in adjacent constituencies?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a plea for more money from the Government for education at a time when the local government settlement has given a 5.7 per cent. increase to the local authority in Essex, within which we are recommending a 6.9 per cent. increase, which is an excellent and healthy increase for schools in Essex. I do not underestimate the difficulties of recruitment and retention in Essex or elsewhere, but the matter is being addressed in a systematic way not only by the Government but by the local education authority. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to give his support to these positive measures to recruit additional teachers in Essex and elsewhere.

May I invite the Minister to have a friendly word with his colleagues in the Home Office about the Criminal Records Bureau, because that is one area in which the Government could help to reduce teacher shortages in Essex. As recently as last Friday, the Colchester Evening Gazette reported that

"More than 1,500 teachers, lunch-time assistants, classroom helpers and … caretakers"

could not start work because the Criminal Records Bureau had not yet checked their assessments. Of those, nearly 400 were teachers. The Government could resolve much of the teacher shortage in Essex in one fell swoop by getting the Criminal Records Bureau to work.

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I will certainly use what opportunities I have to talk to the Criminal Records Bureau and to Home Office colleagues about the situation. As regards the recruitment of teachers, all that is required is that the List 99 requirements are fulfilled, so I will check that that is happening in Essex. I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's argument, because we want to ensure that schools are able to recruit all staff, not only teachers, and I will look into the matter for him.

The Minister has heard the reasons for staff shortages in Essex. Those teachers will have contributed to the survey of 70,000 teachers earlier this week which found that one third of our teachers planned to resign or retire within the next five years. How much responsibility does he think that Government policy bears for this crisis in our schools?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has actually read the survey concerned. Yes, it does show that one in three said that they expected that they would, or probably would, leave teaching, but half of them will be retiring. They are not going to leave teaching because they are disaffected because of Government policy; they are retiring because of their age. It is absurd to create this scaremongering about recruitment and retention in our schools. What is more interesting about the survey is that it demonstrates that teachers are concerned about issues of bureaucracy and work load, and that is why we are addressing those issues. That is also why we are making positive proposals for the remodelling of the school work force, and I hope that the Conservatives will give us their support when we publish them.

Order. Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) rises again, I must tell him that he must restrict his question to the county of Essex.

Sorry. The Minister's response was unbelievably complacent. Teachers in Essex cite three main reasons for being fed up with their job: unnecessary paperwork, initiative overload and a target-driven culture. Those are the three defining failures of Labour education policy. Will he acknowledge that, unless he admits to teachers in Essex that the gentleman in Whitehall does not always know best, he will continue to drive teachers out of our schools and, in doing so, betray pupils and parents.

I have not seen the survey broken down by county; obviously the hon. Gentleman has. My understanding, however, is that it shows that less than 6 per cent. of the teachers surveyed intend to leave teaching altogether. That is simply the reality, and it is a low figure. My colleagues and I are not complacent; we recognise that there are issues around teacher work load and questions of bureaucracy. That is why we are addressing them, and I would encourage Members on both sides of the House to support our proposals for remodelling the work force, whether it be in Essex, Kent or any other part of the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to tackle poor pupil behaviour. [89209]

We are investing nearly £470 million over the next three years in a national behaviour and attendance strategy to support schools. We are also introducing radical measures to reinforce parental responsibility.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I recognise the work that the Government are doing to tackle behaviour and discipline problems in schools. Will he look at the proposal to reintroduce special allowances for teachers who work in the toughest schools—what used to be called educational priority area special allowances? Would that not be a good way of overcoming some of the problems of recruitment and retention of teachers in our toughest schools, and a way of tackling some of the most difficult behavioural problems that those schools experience?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about rewarding the unsung heroes of the teaching profession who make a real difference, often in the most challenging circumstances. Of course, he speaks from personal experience. Indeed, I have often thought that his previous career—achieving positive results with difficult children—makes him a credible future candidate for Speaker of the House, although we do not expect a vacancy for many years to come.

More seriously, our package of investment and reform to reinforce respect and discipline in our schools is ground breaking. It will provide support for heads and teachers, and achieve an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities among our young people and their parents. We are the first Government to tackle behaviour head on, because we believe that it is crucial to raising standards in our schools.

Will the Minister say what he feels has contributed more to the disillusionment of our young people—indiscipline in our schools, the rise of the drug and gun culture, rap music as suggested by the Home Secretary or the Government's obsession with targets, testing and league tables?

Can the Minister point to a single Government target that has improved the lot of our black ethnic minority students, who are more likely to be excluded from school; our special educational needs students, who are seven times more likely to be excluded from school; and those youngsters in our inner cities, who are failing in greater numbers under this Government than under the deplorable Government who preceded them?

The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to an extremely complex issue by pointing to a particular element that causes ill-discipline, poor behaviour and difficulties that young people experience. We know that a combination of the need for better support for teachers, opportunities for teachers to withdraw difficult pupils from classes, ensuring that we have tough exclusion policies and ensuring that we have a curriculum that turns young people on rather than off is involved, but it is also true, as Members have said, that the influences that impact on young people outside the school environment, such as rap music, make a difference to their perception of their community and the society in which they live. We need a combination of measures to support teachers, enforce parental responsibility and ensure that we offer a curriculum that inspires and energises our young people.

Will the Minister look into the deplorable situation in which Pencoed comprehensive school successfully defended an appeal on a temporary exclusion but was lumbered with a £20,000 bill? If it had gone for a permanent exclusion, the local education authority would have picked up the tab. Surely it is not acceptable that £20,000 will go into legal fees rather than books and teachers.

Of course, we are willing to have a look at that specific issue. We recently introduced new guidance on reforming exclusion processes in our schools, but we must support head teachers, ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the interests of individual pupils and the school community as a whole and ensure that the exclusion process makes sense for teachers, pupils and parents.

I am sure the Minister agrees that had pupil behaviour in schools is not the fault of the Government or of any political party, but it is a growing and serious problem. Having talked to many teachers in recent times, both in this country and in Austria, where I have been for a short time, I may say that part of the problem is that there are few sanctions available to teachers in order to deal with indiscipline. Without structure and discipline in our schools, the teacher cannot provide the best education for the majority of pupils. Will the Government attend to providing sanctions so that those who behave badly do not impede the education of the majority of pupils?

