If he will make a statement on progress on reducing waiting lists and times in the NHS. [90191]

Waiting lists and waiting times are falling. Waiting lists for primary care and hospitals have fallen, and waiting for in-patient and out-patient appointments has reduced. The biggest reduction in waiting times is that for cancer and heart treatment.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, within five years of coming to power, the Labour Government failed to reduce waiting lists by the promised 100,000, which was only a reduction of less than 10 per cent? Waiting times are more important than waiting lists. The right hon. Gentleman set a benchmark of reducing waiting time to a maximum of six months by 2005. Does he accept that he failed to achieve the benchmark of a maximum waiting time of 15 months by March this year?

With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused. We promised at the time of the general election that we would reduce waiting lists by 100,000 and we have achieved that. It might benefit hon. Members if I read out the figures. In March 1997, 283,000 people waited more than six months for a hospital operation. That figure is down to 230,000. In March 1997, almost 6,000 people waited more than 15 months for a hospital operation; the latest figures show that six people are waiting that length of time.

More than 70,000 people were waiting more than 26 weeks for an out-patient appointment when we came to office; that figure is down to 700. There is a long way to go but waiting times and waiting lists are moving in the right direction for one simple reason: our reforms of the national health service and the resources for which we voted and against which the hon. Gentleman voted.

The NHS in my constituency is going from strength to strength according to every indicator except one: that for drug treatment services. Will my right hon. Friend examine the returns on waiting lists that the drug action team for Nottinghamshire provides for my constituency and the rest of the county, and work out why I know people on 12-month waiting lists when the team's results imply a maximum wait of 12 weeks? Will my right hon. Friend consider the specific cases, the details of which I can provide to him, and the way in which the waiting lists for drug treatment services are being fiddled?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I appreciate that he takes a passionate interest in issues that involve drugs, such as drug-related crime and drugs treatment. I understand that he mentioned some of them in yesterday's debate. Progress has been made, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the performance of drug action teams varies throughout the country. Some are good and some are unfortunately less good.

When effort has been focused, especially on areas with high street crime, waiting times for treatment have changed remarkably. In some cases, people who obviously needed drug treatment were arrested, but told that they would have to wait many months before they received such treatment. Nowadays, people in high street-crime areas receive treatment almost instantaneously. If we can do it in some areas, we must do it in others. That requires a combination of national and local action.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing concern about fiddling waiting list figures? I refer not only to the National Audit Office findings of more cases of fiddling but the scandal at St. George's hospital, where it appears that some figures were fiddled. Will he assure us that he is confident that clinical priorities are not being distorted by his obsession with waiting times and waiting lists, and that we are treating the sickest thickest—I mean the sickest quickest? Will he also assure us that he has confidence in the figures on which he relies to demonstrate the claimed improvements in waiting times?

Obviously the hon. Gentleman spent too long in front of the mirror this morning. He claims that the Government are obsessed with waiting times, but it is the public and patients who are rightly obsessed with them. As he knows fine well, by and large the biggest public concern about the national health service today is not the quality of treatment received once people get into the NHS, but how long they have to wait to get into it. We believe passionately that the right way forward is to get the reforms into the national health service—I know that the hon. Gentleman opposes all of them—and to get the resources in as well, so that we can bring down waiting times. Of course, nowadays there is more independent scrutiny of the NHS than there has ever been.

The reforms are certainly working for us in Doncaster. Of those waiting for treatment for less than six months, nationally the figure is 76 per cent., but in Doncaster it is 88 per cent., which is obviously good. Nationally, 76 per cent. of those waiting for GP referrals are seen within 13 weeks, but in Doncaster the figure is 86 per cent., so the reforms are working. Where there is a will, there is a way. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the doctors, nurses and management in Doncaster, who are doing an excellent job?

My hon. Friend is quite right, and what he says is true not just in Doncaster. I join him in paying tribute to the Herculean effort on the part of staff and management in Doncaster, but although major problems still exist across the national health service—unsurprisingly so, after literally decades of underinvestment—it is very striking that, for the first time since records began, in-patient and out-patient waiting times are falling, and falling together. The same is true in primary care, and also according to virtually every indicator. What gives me particular pleasure—I know that my hon. Friend will feel the same, particularly since he comes from an area that suffers not just from deprivation but from a high incidence of coronary heart disease—is that the biggest falls in treatment have been in precisely those clinical priority areas of cancer and heart disease.

It is worth saying that when we came to office, heart patients were in some cases being asked to wait more than 18 months for hospital operations. By April of this year, we expect such waiting times to have been halved to a maximum of nine months. There is clearly a long way to go, but the only way to keep the waiting times moving in the right direction—downwards—is to keep on with the reforms, and, most importantly, to keep the resources going in. That is what the Government want to do, and what the Opposition oppose.

What estimate has been made of the number of casualties that the NHS could deal with if there is war in the Gulf, and the number of staff who could be sent there without significantly affecting current levels of NHS activity and, thereby, waiting times?

We obviously have not made estimates of the number of potential casualties, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told this House just a week or so ago, we have put in place contingency plans. That is sensible, particularly in the first instance for the call up of reservists. This will affect many NHS hospitals throughout the country, but I expect that, on average, the impact will be limited to two or three members of staff being called up. Sometimes they will be doctors, sometimes they will be nurses, and sometimes they will be allied health professionals such as therapists. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, last week a meeting was held in the Department of Health with six of the principal NHS and other hospitals that would be used to deal with casualties in the event of a conflict.

Last July, the armed forces said that they had only 195 GPs when 415 were needed, only 23 anaesthetists when 120 were needed, only 11 orthopaedic surgeons when 28 were needed, and only 18 general surgeons when 43 were needed. The whole House will undoubtedly agree that all our troops should have optimal treatment. If we are talking about a deployment of more than 20,000, how will the extra numbers be made up in those areas without having a very significant impact? Of course, that could cause great difficulty to the NHS.