A range of initiatives that the Government have introduced is beginning to tackle behaviour directly. Let me list those initiatives briefly: learning support units, learning mentors, behaviour in education support teams, curriculum reform for 14-year-olds, parenting contracts and orders, police in schools, the reform of exclusion panels, pupil referral units, full-time education for permanently excluded pupils, truancy sweeps and the fast-track prosecution of parents who do not co-operate. Not one of those interventions was available under the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals he has to increase funding available for the further and higher education sectors. [89210]

We have announced the largest ever investment in further education over the next three years. Funding will rise by £1.2 billion, an increase of 19 per cent. in real terms, as part of a radical and ambitious reform and investment strategy which links funding to college performance. The higher education strategy document to be published later this month will set out our vision for the rest of the decade, including funding.

My hon. Friend will know of the importance attached by Plymouth college of further education and Plymouth university to increasing access for young people from families whose members have not traditionally attended universities and colleges of further education. Will she ensure that funding increases, and the vision in the Green Paper, focus on increasing the amount spent on achieving higher rates of access and recognising the relationship between further and higher education?

I applaud the colleges in my hon. Friend's constituency for the work they are doing to ensure that more young people from low-income and non-traditional backgrounds have access to higher education. I confirm what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: we will put access, and the ability of people with talent to attend university, at the top of the agenda in our strategy paper.

Given that many colleges throughout the country are uncertain about their finances because of glitches in the Learning and Skills Council's software, and given that even the helplines do not know how to help, who does the Minister think is responsible for this software silliness?

I am aware of the problems experienced by further education colleges because of glitches in the information technology system, and I think the situation is unacceptable. I am having discussions with the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that it sorts out the problems as quickly as possible. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.

It is crucial for many of our constituents that the balance between further and higher education, in terms of funding, remains an issue in the forthcoming review. The much-needed expansion in access for the non-traditional entrants by whom many of our communities are over-represented must be based on access, via further education, to higher education. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the mistakes resulting from the last Government's falsely competitive funding system, which forced higher education institutions to compete for a top-up 10 per cent., will not be repeated in the review?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, welcome her back to the Chamber, and wish her well as a mother. I assure her that by the time her child enters further and higher education—indeed, by the time her child is at secondary school—we shall have ensured that that child benefits from the highest standards and the best opportunities.

Let me deal with my hon. Friend's serious point about the links between further and higher education, and the way in which those links can support progress. I entirely agree with her views, which will be reflected in the strategy document.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the financing of universities. [89211]

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding of higher education institutions. [89217]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged in the issue papers published in November that current public funding for higher education institutions in England was not enough to enable them to compete with the rest of the world. The higher education strategy document to be published later this month will set out our vision for the rest of the decade, including funding.

Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by the Secretary of State and reported in The Guardian on 19 December that

"the up-front fee…is the most serious disincentive to people from poor backgrounds coming into universities"

—although four studies commissioned by the Department, and published on its website, make clear that fear of debt seriously deters students in general, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular, from thinking of going to university? Will the Government's proposals take account of the clear findings of those studies?

We accept that both large up-front payments and fear of debt are factors that inhibit some young people from lower-income backgrounds from attending university. We also know that there are other important factors that we need to tackle, the first of which is to get young people to stay on at school to achieve more, and to get them to aim higher, raise their aspirations and see university as an option for them, rather than as an option simply for the middle classes.

Reverting to the answer that the Minister gave to the substantive question, what is the size of the institutional funding gap that she is seeking to plug?

There have been various assessments of the funding gap, but it would not be helpful to give a specific figure at this time.

Is it £9 billion?

Well, the figure given by Universities UK is about £9.9 billion. That is one figure, but the answer depends on the options chosen. We think that there is a substantial funding gap and we are looking at ways of filling it over time. However, as I said, giving a specific figure at this time is not helpful.

In the context of student finance, is it not true that, in addition to the graduate premium that distinguishes between the earnings of graduates and of non-graduates, there is a differential graduate premium that distinguishes between the earnings of graduates of Britain's leading research universities and of graduates of the smaller universities? If it is logical to make graduates contribute to the cost of their tuition, is it not equally logical to make graduates of the leading research universities contribute an additional amount to their tuition costs?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that graduate premiums do differ, both according to the institution attended and to the subject studied. That is one of the factors that we are bearing in mind as we think about future funding of higher education and support for students.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that one of the many difficulties faced by universities is the payment and retention of university staff. In making sure that universities offer a future for students, it is necessary to ensure that teaching, as well as research, is of the highest quality. In making certain that that happens, is she taking into consideration the pay gap experienced by those working in higher education institutions such as Loughborough university?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend: if we are to maintain and enhance the quality of teaching in our institutions, we must attract good quality teachers, and if we are to enhance our research capacity, we must attract into the sector, and keep, the best academics. Out of interest, since 1993 the real earnings of male academics in higher education have fallen by 0.4 per cent. That compares with a growth of about 5.8 per cent. in male professional earnings in general. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in our higher education reform.

The hon. Lady is on record as repeatedly saying that this graduate premium—the average earnings of a graduate, compared with a non-graduate—is justification for expecting a graduate to contribute to the unspecified funding gap that she referred to earlier. However, if 50 per cent. of that age group are to become graduates, it is surely logical to expect that, in time, 50 per cent. of the work force will be graduates. Will not the graduate premium be substantially diminished, therefore, thereby completely countering the point that she repeatedly tries to make?

Interestingly enough, evidence emerging from the massive expansion in higher education that took place when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government demonstrates that the graduate premium not only sustained itself during that period, but, if anything, gradually went up. Our analysis tends to suggest that, given the demands that will be required of the labour market, there is no evidence that the graduate premium will be diminished as we expand the number of people who attend higher education institutions to fulfil the needs of the labour market.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of pay rates on the scale of migration of teachers between further education and schools. [89213]

The Department does not collect data on the number of further education teachers leaving to work in schools. However, one local government survey suggests that 1 per cent. of full-time recruits to secondary schools—about 210 staff from an FE complement of 46,000—are from the FE or higher education sectors. The additional £1.2 billion of investment in FE by 2005–06 will allow colleges to address recruitment, retention and reward issues.

I would have expected many more teachers to leave further education and move into schools, as the starting salary for a schoolteacher is £3,000 higher than for a teacher in FE. The Association of Colleges says that teacher vacancies in FE are running at twice the level as in schools. When will we move towards parity between teachers in schools and in FE colleges?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will know that the top of the FE scale is about £27,000 a year, whereas the top of the schoolteachers' main scale is £25,000 and the top of the schoolteachers' upper scale is £32,000. The pay systems for schools and FE are negotiated differently. In the end, pay comparability will depend, for schools, on the review body for schools and, for FE, on the negotiations between employers and teacher representatives. Those negotiations will restart on 13 January. The pay gap can be bridged by means of the money being put into FE as a result of decisions by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On the subject of the pay and conditions of FE lecturers, will the Minister clear up the confusion caused by remarks made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education in a debate on FE in Westminster Hall in respect of the starter home initiative for key workers? The Minister gave the impression that Government policy had changed and that FE lecturers were now on a par with schoolteachers with regard to that scheme, whereas, hitherto they had to wait in the queue behind nurses, schoolteachers and policemen to benefit from it.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education would not have wanted to cause any confusion. I promise to write to the hon. Gentleman at the earliest possible juncture to set out the position very clearly.

Migration from sixth-form colleges to schools is encouraged by the fact that pupils in such colleges are about £1,000 worse off than their counterparts in sixth forms attached to schools. My 16 to 19-year-olds cannot choose to go to sixth-form colleges attached to schools, as their only option is a sixth-form college. Is it fair that my already deprived young people should be further deprived in that way? When will the Government level up the funding?

The different arrangements that apply in different parts of the country reflect institutional history. However, every pupil in the country will benefit from the increased investment that is being put into the whole sector catering for 14 to 19-year-olds. The increased funding and higher quality will benefit all pupils, whether they are studying in school or college or following a work-based study course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of phonics in the teaching of reading in the Government's English key stage 2 literacy strategy. [89214]

The literacy strategy has put phonics at the heart of literacy teaching and has brought about what Ofsted described in its recent report as a "marked shift" in teachers' attitudes to, and understanding of, phonics.

That answer is very welcome, but Ofsted also reports that 41 per cent. of seven-year-olds fail to reach the expected standard in writing, and that 31 per cent. fail in reading. Does the Minister agree with Ryan Conor, the special adviser to the previous Secretary of State, that synthetic phonics is a more effective method for teaching reading than the approach adopted by the national literacy strategy? Although it is to be welcomed that 25,000 year 3 teachers are to be taught phonics, what further measures is he taking to ensure that the synthetic phonics method is more widely used throughout years 1 to 4 of primary education, as also recommended by Ofsted?

I think that the hon. Gentleman means Conor Ryan, not Ryan Conor. The issue of phonics is central to the national literacy strategy and we take very seriously the remarks made by Ofsted. We believe that the model that we are using—the combination of synthetic and analytic phonics—is the correct one. Known as the Searchlights model, it is based on experience in this country and in other parts of the world, including the US. This week, I have written to all primary school head teachers and chairs of governors to reaffirm the importance of the national literacy strategy and the central importance of phonics in that strategy's success.

Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety that the early huge achievements delivered by the national literacy strategy in improving literacy standards in the number of children leaving primary schools in Slough—the figure has risen from 50 per cent. to nearly three quarters—has slowed down, and that there is a lack of refreshment and re-energising in improvements in literacy in our primary schools? What does he intend to do to re-energise the national literacy strategy in primary education?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we must praise the progress that has been made. In 1997, only 63 per cent. of our 11-year-olds were achieving what we would expect in terms of literacy, and now the figure is 75 per cent. That is a major advance. However, for one in four of our 11-year-olds not to achieve what we would expect in their literacy standards is not acceptable. That is why I announced this week that there will be extra training and additional booster classes for young people. This year, for the first time, 1,000 Easter schools across the country will be aimed at giving year 6 pupils that final additional support in preparation for their year 6 tests.

I do not rest on my laurels and neither does the team. We believe that the advances that have been made are very important. We have an ambitious target of reaching 85 per cent. next year. We will work to achieve that and this strategy is central to our ability to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the procedures for satisfying criteria for the grant of university titles to higher education institutions. [89218]

The criteria for degree-awarding powers and university title were last reviewed in 1998. Our plans on this matter will be set out in our strategy document to be published later this month; I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the document will address the issue. Indeed, I discussed it with a delegation from the Standing Conference of Principals yesterday, which included the chief executive of the Southampton institute.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting and encouraging reply. Does he accept that the present system appears to hold out the prospect of an exponential number of new universities and that while any institute of higher education can claim that it is on the road to university status, the reality is that very few, if any, new universities will be created in the foreseeable future? Is he prepared to say that a new system may well reflect reality more closely?

I am certainly prepared to say that I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. One of the sadnesses of the current degree-awarding status and status discussion is that the quality of teaching undergraduates is not sufficiently recognised. There are many higher education institutions, including ones in his constituency and serving Southampton, which, although first-class teaching institutions, find it difficult to compete in the marketplace for undergraduates because they cannot call themselves universities. This has been a serious issue for a long time. That is why I confirmed that we are looking at this extremely carefully and we expect to say something about it in the document that will be published later this month.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding university top-up fees. [89219]

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on university top-up fees. [89220]

We will shortly publish a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the student finance review. After that there will be further opportunity for interested parties to comment.

The Minister is aware that her Labour colleagues in Scotland have been persuaded to take a rather more enlightened approach to tuition fees and student finance. Obviously, her consultation could have a spin-off impact on the position north of the border. What assurances can she give me that her consultation will involve the closest possible conduct with Scottish Ministers?

A different approach is being taken by our colleagues in Scotland. That is a strength of devolution which I hope the hon. Gentleman applauds. Of course, we have regular conversations with our colleagues in Scotland and we will consult with them. If there are different systems in place, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Does the Minister accept that many parents in my constituency are extremely concerned about the mixed messages put out by the Government on top-up fees and the apparent breach of Labour's election manifesto? Will she seek to remedy some of the confusion? Media reports suggest that the Secretary of State has said that he will rule out all top-up fees, yet the spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills has said that the Secretary of State will rule out only large top-up fees?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be pleased to share with us the findings of our strategy review, which we shall publish in a couple of weeks. I ask him and his constituents to wait until that time. I should like to say to his constituents and to their children that the purpose of the review is to ensure not only that we put university funding on a proper, secure footing, which is very important after the 36 per cent. cut in funding experienced under the hon. Gentleman's Government, but that student funding is put on a sustainable long-term footing.