Perhaps uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is being something of a merchant of doom and gloom. The reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made that statement in the House—I very much support what he said—was precisely that the national health service has to plan for all contingencies. The House—and, I dare say, Opposition Front Benchers—would be the first to criticise the Government were we not to put in place suitable contingency plans. That is precisely what we have done, in the first instance with reservists. If it is necessary to supplement the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made to the House, we will take any further action that needs to be taken. However, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have taken this tack. It is worth pointing out that the Government who cut the defence medical services in our armed forces were not this Labour Government, but the previous Conservative Government.

If he intends to ensure that foundation hospitals are treated equally with non-foundation hospitals when strategic health authorities are considering hospital re-organisation. [90192]

If he will make a statement on financial independence for foundation hospital trusts. [90199]

If he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the likely effect that foundation hospitals will have on staff retention in non-foundation hospitals. [90200]

National health service foundation trusts will provide NHS services to NHS patients according to NHS principles and NHS standards. They will be owned and controlled locally, not nationally, by members of the public in the local community, and by local staff, patients and local primary care trusts. The freedom that they will have to improve services for NHS patients and meet local needs will be balanced with safeguards to ensure that their primary duty to NHS patients is always met.

I understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to achieve with foundation hospitals, and I support him in that. However, when schools were given grant-maintained status, many started competing against other schools instead of co-operating with them. I need to be reassured that that will not happen with foundation hospitals. If a strategic health authority that includes two trusts decides to localise services in one to create a centre of excellence, will the other trust accept that, and will the two trusts co-operate and work together? Will my right hon. Friend give me that assurance?

Yes, I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Foundation hospitals will be part of the NHS. They will operate under a statutory duty of partnership, and we will introduce legislation to ensure that they will have the freedoms necessary to empower front-line staff and managers to shape local services to meet the local community's needs. With the best will in the world, that cannot be done from Whitehall, but those freedoms need to be balanced by significant safeguards. Our intention is definitely not to reinvent the dog-eat-dog competition that prevailed under the previous internal market. That is why so much effort is being made across the NHS to ensure that NHS standards are good in all hospitals and not just in some. As far as questions of so-called reconfiguration or service change are concerned, any NHS foundation hospital that wants to propose a service change will have to go through precisely the same process of scrutiny as any other NHS hospital. That process will involve the oversight and scrutiny committee of the local authority. That democratically elected committee will provide a significant safeguard and ensure that it is the interests of the local community, and not the vested interests of any one organisation, that come first.

I shall stick with Question 11, Mr. Speaker, which the Secretary of State has not begun even to address. He has merely lumped three questions together and answered them according to a query that he has imagined. Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely how much the foundation hospitals will be able to borrow from the private sector?

Keep taking the tablets.

I do not want to incur any more expense for the NHS, but the hon. Gentleman is in scary creature mode today, as he often is. His specific question concerns how much NHS foundation trusts will be able to borrow. That will be determined by each individual trust, against a prudential code that the independent regulator will have the duty of monitoring. The borrowing will be based on one simple principle, with which most people—as individuals and members of organisations—are fully acquainted. That principle is that borrowing should be based on ability to repay. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Government would want NHS foundation hospitals to overstretch themselves in such a way that local services were lost to local communities.

My right hon. Friend will know that there is much concern among Labour Members about the proposed introduction of NHS foundation hospitals. Many of us believe that that could lead to a two-tier health service. Will my right hon. Friend give me the assurance that one-star and two-star hospitals will be raised in a very short time to the standards of foundation hospitals, and that they will be allowed to join the foundation scheme as soon as possible?

I can give precisely that assurance. I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I know that my hon. Friend is not saying such things, but all the talk suggesting that what we envisage is a group of half a dozen or a dozen elite hospitals is entirely removed from the truth. In fact, we want as many NHS hospitals—as many NHS trusts—as possible to become NHS foundation trusts, as quickly as possible. But we must start somewhere, and, as my hon. Friend knows from his constituency, there are now different starting points in the NHS.

Some hospitals are performing very well, some are producing a middling performance and a few, sadly, are persistently underperforming. We need different approaches and different strategies to deal with the different starting points. Some hospitals can benefit from more freedom, many need more support, and a few need not less but more intervention. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about that many times in the context of his local hospital. There will, however, be no arbitrary cap on numbers.

I hope my hon. Friend is also comforted by the fact that 75 per cent. of NHS trusts that were given a zero rating in our first round of star ratings had improved by the following year. Twenty-five per cent. had become two-star trusts, and I expect that before long some will have become three-star trusts.

How can foundation hospitals be truly independent from Whitehall control, as the Secretary of State keeps claiming they will, when they will be subject to a star-rating system that is imposed on all hospitals by the Department of Health?

For the simple reason that they will be owned and controlled locally, not nationally. They will be owned by members of the local community—not by me, not by any other Minister, and not by Whitehall.

What the hon. Gentleman's question reveals all too starkly is the fundamental difference of view on this. The Tories want foundation hospitals—

Order. Every time the Secretary of State has got to his feet he has told me what the Tories want. I do not want to hear any more about that. I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say for himself.

There have been some mischievous suggestions that the governance proposals for foundation trusts are being included as a sweetener for people like me who have some reservations about the concept of such trusts. To prove that that is not so, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the concept of these governance proposals to other elements of the NHS?

In time, we will. The guide that we published on 11 December makes that absolutely clear.

The proposals are certainly not a sweetener. The governance structure and the ownership structure of these organisations, and their independence, are intimately related.

Order. Face Mr. Speaker.

I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had taken over your role, Mr. Speaker. Heaven help us if he does. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would like to pass his pills to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Perhaps then we will hear a bit of sense.