To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her policy relating to prosecution of offences under the Official Secrets Acts. [89226]

The Attorney-General's consent is required to bring a prosecution for most offences contrary to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 or 1989. The Attorney-General considers first whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is sufficient evidence, the Attorney-General considers whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. The more serious the offence the more likely it is that a prosecution will be needed.

Ah, so the Attorney-General is to blame then. Next time, I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Lady will counsel her clients in the security and intelligence services that the Official Secrets Act is a deficient and blunt instrument, as well as one that does not meet European norms. Cases such as Shayler, Ponting or Sarah Tisdall, where the judge says, "You wicked, wicked man—six weeks in the slammer", really do not advance national security. We need new, modern legislation that will protect our critical interest as well as allowing justice to prevail and allowing people to give the truth when there has been bad mismanagement or irregularity in the security and intelligence services.

My hon. Friend makes three points. The first was on whether we are compliant with our European obligations. The House of Lords has considered the Official Secrets Act and has decided that it is in compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.

I think that my hon. Friend's second point related to the sentence in the Shayler case. In fact, the judge said that his starting point would have been 18 months in the circumstances of that offence, but he reduced it because the offender had spent time in prison in France.

On new legislation, obviously the Home Office will keep that issue under review and I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will have been heard.

Finally, on the accountability and lawfulness of the security services, it is obviously right that the security services are not above the law and that they should be accountable. We take that point very seriously.

On the point that the Solicitor-General has just raised, does she accept that the 1989 Act currently assumes that the internal procedures of the Security Service are incapable of failure? However, given that any procedure is capable of failure, should someone have to be put in the position of committing a crime in order to reveal a crime, without the possibility in law of entering a defence?

I think that it used to be the case that it was assumed that the procedure was incapable of failure and that has, rightly, been looked at. The absolute prohibition on a member or former member of the security services giving out intelligence information is mitigated in relation to the public interest in a number of ways. First, as the hon. Gentleman understands, the person can tell their superiors. If that is not acceptable and the person does not want to do that, he can, if he is alleging unlawfulness, go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. If someone applies to give out information and is refused by his management, he can judicially review that decision as unreasonable. Of course, we also have the Select Committee which scrutinises the security services. I agree with where the hon. Gentleman is coming from: we must have the right opportunities for unlawful actions to be disclosed if they are taking place, but I hope that the procedures that I have described are actually working in that way.

To ask the Solicitor-General what steps she is taking to publicise the right of (a) victims of crime and (b) members of the public to seek the review of unduly lenient sentences. [89229]

To ask the Solicitor-General what measures her Department plans to take to ensure that victims of crime and their relatives are informed of their right to ask the Attorney-General to consider the referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency. [89232]

Where a victim complains that a sentence is too lenient, either they or the Crown Prosecution Service can ask the Law Officers to review the sentence. We can then, if we consider it unduly lenient, refer it to the Court of Appeal. We keep the issue of unduly lenient sentences, including publicity of them to victims and the wider public, under review.

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for that answer, but I would draw her attention to the words,

"what steps she is taking to publicise the right".

On 4 July 2002, she told me:

"We need to ensure that Members and victims know that the right is there, but that it has to be exercised within 28 days."—[Official Report, 4 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 392.]

On 24 October, I asked her an identical question to the one I am asking today, and she did not give me an answer at all. So what steps is she taking to publicise to victims the right that they have to draw the matter to the Attorney-General's attention within 28 days if they believe that an unduly lenient sentence has been given?

The actual steps that the hon. Gentleman asks about are that, where there has been a conviction and sentence, the case will have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and it is the responsibility of the CPS to liase with the victim. If the victim complains about the sentence being too lenient, there is an obligation on the CPS to consider it. The CPS can then refer it to us or, if it is not prepared to do so, the procedure is that it should tell the victim, "We, the CPS, are not going to refer it to the Law Officers, but you can."

I anticipate the hon. Gentleman's thoughts, as he will not be able to make the next point, which is that the problem is the time limit: the complaint has to be made within 28 days of sentence. There is an absolute cut-off point, so that the sentence increase should not hang over a defendant when he has been convicted. I know that that causes difficulties, but we want to be sure that the CPS tells victims if it is not going to refer a sentence to us.

My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the concerns that I have raised about this issue involving cases in Blackpool, where manslaughter verdicts relating to domestic violence were followed by sentences that the relatives and I consider to be excessively lenient. I am very well aware of her concerns about the issue, but given the problems that arise from time to time not least with the CPS and the information process in this respect, if we are not to be proactive in taking further publicity steps about this right, will she at least undertake to consider whether there should be a wider review, in which the whole question of the 28-day period is properly reviewed, because it is clear from a number of examples that the right is not always automatically adequate to assist victims or their relatives in the present circumstances?

The first point that I would make in response to my hon. Friend's question is that, when the House discussed the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it was specifically decided that this would not be a general prosecution right of appeal against sentence, nor would it be a victim's right of appeal against sentence; it was a kind of special, exceptional jurisdiction. I know that that feels very uncomfortable for some victims who would like to appeal.

As for the process, there are difficult ies with the tight time limit. Again, it was decided by the House—it is in statute, in primary legislation—that the application has to be referred within 28 days or it falls. That is designed to protect the defendant from the sense that he has an increase in sentence hanging over him.

As for domestic violence sentencing, my hon. Friend knows that sentencing is obviously a matter for the judges, but the Attorney-General and I have referred a number of domestic violence sentences, involving both homicide and assault, during the past 12 months, and we will refer domestic sentences where they appear to us to be unduly lenient.

The Solicitor-General should be aware that the public's main concern about unduly lenient sentences relates to unduly lenient sentences for burglary. Will she take this opportunity comprehensively to reject the ludicrous statements by the Lord Chancellor, supporting Lord Woolf's guidelines, and say today that she agrees instead with Prime Minister's spokesman that those who commit burglary should face lengthy custodial sentences? There has been enormous Government confusion on that. The Lord Chancellor is entirely wrong, and ordinary people want burglars to be sent to prison.

I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor, and I stand strongly behind what he said. As far as unduly lenient sentences for burglary are concerned, they are not referable by the Law Officers to the Court of Appeal because they are triable each way. Only cases that are only triable on indictment are referable to the Court of Appeal.