I was talking about the independence and the governance of foundation hospitals. We want to use our current model because whatever the great strengths of the NHS—and it has enormous strengths: its staff, its public service ethos and some of the advances it has achieved in public health—what cannot be done with the best will in the world is matching local services to local needs if these organisations are run from Whitehall. They must be run by members of the local community and local staff so that they can shape local services in accordance with communities' differing needs.

I hope the Secretary of State agrees that if the House is to be reassured about foundation hospitals it is essential for us to have confidence in the views expressed by those who work in the NHS. Is he concerned about the climate described by the Institute of Healthcare Management? It says that

"Over half of the managers…from board level down to heads of departments, felt unable to raise concerns about the Service, or their own organisation, for fear of recrimination".

What does he intend to do about that climate, and who or what does he think those managers are afraid of?

I think we should give more independence and greater freedom to NHS organisations that are capable of using it.

If he will make a statement about the reform of consultant contracts. [90193]

Following the ballot of British Medical Association members in October, we are carefully considering the options in relation to the best way forward and will make an announcement shortly.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to resist and overcome the opposition of consultants to the reform of their contracts? Constituents who need an orthopaedic operation feel deeply frustrated when they find out that they could have it done in the next couple of weeks by the same surgeon at the same hospital. The situation is so intolerable at the Royal Gwent hospital where my constituents go that the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales, Jane Hutt, has set up an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that those consultants who are dedicated to working full time for the national health service are rewarded for that? We should not have a two-tier system.

I agree strongly with hon. Friend. It is important to make it clear that no one has a veto on reform in the national health service. It is our job to find the best way to proceed with the reforms that we wanted to make. Our objective, however, is clear and it remains the same—to better reward NHS consultants who do the most for NHS patients. As I said, we will be making an announcement shortly about the way forward.

On my hon. Friend's specific point about private practice, he will remember from the agreement that we negotiated with the BMA last year that we proposed a way forward for dealing with the perceived conflict between NHS practice and private practice. The need for clarity around the relationship between private practice and NHS practice remains the same, and we will be saying something about this in the near future.

The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) has raised an important point. While we have to give full credit to the overwhelming majority of consultants for their skill, dedication and commitment, is it not important that any contract should encourage a consultant to carry out as many operations as possible within the national health service in accordance with safety, hygiene and all other considerations that are important when using theatres? Will the Minister give me an assurance that that objective will lie behind any decision that the Government take?

Yes.

Dr. Paul Miller, the new BMA consultant negotiator, has today called for a resumption of national contract talks, saying that the consultants

"are becoming increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change…The Government is quick to claim credit for reductions in the longest patient waits but slower to acknowledge that the long waits have simply moved further down the system, with more patients waiting between six and 12 months for treatment."

How can the Government hope to gain the trust of the consultants when they are responsible for this sort of systemic distortion?

I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's latter point. It is no coincidence that waiting times are falling across the national health service, because we have set clear national standards for the first time. We have pursued those with vigour and energy, and patients have been the beneficiaries.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course the doors of the Department of Health remain open to the BMA, and we look forward to the discussions to which he has referred.

I have in front of me a letter from a consultant who says that he voted in favour of the reforms. He goes on to explain that as specialists in one of the smaller trusts, he and his colleagues are becoming increasingly frustrated with our region's attempt to rejuggle the management of some of the smaller trusts. As we need to build on the trust of good consultants such as my constituent, will my right hon. Friend look closely at what the north-west region is doing in terms of mergers of small specialist trusts, which are the jewels in the crown of the local service?

Yes, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; He is more than welcome to discuss any detailed concerns or issues with me.

What discussions he has had with primary care trusts regarding improved access to NHS dental services. [90194]

What steps he has taken to improve the availability of dental treatment on the NHS. [90196]

What plans he has to increase the provision of NHS dentistry. [90201]

The Government are committed to providing NHS dentistry for all who need and seek it. In addition to the annual general dental services budget, more than £125 million has been made available to the NHS to improve local services over the past three years.

Despite the increase of nearly 2,000 dentists since 1997, we recognise that in some areas it can be difficult to find an NHS dentist. We therefore propose to legislate for far-reaching reform of NHS dental services.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust supported a bid, made under one of his Department's initiatives, for an improved NHS dental service in east Lancashire, but that the bid failed? Does he recognise that people in Burnley cannot get on to NHS dentists' lists? There is much poverty, as a result of which people cannot afford private treatment, and dental health in east Lancashire is poor. We want the Government to take action to solve those problems; people are paying for NHS dental services, but they are not able to get them.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course the Department recognises the issues relating to poor dental health in Burnley. That is why Burnley has benefited from a number of other pilots, including dental access centres. Burnley has also received a substantial increase in its primary care allocation, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced shortly before Christmas. That, too, will improve dental access in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I am glad that the Minister has a strategy for improving access to NHS dental services, as the problem is also present in my constituency, even though it is a reasonably affluent one. Recently, a Garforth constituent gave me a letter that he had received from his dental practice, informing him that it was going private. Two things disturbed me about the letter. There was a strong implication, first, that unless my constituent signed up for a dental care plan, the practice could not guarantee treatment; and, secondly, that NHS dental care was of lower quality and that inferior materials and techniques were used. What is my hon. Friend's comment on that letter?

I am very concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says. If he passes the letter to me, I shall ask Department officials to look into it.

NHS dentistry is overseen by a quality assurance system, as my hon. Friend would expect, and the dental reference service undertakes 55,000 random checks on dentists across the country.

Many NHS dentists feel strongly about fluoridation. What is the Government's current policy, following the Medical Research Council report that built on work carried out by the university of York?

My hon. Friend will understand that the subject is controversial, but the MRC supported the benefits of fluoridation in improving health inequalities, especially for children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief medical officer and the chief dental officer to look further into the issue.

Will the Minister give me his definition of access? Does it include, for instance, the five to six-hour journey by public transport to fulfil an appointment that is often experienced by my constituents in south-east Cornwall?

The hon. Gentleman has, I know, been concerned about a case in his constituency that arose over Christmas. It is important that people ringing NHS Direct have access to a dentist within a reasonable distance. We must continue to strive to ensure that there is investment to improve dental access in the hon. Gentleman's area—as in others.

Is the Minister aware that in many rural areas—Sleaford in Lincolnshire, for example—it is almost impossible for individuals to register for an NHS dentist? The primary care trusts say that they face great difficulties in attracting dentists to rural areas, and to Lincolnshire in particular. Will he, in concert with the working group, see what can be done to attract dentists to rural areas, and to Lincolnshire in particular?

Of course I am concerned about dental access in Sleaford and I am tremendously concerned about why we arrived at this position in the first place. The then Administration introduced a contract in 1990, but there was a 7 per cent. cut in 1992. The Conservative party currently supports a 20 per cent. cut, which would make things worse for the people of Sleaford. We have 17 dental access centres in rural areas and investment is being made to improve access. That will benefit the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents.

Is the Minister aware that a mother in Freshwater in the west of my constituency cannot access an NHS dental practice unless she travels to Southsea, which involves public transport by way of bus, train and ferry? Does he recall the Prime Minister making a promise at the Labour party conference in 1999 that everyone should have access to an NHS dentist within two years? Why has the Prime Minister broken that promise?

The Prime Minister has not broken his promise. We remain committed to that investment. We will improve access by enacting legislation that will propose local commissioning for primary care trusts. Will the hon. Gentleman vote with us on that measure, or will he propose a 20 per cent. cut?

Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the need for extra funding for primary care trusts, such as the one in Calderdale, that cover large semi-rural areas and face specific problems? There are pockets of need where access to dental care is not available. Those areas do not qualify for extra funding under the current arrangements because they are pockets rather than larger areas of specific need. The Government could help such areas by carefully considering their special needs.

My hon. Friend will know of the recent announcement on allocations; Calderdale will certainly have benefited from an increase. As I have explained, the legislation will enable her primary care trust to ensure better local commissioning and to provide better access for her constituents.

What his estimate is of the waiting time for MRI scans in the Yeovil constituency. [90195]

I am advised by Dorset and Somerset strategic health authority that both East Somerset NHS trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS trust are currently meeting the target for urgent referrals for MRI scans as set by the NHS cancer plan. Waiting times for non-urgent MRI scans have fallen significantly at East Somerset NHS trust, although waiting times for non-urgent MRI scans at Taunton and Somerset NHS trust have risen in recent months.

Is the Minister not aware that waiting times for MRI scans at Yeovil hospital are longer than they were in 1997, and that at Musgrove Park hospital they are now 38 weeks? Are not some of the longest waiting times in the NHS for diagnostic tests and for consultant-to-consultant referrals? Would it not be better for the Government to publish the information nationally so that we do not have a distortion in priorities across the NHS?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that waiting times at Yeovil hospital, which serves his constituents, have been coming down recently. It is also due to get a new scanner in May, which will make the process even faster. It may be able to help out with waiting lists at Musgrove Park hospital, which has problems with non-urgent MRI scan waiting times, although it has just appointed two new radiographers and extended the working day from 8 o'clock in the morning to 8 o'clock at night. In addition, people are working on Saturday mornings. The combination of extra investment and reform to working practices is beginning to make a difference on this very important issue.

What new proposals he has to reduce nicotine deaths. [90197]

Some 120,000 people die every year from smoking. Forthcoming changes that will reduce deaths include banning tobacco advertising, starting with newspapers and billboards from 14 February, new stark warnings on cigarette packets and a major expansion of NHS smoking cessation services.

The Government are to be warmly congratulated on their work on this issue, but is it not amazing that over the past 20 years the number of male cancers in Sweden has been cut in half and that smoking among men has gone down from 36 per cent. to 17 per cent.? Last month, the Royal College of Physicians said that using smokeless tobacco is up to 1,000 times less hazardous than using smoking tobacco. Is it not right that the product that has achieved that remarkable health improvement should now be taken off the banned list and become available in some form in countries outside Sweden? Unfortunately, the Government have said that setting up a regulatory authority to consider all those matters is not planned at the moment. When is that likely to be done, enabling us to take a rational look at all forms of smoking?

I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that smokeless tobacco should be encouraged. All tobacco products are addictive, and it is much better to take our approach—helping people to give up smoking entirely, with Zyban and nicotine replacement therapy—and to see how that works. I am afraid that we do not have a history of oral tobacco use, as people have in Sweden. The Swedish National Institute of Public Health does not support the use of Snus as a smoking cessation product because it is very concerned indeed that it could become a gateway to tobacco use, particularly for young people, at whom it is specifically marketed. Far from helping people to give up, it could increase the number, especially of young people, who use tobacco. It is a very interesting debate—I am sure that it will continue—but I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this issue.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating South East Hertfordshire primary care trust, together with local GPs, pharmacists, practice nurses and the Hertfordshire stop smoking groups, on the excellent work that they are doing in my constituency to help my constituents to give up smoking? Although we still have three months to go, the primary care trust has already exceeded its 2002–03 Government target, with more than 200 people having given up smoking. Will the Minister please tell the House what action she is taking to put pressure on Ministers in other Departments to tackle the very serious problem of tobacco and cigarette smuggling, which has a serious impact on the issue that we are trying to address and which, of course, she particularly wishes to solve?

I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in congratulating all the people in her local area on the magnificent results that they have achieved. Those results are replicated throughout the country. More than 200,000 people are now being helped to give up smoking, and we are aiming for an extra 800,000 over the next three years. We are putting in the money to ensure that that can happen, because it requires extra resources as well.