Will the Solicitor-General confirm that in cases of unduly lenient sentences, and in all prosecutions, a claim for public interest immunity will only be made by the prosecution on the grounds that public disclosure of the material would constitute a serious threat to national security or to protect police informants?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The provision is wide-ranging in relation to public interest immunity, which allows material to be kept from the defendant. He is absolutely right that national security and the protection of informants are grounds for claiming public interest immunity, but they are not the only grounds. The courts have said that other categories of public interest might qualify, but, clearly, it is an exceptionally serious matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to my concern and that of several of my hon. Friends about the possible abuse of the new written ministerial statements procedure. A few moments ago, the Leader of the House invoked as a rationale for it a desire to get rid of the planted written question. Are you conscious that we are worried that, when we have tabled genuine questions—rather than questions planted by Government Back Benchers—instead of receiving substantive replies, Ministers have fobbed us off and patted us on the head with references to the ministerial written statements that they have issued? We arc worried that that happens on the same day that our questions should be answered substantively. I ask you, as the guarantor of our rights, to guard against that possible abuse.

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that, as I have stated previously, I am not responsible for the quality of replies, except mine.

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

With this we may discuss amendment No. 4, Title, line 1, after "Wales;" insert

"to make provision for reciprocity for Patients' Forums in England;".

The new clause is straightforward, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. If it is not done through the new clause, I hope that it will be properly addressed in another place so that patients forums can cover anyone living in England who wants to receive treatment in Wales. The new clause stems from the purpose of community health councils, the patients' champion. If CHCs in Wales cannot investigate any complaints on behalf of patients who come from England or elsewhere, a problem will arise. Perhaps the issue also relates to people from England or Wales who receive treatment in France or Spain because of the spare capacity there and the extended waiting lists in Wales and England. There is therefore a wider problem. However, I assume that CHCs in Wales could champion Welsh patients in, for example, French hospitals, and deal with any problems that arose.

Patients are increasingly aware of their rights and know that any complaints should be heard. For example, complaints against doctors have increased by 1,450 per cent. in the past 11 years. That is staggering, and reflects the fact that people know that a procedure exists if problems arise and they are unhappy with their treatment.

We are not simply considering people who live in border areas and decide to be treated in the NHS in Wales. International and domestic tourism has expanded greatly. Wales, especially north, west and mid-Wales, receives many tourists from England who make regular weekend, mid-week and lengthier summer visits to some of its most beautiful parts. Sadly, some of them will become ill or suffer accidents, especially on beaches. For example, people who visit the Gower peninsula could cut their feet on glass that has been left on the beaches. I know of cases of people being taken to Singleton hospital or Morriston hospital. The increase in tourism means that people from England will be treated in Welsh hospitals.

The growth of business travel means that people on business who become ill or have accidents will use the NHS in Wales, as will people who drive through Wales and have car accidents. It is therefore right to establish a structure to ensure that people are properly looked after and complaints investigated. That has not been thought through in the Bill. I believe that it is an oversight and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me about that.

People whose families live in Wales may wish to be near them if they need an operation or treatment. People are increasingly mobile and we want reciprocity whereby patients forums in England or CHCs in Wales can champion the rights of patients from England or elsewhere who are treated by the NHS in Wales. That matter needs consideration.

It is depressing that waiting lists in Wales have increased. Community health councils will be interested in that and may want to investigate instances of patients from elsewhere who are treated in Welsh hospitals. We know that there are huge cost implications.

Let us consider the position of someone who has diabetes and travels to Wales. Today, the Government produced a new strategy for diabetes in England, but it will take a further 12 months to introduce it in Wales. I am unhappy about that, and I hope that the Welsh Assembly can introduce a strategy for Wales more quickly. I do not understand why people in Wales are treated as second-class citizens and I hope that the Minister can reassure me.

In the context of increasing waiting lists, I hope that the Minister can comment on the story in The Western Mail about calling up reservists for Iraq. Some of the 1,500 will be Welsh doctors and nurses. If that leads to increasing waiting lists, the CHCs will want to investigate the matter. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there are contingency plans to ensure that patients in Wales are properly treated.

The new clause is straightforward and covers a matter that the Bill does not tackle. The mobility of people throughout the United Kingdom and the world means that we need to ensure that the rights of those who receive medical treatment in the NHS in Wales are properly championed, whether by CHCs or the patients forums in England.

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his wish that patients forums in England should have the same rights that the Bill will allow the Assembly to confer on community health councils in Wales. I am also happy to be able to tell him that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to achieve that. The functions of a patients forum are set out in section 15 of the National Health Service and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The main functions are monitoring and reporting, and include the duty to

"monitor and review the range and operation of services provided by…the trust for which it is established;…obtain the views of patients and carers…and report to the trust;…provide advice, and make reports and recommendations"

on service-related matters and make information available to patients and carers.

Patients forums have no powers to investigate health issues in England. Those powers are exercised in England and Wales by the Commission for Health Improvement, which was set up in April 2000. New clause 1 and amendment No. 4 would duplicate the commission's powers in Wales by conferring them additionally on patients forums, which operate only in England. The Assembly would not be in a position to make regulations affecting the operation of the patients forums in England because it has no responsibility for them.

The inspection of premises providing NHS-funded services, including the inspection of premises across borders, is a different matter. Section 17 of the 2002 Act, and paragraph 3 of schedule 7A of this Bill give the Secretary of State and the National Assembly respectively identical powers to make regulations conferring on patients forums and community health councils the right of entry and inspection to back up their functions. That is not intended to make them investigatory bodies because that is a role for the Commission for Health Improvement. CHCs will have the same right of entry as patients forums in England.

If someone from Bristol were holidaying in Swansea and became ill there, who would they complain to in the first instance, and how would that complaint be followed through?

In the first instance, if the person lived in England and had a problem with the way in which they had been treated by the health service in Wales, they would complain to their patients forum, which would then have the opportunity under the provisions of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act to investigate the complaint, even though the treatment had taken place in Wales. That is what we are putting right in this Bill: we are providing a reciprocal arrangement for community health councils in Wales to have the opportunity to do the same thing for England.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the power to make regulations contained in paragraph 3 of schedule 7A. I shall pose to him the question that is invariably of interest to me in such contexts. Are the regulations that are to be made under that schedule to be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?

Where there are regulations relating to aspects of this Bill, they will be made by the Assembly under its proper procedures as a result of the Government of Wales Act 1998. They will not be made by this House. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

As I was saying, it is not intended that patients forums or CHCs should be investigatory bodies. CHCs will have the same right of entry as patients forums in England, and if a situation arises in which a Welsh CHC wished to inspect facilities in England used by Welsh patients, it will be able to do so—and vice versa. Patients forums will have identical powers to do the same in respect of premises in Wales used by residents of England.