On cross-government action to reduce smuggling, we are in constant contact with Treasury Ministers to ensure that we bear down on the problem. We have a cross-government action plan to tackle not just smoking but all the damaging effects of tobacco on our community. We have a whole range of policies in the Treasury, the Department of Health and, particularly, the Department for Education and Skills, and we are doing a great deal of work to alert young people in schools to the dangers of tobacco and, indeed, of other drugs.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on tobacco, particularly in relation to tobacco advertising. The next huge timebomb that we face in health is obesity in children. Is she prepared to consider as part of a strategy limiting the advertising to young people of products high in fat, sugar and salt, which cause such huge damage to our young population?

My hon. Friend highlights an extremely important issue, which is almost a timebomb waiting to hit us in years to come. He will know that the Government have a huge range of policies to improve people's diet and nutrition: the national school fruit scheme, the five-a-day projects and a range of plans to encourage people to have access to a healthier diet. He raises the important issue of advertising to young people. The Food Standards Agency is conducting a research project to examine the effects of advertising foods high in sugar and salt to young children. I shall read its report with great interest to see what action we can take to improve the diets of young people in this country.

What estimate he has made of the number and proportion of missed appointments with general practitioners in each of the last five years. [90198]

Information is not available for each of the last five years. Surveys conducted over the past two years by the Doctor Patient Partnership and the Institute of Healthcare Management, with funding from the Department of Health, have shown a reduction in the number of missed appointments of more than 8 per cent. during that period.

I am grateful for that answer. Given that people who miss their general practitioner appointments without good reason cause unnecessary cost to public funds, waste doctors' time and selfishly inconvenience other patients, does the Minister agree that, although people should always be free to use their GP, they should certainly not be free to abuse their GP?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point, and I also agree with his views on the Conservative party, which we have all enjoyed reading. He raises a serious point, so he is entitled to a serious answer. He is right that the waste of resources caused by people who do not bother to turn up for appointments is a huge drain on the NHS; we are trying to find the best way to make sure that we minimise the incidence of the problem. As he will be aware, a number of GP practices in Buckinghamshire are taking part in the work of the primary care collaborative, including some, I think, in his constituency. We have found that improving the appointments system that practices operate can have a beneficial effect on the number of missed appointments. I am glad to say that, so far, the introduction of better appointments systems through the primary care collaborative has seen the national average of missed appointments fall by 50 per cent. That is the right way to proceed.

Everyone would agree that missing an appointment with a doctor or at a hospital requires good reasons. I urge my hon. Friend, however, to do further work to examine why people do not attend appointments. Too often, statistics are produced showing that X per cent. of people have not attended appointments, but we do not go on to ask why. We need to spread good practice in terms of having an efficient appointments system, but we must understand that people may not attend appointments for many good reasons. They may be fearful of seeing their doctor, or they may have got better, which is also worth knowing. We need more research in this area.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are committed to working with the Doctor Patient Partnership to examine some of the issues that she raises. We know, for example, that the incidence of missed appointments tends to be higher in mental health trusts than in other NHS organisations, probably for obvious reasons. We certainly need to examine the background, including access, transport and convenience issues. I say to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): it is important that we work with the primary care sector, GPs and practice managers to improve the convenience and accessibility of the appointments system. If people are given a genuine choice not only over the time at which they are seen but where they are seen, all the evidence confirms that they are more likely to attend their appointment than if they are given little choice.

What representations he has received about the impending closure of King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst. [90202]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, other Ministers and departmental officials have received a number of representations on the financial situation that has been developing at the privately run King Edward VII Hospital, particularly over the last few months. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend last week. Furthermore, the director of health and social care for the south of England met the hospital's chief executive and director of finance to explore what the NHS could do, and discussions continue with NHS officials.

Is the Minister aware that the hospital is not private but independent, with half its patients coming from the NHS? Will she urgently examine why 40 per cent. of NHS work has been withdrawn over the past few months, which is the immediate cause of the closure, and whether that work can be restored? Is she aware that the hospital's closure will create a dramatic increase in waiting times for orthopaedic and cardiac work in the area? Is not it absurd that people from the area are being sent abroad for treatment, especially for orthopaedic work, when they can be treated at less cost at the King Edward VII hospital?

As the hon. Gentleman says, the hospital is not an NHS hospital, but the NHS in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire has worked with it for a number of years and recognises its contribution to local NHS patient care, as well as to providing care for independent private patients. The NHS throughout the country, certainly in the areas that concern the hon. Gentleman, is planning for and funding increased capacity and activity. Its purpose is not to reduce it. It is in that context that detailed discussions are ongoing with both the hospital and the liquidators to maintain capacity, subject obviously to cost and quality considerations at the hospital.

I am aware that discussions have been going on with Ministers behind the scenes. I acknowledge the hard work and approaches of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the receptiveness of Ministers. We certainly hope that this outstanding not-for-profit hospital can survive its centenary year and continue as a centre of excellence, having looked after a majority of NHS patients over the past 50 years in cancer care, cardiac work and orthopaedics in particular.

As my hon. Friend says, is not it absurd that NHS patients are being sent abroad rather than up the road to a hospital that has state-of-the-art scanners, angioplasty equipment and its own intensive care unit? What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact on waiting times for NHS patients served by hospitals in Guildford, Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight and the whole of Sussex that previously relied on the centre, especially if the worst comes to the worst?

Serving the interests of NHS patients in that hospital and others in the area is, of course, the priority. That is why the NHS was willing to enter into partnership with private sector partners who were negotiating with the hospital and to undertake longterm contracts, given the necessary consideration of quality and price. That objective will continue to underlie the ongoing work with the liquidator. As I said, our priority remains to increase capacity and activity to ensure the very best services for NHS patients, wherever those are provided.

What steps he is taking to improve GPs' understanding of acupuncture, aromatherapy, herbal medicine and homeopathy. [90203]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being called to ask his question; it has relieved my hon. Friends of the guessing game of who will be on the happy receiving end of it.

In June 2000 we issued an information pack for primary care groups on the most commonly used therapies. We are currently co-funding with the King's Fund a project run by Westminster university to develop good practice in the clinical governance of complementary and alternative medicine, using a network of primary care trusts.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that with 20 per cent. of the population now using complementary therapies, the time has come to make doctors more aware and thereby ensure a better interface, which is what many doctors want? Does she accept that the problem is that the royal colleges and faculties are not issuing guidance or providing post-graduate courses for doctors, which goes against the recommendations in the Lords report, in particular recommendation 6.85, which says that the royal colleges should address the issue of familiarisation by

"supporting appropriate Continuing Professional Development opportunities"

for doctors? Will she assure us that she will consider the issue to determine whether it is appropriate to issue guidance to the royal colleges?

As the hon. Gentleman points out, many of the decisions are for the royal colleges to make, but the medical profession has recently added a mandatory requirement for complementary and alternative medicine familiarisation to the medical curriculum.

Alongside that, the network that I referred to earlier is important in helping to ensure that GPs and primary care trusts are confident about clinical governance issues concerning the use of complementary and alternative medicine. To support that process, Ministers recently agreed to provide additional funding to help to extend the network and to create an interactive website for participants, so that more people can understand what I know the hon. Gentleman strongly believes to be the benefits of such treatment.

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House urges the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to honour the clearly expressed preference of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland to retain a selection procedure for transfer to post-primary schools, thus limiting the damage flowing from the administrative vandalism of the former Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly; congratulates governors, principals, staff and pupils in Northern Ireland schools on achieving higher qualification levels at post-primary level than their counterparts in England and Wales; calls on the Government to maintain the levels of excellence achieved at so many schools while striving to enhance the performance and status of schools with a lesser level of achievement; regrets that too many able students from local grammar and secondary schools cannot obtain university places in Northern Ireland; calls for a change in household income thresholds to encourage higher uptake of discretionary awards; and urges the Government to honour its pledges to ensure a fair allocation of resources to education in Northern Ireland, including adequate research funding for Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Ulster.

The future well-being of our education system is critical to Northern Ireland's long-term success. We must have a well educated and well trained work force if we are to commend and promote Northern Ireland nationally and internationally as an ideal location for investment and job creation. That is why we believe that it is essential that these issues should be debated in full on the Floor of the House this afternoon.

One of the key issues that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland has inherited is the future structure of post-primary education. Unless this matter is handled very carefully, there is a real danger of doing irreparable harm to our education system and of undermining the good standards presently being achieved by pupils in Northern Ireland. Standards in Northern Ireland's schools—controlled, maintained, voluntary and integrated—are already high compared with other areas of the United Kingdom. According to the Northern Ireland annual abstract of statistics 2001—the most recent set of figures available—pupils in Northern Ireland continue to perform better than their counterparts in England at the higher qualification levels, with 57 per cent. of year 12 pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with 49 per cent. in England and Wales, and with 93 per cent. of final-year pupils gaining two or more A-levels, compared with 81 per cent. in England and 92 per cent. in Wales. Indeed, it is interesting to note that only 4 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieved no GCSEs, compared with 6 per cent. in England and 8 per cent. in Wales.

This issue has its genesis in the Burns report on post-primary education. One unfortunate legacy of that report is that the statement by the then Northern Ireland Education Minister that the present transfer test would be abolished by 2004 was made without any attempt to spell out alternative selection transfer procedures. We were therefore utterly amazed that one of the first acts of the present Minister with responsibility for education was to reiterate and support that statement of educational vandalism and malice. According to the Burns consultation report on post-primary education, only 30 per cent. of the 200,551 respondents to the household survey believed that academic selection should be ended, while 64 per cent. stated that academic selection should be retained in some form. A further 7 per cent. were undecided.

There is evidence that these trends run across the sectoral divide, and many Roman Catholic parents support academic selection. Indeed, one of the strongest advocates of academic selection is Monsignor Faul, a distinguished former head of a large Roman Catholic grammar school and a leading spokesman on community issues. Bearing these figures in mind, does the Minister still think it wise to press on with implementing proposals to abolish the 11-plus without a suitable and acceptable alternative transfer procedure being put in place? Would it not serve the educational needs of school children in Northern Ireland much better if we were to keep the current transfer system in place until such time as a final replacement system is found and agreed to? Any results from focus groups—which, at best, will be no more representative than a widespread survey of households into the future of post-primary education selection—cannot be allowed to overrule the democratic wishes of the people in an attempt to subvert democracy.

Representatives of the Ulster Unionist party met the Minister on 7 January and put forward the sensible recommendation that she should appoint an education advisory panel which could make recommendations to her on how a new transfer procedure could be put in place. At the meeting, the hope was expressed that she would act to create a new body that could be transparent, open, independent and capable of ending the chaos and uncertainty in education that has arisen out of the decision by the former Minister to abolish the 11-plus examination. There is concern as to whether the Department for Education and Skills could develop an alternative system in a truly impartial manner. An independent body could bridge the gap caused by the suspension of the devolved institutions. I ask the Minister to show her commitment to the future of post-primary education by adopting the suggestion for an education advisory panel.

We accept that there are problems with the present 11-plus transfer procedure. Indeed, we support its replacement, but only when a suitably worked out alternative has been put forward. We have our own alternative proposals based on informed parental choice and the use of pupil profiles, with the requirement for objective assessment. We want genuine choice, greater diversity and a greater emphasis on vocational and skills-based education. Diversity in the provision of post-primary education is to be encouraged, as long as it provides families with real choices and maintains high standards of education and opportunity. We must ensure that any change enables all our young people equally to maximise their individual potential, whatever their various personal abilities. Equality and diversity are central to our education system. I ask the Minister to look at the question of equality legislation in schools.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's background means that he takes a serious interest in education. How would his ideas on equality and access deal with the problem that only 8 per cent. of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in Northern Ireland are able to gain access to grammar schools? What are his proposals for tackling that obvious inequality in the current structure?