In practice, we would expect that a CHC or a patients forum that wished to conduct an inspection across the border would liaise with its English or Welsh counterpart for it to conduct the inspection on its behalf. That seems practical. The situation is not, however, prescribed in any more detail, as it will be for local CHCs and patients forums to work up the arrangement that is best suited to them. I hope that that explanation will help the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to understand why we would resist the new clause.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of other important points in his speech. He asked about someone from this country being treated abroad and perhaps being dissatisfied with that treatment. The first line of defence for that patient's interests would be his or her CHC in Wales, or patients forum in England. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the diabetes strategy, and asked about related proposals for Wales. My colleagues in the Assembly are considering such proposals in Wales, and I am sure that they will take note of his point about the need to do it as speedily as possible.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to waiting times. The Assembly has made substantial progress in reducing waiting times in the priority areas of cardiac surgery and orthopaedics over the last year. There has also been an indisputable increase in the number of people being treated. A lot of work is under way to address the continuing problem of long waiting lists, which we are all concerned about, and the piloting of a new booking system for out-patients has shown reductions in cancellations and non-attendance from more than 15 per cent. to less than 5 per cent. The improved system will be rolled out right across Wales from March this year. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman so far as the action on waiting lists is concerned and that he will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

I am reassured by the explanation given by the Minister. I also welcome his comments about diabetes. I hope that—perhaps with some pushing from him—the Assembly will concentrate on introducing a strategy for those who suffer from diabetes in Wales. He made no reference to the issue of reservists, or to whether contingency plans would be put in place to ensure that patients in Wales would be properly looked after should there be a war with Iraq. Even with the reservists being called up, there could well be a problem.

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am sure that his view is shared on both sides of the House, and I shall make sure that it is brought to the attention of my colleague, the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 13 at end insert—

'( ) The Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency shall have a place on the Board of the Wales Centre for Health.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 24 [Clause 3], at end insert—

'( ) That the Wales Centre for Health shall have a duty to coordinate its activities with the recommendations of the Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency in matters related to communicable disease control in England as well as with similar functions controlled by the NHS in Wales.'.

We have tabled the amendments to highlight an issue that should be a matter of concern for everyone in the House at what is undoubtedly a difficult time in security terms, and also because security matters are not the sole issues involved in the relationship between the health protection agency and the Wales centre for health. There is also the issue of how matters relating to communicable disease are addressed and communicated, and how public information on these matters is provided.

These are probing amendments designed to establish the relationship envisaged by the Minister between the Wales centre for health and the health protection agency. The latter organisation covers England and Wales but does not have the full remit in Wales that it does in England. The former will, if we understand its role correctly, have prime responsibility for the communication of public health information to the people of Wales. The Minister may be able to clarify the degree to which he envisages the Wales centre for health having responsibility for communication in those areas. The Bill states that the centre will be responsible for developing and maintaining

"arrangements for making information about matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales available to the public in Wales".

It will also have responsibility for research and training, both of which could be equally important in the current climate.

This is happening at a time of change for the infrastructure for the establishment of information—and, in part, for the provision of information—about communicable diseases and also, in these difficult times, about biological and chemical threats to this country. These functions were previously carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service for England and Wales, and are in the process of being radically changed. Over the next few months, we shall see the creation of an entirely new organisation, the health protection agency, which will take over the responsibilities of the PHLS and a number of other bodies. It will be created as a special health authority and, from April, take on responsibility for providing or commissioning most of the NHS functions set out in the Government's consultation paper last year.

The organisation will be responsible in England for PHLS roles, but not, in general, clinical diagnostic microbiology services. However, it will be responsible for microbiological research and take over the national focus for chemical incidents, regional services and the National Poisons Information Service. It will also take over the health protection functions provided by consultants in communicable disease control and other health protection staff. Furthermore, it will have a role in providing advice on emergency functions.

In Wales, the organisation will also have many of those responsibilities, but not all of them. It will not be responsible for certain consultancy work, but it will, none the less, be the body that generates first-base information on major communicable disease risks and major biological and chemical risks.

This week, we have seen the first example of a chemical threat being discovered in this country. The PHLS has been predominantly responsible for providing information to the public indirectly and to the NHS directly on the nature of that threat, on what treatments are available, if any, and on how medical practitioners should try to identify the possible appearance of symptoms that ultimately might represent a chemical or biological attack on or threat to this country.

After 1 April, the HPA will be responsible for such tasks. It will be at the heart of our security apparatus in defending this country and providing information to practitioners and the public on the risks that we might face. Therefore, as we consider the Bill and set in place new structures in Wales for public health information, it is fundamentally important that we understand the relationship between the HPA and the new bodies, especially the Wales centre for health.

I support the argument that my hon. Friend is making. Will he accept from me the assurance that terrorist groups always try to think one jump ahead? Given that so much has been said in anticipation of a terrorist attack on London as the capital of the United Kingdom, terrorists thinking one jump ahead may be considering the capitals of Scotland and of the Principality precisely to take us by surprise. Is not that a particular reason for bodies in Scotland and in Wales having the extra representation for which he is arguing?

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, because he is driving at the nub of the reason for our laying the amendments on the Table for, I hope, the Minister's acceptance. I certainly hope that he addresses the issue and responds with his own thoughts on the different ways in which those organisations will interact. Ultimately, in the eyes of the terrorists who are threatening us, we are one United Kingdom and one nation. Terrorists will not respect administrative or national boundaries within the UK, so we must work effectively together.

We have a concern: in creating those structures through the Bill and in creating the Wales centre for health, we want to ensure that the centre has proper links with the organisations that will provide the rest of the NHS in England with the information, training, support and guidance that it requires to do its job properly.

That is the purpose of the amendments that we have introduced. We want to formalise the relationship between the Wales centre for health and the new body to ensure that there is absolute co-ordination between all those people who are responsible for establishing and communicating information on those important issues. In our view, it is particularly important that those arrangements be dealt with because of the uncertainties surrounding the restructuring of the PHLS, the creation of the HPA and the changes in this area as to the organisations being transferred from the PHLS to the NHS.

1.45 pm

The debate takes place as those organisations are going through a huge process of change that is enormously disruptive to them. We must be mindful of the warning given by the PHLS internal risk assessment team on the implications of the changes:

"It seems inevitable that if the timetable of 1st April 2003 for the HPA is to be delivered, some level of risk will have to be tolerated. Were there to be a severe external challenge over the next few months, such as deliberate release, the situation and expected forward timetable would need rapid reappraisal."