We need a clear definition of disadvantage. I am a member of a family of 12 children; I have six sisters and five brothers. My father worked in the shipyard and in the textile industry for a time. He also worked hard on a small farm to provide for his children. Was I disadvantaged? The education system in Northern Ireland afforded an opportunity to every member of my family and to many others who did not start off with a silver spoon. We were able to make our way and benefit from the excellent education in Northern Ireland.

Let me press my hon. Friend on what is meant by access. In my constituency, children are disadvantaged by their inability to access secondary education without undue expense for their parents. It is not simply a matter of grammar school children being disadvantaged; they get their fares paid if they live outwith the area.

I believe that every child in Northern Ireland has the opportunity to benefit, irrespective of family circumstances. We must perhaps do more to encourage the parents of children in households where there is no history of third-tier education. I try to do that in my constituency by encouraging the university of Ulster, which is the local university, to contact primary and secondary schools in East Antrim when there is no clear sign over time that children have moved through them and taken advantage of the excellent opportunities that further and higher education affords in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the previous question. The figures that an Ulster Unionist councillor gave me for his ward in north Belfast show that only 6 per cent. of children made it to grammar school. What does the hon. Gentleman propose for the other 94 per cent.?

As I said, we must encourage parents more. Many youngsters do not even enter the selection procedure. In parts of north Belfast, children traditionally grew up to believe that the greatest achievement for them and their families was gaining an apprenticeship with Short Brothers, the aircraft factory, with Mackie's foundry or in the shipyard. They had no higher expectation. However, many able pupils who stayed at school until they were 14 or left at 16 without qualifications have subsequently taken advantage of workers education courses and night classes to improve their skills and qualifications. They have continued through our university system as mature students. The process will take time, but we must focus on the group that has benefited least.

Is it not the case that 25 per cent. of the adult population of Northern Ireland are at the lowest literacy level? Does not the hon. Gentleman perceive a relationship between the selective system that has operated historically and the exceptionally poor achievement in literacy?

A few years ago, we were worried about the low achievement of a significant proportion of our school-age population. I am happy that that has been tackled and that steady improvement has occurred in the past three or four years. We hope that that will continue.

It is vital that an academic option be available to pupils for whom that path is appropriate in order to maintain and improve standards. It is equally important to develop a strong technological and vocational curriculum, which should have parity of esteem with the traditional academic path. If our schools are oversubscribed, they must be permitted to select pupils on ability. Every school should be helped to achieve academic, vocational and technological excellence.

We ask the Minister to be careful not to destroy the existing strengths of all our schools when making the changes that we agree are necessary to the detailed transfer arrangements. I should like her to assure us about that. We are happy to meet her and discuss the matter at any time.

We must congratulate school governors, principals, staff and pupils of Northern Ireland schools on maintaining high standards of educational achievement, especially given the external difficulties that they have faced in the past 30 or so years. I am referring not only to grammar schools. Many secondary schools provide excellent support services to pupils and assist them to achieve their full potential.

Any changes to our post-primary selection transfer system must acknowledge and protect the vital role of primary school teachers. We must continually try to raise the esteem in which teachers are held in our community and ensure that any new administrative burdens are kept to a minimum. An obvious improvement could be achieved by the Government's making a conscious effort to listen to teachers' voices as expressed through respected organisations such as the Ulster Teachers Union.

The union took the time and trouble to conduct a survey on stress. It also undertook a health and safety risk assessment for teachers. However, the Government ignored the results and the Department of Education decided to waste a great deal of taxpayers' money on launching its own surveys, only to discover what everyone else already knew. In the light of such incidents, is it any wonder that teachers suffer from low morale?

We must develop a stronger working relationship between universities and further education colleges and primary and post-primary schools, especially in communities where low numbers of young people go on to the third level of education. I do not apologise for emphasising that again. The reasons for educational failure among pupils, especially young males, must be tackled.

Approximately one third of people in Northern Ireland who gain university degrees have studied outside Northern Ireland, mainly in Great Britain. In some cases this reflects free choice, but the worrying aspect is the extent to which many of these leavers—of whom there are some 4,500 annually—have left Northern Ireland because there are simply not enough local university places to accommodate them.

In 1997, the Dearing report concluded that, compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland had a shortfall of about 12,000 places. The devolved Executive in Northern Ireland were able to bring about an increase in places of some 5,500. Clearly, much remains to be done. It is important for our economy that we encourage local undergraduates to study and to work in Northern Ireland. Some of those additional places in the pipeline related to the Springvale campus of the university of Ulster and to the Belfast institute. It seems that the future of that project is now in some doubt. I ask the Minister to provide further information on the review of Springvale. In particular, if it is concluded that Springvale is not now a viable concern, we will want to know whether those places will be reallocated to other parts of the higher education sector in Northern Ireland.

Even before the conclusion of the 2000 review of student support by the then Minister with responsibility for further and higher education, training and employment, the Ulster Unionist party had called for a return to means-tested grants. We therefore welcome the introduction of a maximum bursary of £1,500 in the 2002 academic year, which will be increased to a maximum of £2,000 next year. We support the principle of wider social access to further education and, indeed, to higher education, so we think that the level of these grants, and the extent to which they are tapered off according to income, should be kept under review. Much more should be done to encourage the uptake of discretionary awards by further education students.

The Ulster Unionist party has long recognised the need for an injection of additional resources into higher education. As this cannot all come ultimately from the taxpayer, it may be that the most equitable method is some variation on the model of deferred or graduate contributions. In other words, to the extent that students will, on average, gain a private monetary benefit from their course of study—the available evidence strongly confirms this—it is not unreasonable that after they have graduated they should, as they are able to, make some contribution to cover part of the cost of their university training.

We call on the Government to honour their pledge to ensure a fair allocation of resources to education in Northern Ireland. We welcome in principle the planned introduction of the common funding formula, but we realise that this is enabling legislation. We await the fine detail and hope that the consultation process will be open, transparent and inclusive.