I hope that the Minister's colleagues in the Department of Health are taking on board that warning, which has implications for Wales and for those who are taking over responsibility for some areas that the PH LS covers in the Welsh NHS. Those responsible for the Wales centre for health also need to be mindful of it, given the responsibility that they will undoubtedly have for making information available to the public on health issues that we all could face in the months and years ahead.

That information, which will originate from the HPA and our central scientific teams, must be disseminated effectively and quickly right across the NHS in England and in Wales. Our first amendment is one suggestion as to how we could strengthen and formalise those ties, ensuring that they are clearly in place during the period of transition for all those organisations and that they solidify as they go forward.

The PHLS drives the dissemination of information on communicable diseases and chemical weapons, and the HPA will take that over. Do we not need to ensure that those organisations are interlocked? What better way to achieve that than to offer the HPA a non-executive role on the board of the Wales centre for health, so that there is a genuine voice for our scientists and technical experts in the arena where communication and training will be formulated and delivered?

That is the objective of our first amendment. I hope that the Minister gives it due consideration, but, if he feels unable to adopt such an approach, will he none the less consider the direction in which we are attempting to steer him? Will he also consider how to ensure strong linkage between the two, and ensure that the scientists have a strong voice in the work of the Wales centre for health in shaping communication and training?

Our second amendment is designed to formalise a duty of partnership, especially as organisations will be going through difficult changes. It is all too easy for them to miss out working together and to focus on internal issues rather than ensuring that they work in the partnerships that we all need for the future. Our proposal is designed to ensure that there would be a duty on them to do so. It would provide direction for them and act as a reminder from Parliament that the nation needs them to operate in tandem.

The issue does not simply involve security, although at this time security must be a paramount consideration. If there is a chemical or a biological risk, we must ensure that information and training flows right the way through our health services, quickly and effectively, and on to the public as and when they need it. However, the PHLS has played an active and important role in other areas, which, in future, will be played by the HPA. Examples are disseminating information on the spread of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in our hospitals—hospital-related infections and how they can be tackled—and providing information on winter vomiting disease, which is at the forefront of consideration in the health world, as well as other diseases that may be isolated, such as Legionnaire's disease. They may, like a flu epidemic, spread much more widely.

The information that the HPA produces will be of paramount importance to medical practitioners and patients alike. We are asking the Minister to create a duty of care on the Wales centre for health that says, "You're not simply there to serve the people of Wales. You're also there to be part of a partnership within the United Kingdom to ensure that we provide proper and effective information across our borders, throughout our nation and to all our people." We are one United Kingdom. The Bill is creating institutions that will serve the people of Wales. They must do that not in isolation, but in partnership with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK and organisations with a remit for the whole UK. The amendments are designed to suggest simple structures and duties that would enable them to do that—indeed, would ensure that they did it. They are designed to convey a sense of direction to the organisations. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to our ambitions, and that, if he is not willing to accept the amendments in their present form, he will ensure that the partnership we need—in the context of communicable diseases, but particularly in the context of security issues—between our scientists and our information providers is strong, effective and structured.

I know that amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and it raises important issues, but I think both amendments should be resisted, because I feel that requiring a place on the board to be given to the Wales centre for health is too prescriptive at this stage. I feel that the Assembly should have maximum flexibility to decide which organisations should have places.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, with typical courtesy. Surely she recognises, however, that a terrorist chemical or biological weapons threat would require a national lead from central Government? Does she not agree that if any subject under the sun requires such a lead, it is that subject?

The hon. Gentleman is making important points sincerely, but I do not think that the Welsh body we are creating should be compelled to liaise with another body. Moreover, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the arrangements in Wales differ from those in England. The Assembly will retain some responsibility for emergency planning.

The hon. Lady does not think that the special health authority for England and Wales should have a representative on the board of the Wales centre for health. Does she think that the board of the Wales centre for health should have a specific and designated representative on the special health authority for England and Wales?

I do not think that that should be decided here. I think it should be decided by the Wales centre for health.

I welcome the tone of these Conservative amendments more than that of those tabled in Committee, because they show enthusiasm for working together rather than pulling apart. In my view and that of my party, devolution is not about separation and isolation but about maximising the contribution that each nation—such as Wales or Scotland—and each English region can make to the whole. But the arguments of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in Committee often depended on a worst-case scenario, and I feel that the case he has advanced today for an English appointee does the same.

The hon. Gentleman knows, surely, that the health protection agency will cover England and Wales. There is no reason to assume that the HPA representative on the board must be English, as Welsh people will of course be involved in the organisation. This is much more about solidifying the links between the organisations than about trying to involve England in Wales.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think any of us thought, on first seeing the Bill, that the primary purpose of the Wales centre for health would be to deal with terrorist threats—although of course I accept that terrorism is now a key issue, which we should all address. I feel that using a worst-case scenario as a basis for legislation will so constrain the nature of that legislation that it will be unsympathetic to devolution, and the right of the Welsh people and the Welsh Assembly to look after their own affairs.

Although I welcome the tone of the amendments and accept the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, I do not think the hon. Gentleman's aims will necessarily be achieved by changes in the legislation. They could, I think, be achieved by good practice and the building up of partnerships that would work in actuality rather than on the pages of a Bill.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said that these were probing amendments. Amendment No. 2 would insert the words

"The Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency shall have a place on the Board of the Wales Centre for Health".

The special health authority, of course, does not yet exist. We intend to set it up in April 2003, using secondary legislation under section 11 of the National Health Service Act 1977, as an interim step pending the establishment of the health protection agency. We intend it to be a non-departmental public body, although that will depend on the availability of legislative time.

It would be inappropriate to give a body that does not exist, and will in any case cease to exist as soon as the HPA is established, a place on the board of the Wales centre for health, or to require the centre to co-ordinate its activities with those of such a body. Surely giving the centre a duty to co-ordinate its activities with the recommendations of the interim body, or those of the HPA when it is established, would be incompatible with a requirement to ensure its independence.

The outcome of the pre-legislative scrutiny supported our intention that the centre should act independently, as Conservative Members pointed out in Committee. It could not act independently if required to co-ordinate its activities with the recommendations of the HPA. There would be no equivalent requirement for the HPA to co-ordinate its activities with those of the centre. It would also be inconsistent to require the centre to co-ordinate its activities with those of a body outside Wales, in the absence of a similar duty for it to co-ordinate its activities with those of relevant public sector bodies in Wales. And why should the HPA have a right to representation on the board of the Wales centre when bodies in Wales will have no such right?

The Assembly intends members of the centre to be appointed on the basis of their expertise and experience, and to be drawn from the statutory, voluntary and academic sectors in Wales. Amendment No. 2 runs counter to that intention. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) that it would introduce a prescriptive and inflexible approach to a detailed issue. We intend the Assembly to determine the matter, under schedule 2(10)(a). I can reassure Members, however, that the Wales centre for health will not duplicate the expertise that the HPA will provide in Wales.

I do not think that people are worried about the Welsh body duplicating the work of the national body. What worries them, I think, is the possibility that the Welsh body will not consider the role of the national body sufficiently. It is, surely, a crucial defence role, albeit a civil and domestic defence role. It makes no more sense for the Welsh Assembly to consider the work of a body with a national defence role of that sort than for it to consider other important aspects of defence policy and say, "These should be a matter for us". Surely the Minister can see that we are discussing an overall national danger, and that national defence measures are therefore required.

I hope that the remarks that I am about to make will reassure the hon. Gentleman so far as that point is concerned. We need to distinguish between the roles of the Wales centre for health and of the health protection agency. The HPA will bring together specialist expertise at a UK level against microbiologicial, chemical and radiological hazards, and terrorist threats. The WCH is in support of public health in Wales, so the two bodies have two distinct roles.

The time to discuss the relationship of the HPA with other bodies, including those in Wales, will come when the proposals for establishing it appear before this House. The functions of the HPA in Wales will be fully explained at that time, but if it helps hon. Members I can say now that we do not intend the functions of the HPA in Wales to include all those that it will have in England. As I said, it is intended that, once established, the HPA will provide services and expertise in areas of microbiological, radiological and chemical hazards. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in respect of the point that he made in his opening remarks.

If there were evidence of a biological attack in this country and of the possible spread of a communicable disease, would the WCH have any role in providing the public with information about that disease?

I do not think that we want the legislation to prevent the WCH from providing any information to any national body such as the HPA, if that were thought appropriate. I see no reason why the WCH should not do that if it has something to contribute, but we need to understand the two separate roles of the HPA and the WCH.

We are getting to the heart of the matter. The Minister is saying that the WCH would not be prohibited from contributing, but the amendment would ensure that the WCH could contribute, make useful statements and enable important measures to be taken in the event of a terrible attack of this sort. He is not really reassuring us that, without the representation for which the amendment argues, the new body in Wales will be able to take effective action in the event of a terrorist attack.

Perhaps I should again make it clear that the bodies have two separate roles. The HPA will bring together specialist expertise at a UK level against microbiological, chemical and radiological hazards and terrorist threats. The WCH is in support of public health in Wales. I cannot see for the life of me how putting a representative on the board of the WCH would in any way guarantee that any information that WCH wanted to contribute would automatically be contributed. I have no doubt that, if the WCH wanted to make a contribution, it would be able to do so through proper collaboration—which will come—between the two bodies.

As I said, the functions of the HPA in Wales will be fully explained when we present that information to the House. When it is established, it is intended that the HPA will provide services and expertise across the range of hazards that I have described: microbiological, radiological, chemical and so on. This information is currently—

There seems little doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I are inadvertently proving to be pestilential nuisances to the Minister, but I am bound to tell him that that is part of our parliamentary responsibility. In answering my hon. Friend a moment ago, the Minister said that the presence of a representative of the special health authority for England and Wales on the board of the WCH would not change the balance of powers, and that is accepted. However, I put it to him in all fairness that the presence of such a representative might usefully serve the purpose of sensitising the WCH to the importance of its communications responsibilities in circumstances of the kind that my hon. Friend has helpfully outlined.

Perhaps we will discuss communications when we debate the next group of amendments. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's party is trying to prevent such communications in tabling those amendments, so perhaps we should leave that issue until we have that debate.

The work that the HPA will carry out in the areas I have mentioned is currently undertaken by the board of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Radiological Protection Board and the national focus for chemical incidents. However, field services that the HPA will provide in England—health protection functions that are provided by consultants in communicable disease control—will be provided by the national public health service in Wales. Emergency planning in Wales will remain the responsibility of the National Assembly. So because the functions of the HPA will be different in Wales, it is essential that arrangements for co-ordination with bodies that provide these services in Wales are sufficiently flexible. The HPA will need arrangements with a range of public health bodies, and as I have already said, it cannot achieve this simply by having a place on the board of the WCH.

The HPA will need to have relationships with the national public health service and the Assembly in order to carry out its functions. Those relationships will be most appropriately set out in agreements, which will come when we introduce proposals for the HPA. Settling these relationships by agreement, rather than introducing inflexible duties in the manner of the amendment, will provide the flexibility to meet changing circumstances and to make organisational arrangements, which will be put in place when necessary.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that these are probing amendments, and I hope that I have managed to deal with the points that he and his hon. Friends raised.

rose—

I am not at all concerned by the hon. Gentleman's rising; each time, I swat away such contributions like flies.

I have to say that that was not the Minister at his best—I know that he can do better. He has not addressed what is a pretty important issue at the moment, and it is clear that he was reading the brief prepared for him earlier. His response concerned the technical issues, rather than the actual ambition of protecting the people of Wales. He said that the HPA will be formed from 1 April, but I should remind him that that is two and a half months away. If the Government are incapable of synchronising a sensible measure in this Bill with one that will be in place by 1 April, they are even less competent than I thought. The Minister talked about legislation that will eventually be put in place to set up the HPA, but the reality is that there is no guarantee whatsoever about when that will happen. A loose and vague promise for the eventual introduction of a formal measure has been made, subject to the legislative timetable.

The Minister also talked about the independence of the WCH, but I do not believe that it can act in isolation on this issue. If I am not mistaken, we are still one United Kingdom, facing the threat of terrorism and disease. Wales is not becoming an independent country through devolution; we are working together and we need to work together. This issue needs to be about partnership, and to be frank I found the Minister's reference to not wanting Welsh bodies to have a duty to work with English bodies rather reprehensible.

The key issue behind the amendment—

I did not in any way suggest that those bodies should not work together; I said that if the WCH had any contribution to make to the HPA, it would obviously want to do so and should be allowed to do so.