There are certain issues relating to the common funding formula that need to be given particular consideration, the first of which is teachers' salaries. We consider that further detailed consideration needs to be given to determining a factor in the formula that will reflect the natural progression of teachers towards the top of the salary scale, but which will still leave schools with the freedom to take staffing decisions within their delegated budgets. We also consider that more guidance should be available to school governors to assist them in determining appropriate individual salary ranges for principals and vice-principals, and the salary levels within these ranges.

Secondly, we accept that there is a need to tackle the problem of underachievement in a minority of Northern Ireland's schools. We consider that further research is required to justify present funding levels before any additional allocations are considered. There is a need to address the educational and skills requirements of specific groups of disadvantaged young people, such as those in care, school-age mothers, those from traveller and other ethnic minority backgrounds, and the disabled. Furthermore, we do not believe that targeting additional funding on the basis of free school meals is suitable or appropriate. Allocations should be founded on objective measurements that are based on key stage results.

Our third concern about the common funding formula is its impact on schools. We are aware of the funding problems facing primary schools, but we have also been alerted to a number of financial pressures in the secondary sector. It is clearly essential that we look again, in some detail, at the balance of funding between the primary and secondary sectors in Northern Ireland. It is also clear that the current underfunding of the primary sector cannot be allowed to continue.

Finally, we feel that there is a need to refine the way in which money is allocated for the upkeep of buildings under the formula. The formula must reflect the fact that it is much more expensive to maintain old buildings than purpose-built, newer ones.

I want to commend what has been achieved so far in the funding of higher education. Teaching and research assessments indicate that, in many cases, standards are in line with national and international aspirations. That said, as Universities UK has highlighted so effectively, universities in Northern Ireland, like their counterparts in Great Britain, have suffered from long-term underfunding and there is a limit to the extent to which they can be expected to continue to deliver quantitative and qualitative improvements without greater input of funds.

While I welcome the recent announcement of £10 million extra annually over the next three years for core university research funding, a good case can be made for the need for a further £20 million per annum, to close the gap that has opened up in comparison with Great Britain. Such research is intrinsically desirable, but it would almost certainly also deliver considerable economic spin-offs. It is worth remembering that the total level of research and development spending in Northern Ireland is low by United Kingdom regional standards, and very low compared with most of the rest of the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We welcome the current innovation strategy and await the results of the consultation process with interest.

On the Northern Ireland spending block, the "Barnett read-across" has implied that Northern Ireland's universities have been unable fully to match some of the very worthy initiatives being taken by English, Scottish and Welsh colleges in terms of widening social access. That said, we already have a larger proportion of students coming from low-income backgrounds. One further point of concern is that the pay of university lecturers and staff has fallen behind the private sector. This is a UK-wide problem that the Government have to address.

I end where I started out. Investment in our education system means investment in all of our futures.

I must confess that I am slightly astonished to discover that the hon. Gentleman has opened a debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party without making even a passing reference to the integrated education movement. Before he finishes his speech, would he care to tell the House how he thinks that that movement relates to the wider argument that he has made today?

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, but I am conscious of the breadth of opportunity to speak that this short debate offers, and of the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute. However, responsibilities are shared in my party, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when he winds up the debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed by what he has to say.

If ever there were a place where people needed to look to the future with a greater sense of hope, it is Northern Ireland. I trust that the Minister of State has listened carefully to my remarks, and I hope that she will act on them.

I commend the motion to the House.

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

"congratulates governors, principals, teachers and other school staff on the contribution they make to educating young people in Northern Ireland; welcomes the high qualifications achieved by many pupils but acknowledges that there are also large numbers of young people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, leaving school with low qualifications; urges the Secretary of State to continue to take forward the review of post-primary education with the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will maintain those high standards of achievement and build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential; and further welcomes the additional higher education places and the Secretary of State's decision to increase Government funding for research and knowledge transfer at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster.".

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), and his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party on giving the House the opportunity to debate the 11-plus, post-primary and transfer arrangements in Northern Ireland, and the wider questions of education and lifelong learning for which I now have responsibility.

The motion neatly encapsulates the conundrum that I face when it

"calls on the Government to maintain the levels of excellence achieved at so many schools while striving to enhance the performance and status of schools with a lesser level of achievement".

That is very much one of aims of the post-primary review, which we will debate in detail today. Sadly, the Government consider the rest of the motion flawed, and that is the reason for the amendment. However, I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate gives me, as Minister with responsibility for these matters, to place on record my appreciation of the efforts and achievements of principals, teachers, governors, other school staff and pupils in Northern Ireland.

The Liberal Democrat party tabled an amendment that was not selected but which paid tribute to the integrated schools movement in Northern Ireland. I should like to associate myself with that tribute.

As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, over the past 30 years schools in Northern Ireland have operated in the most arduous of circumstances. Governors and staff have worked tirelessly to make schools safe and secure places where children can learn.

The recent deplorable events in north Belfast at Holy Cross, Wheatfield and Currie primary schools demonstrate the ongoing pressures that schools have to face. However, I have no doubt that, across Northern Ireland, schools will continue to display the resilience and fortitude that have sustained them through the most difficult of times.

Northern Ireland's schools have long had a well deserved reputation for high achievement. They have produced more pupils with qualifications at the top end of the achievement scale than England or Wales. Northern Ireland grammar and secondary schools are to be congratulated on those achievements, but there is no room for complacency. As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, alongside the high achievers, Northern Ireland has also historically had more pupils leaving school with low qualifications than elsewhere. Various programmes, such as the raising school standards initiative and the school improvement programme, have been successful in reducing the proportion of school leavers with no GCSEs, but the problem of low qualifications persists.

There is strong social differentiation in educational achievement in the Province. Pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds do significantly less well than other pupils. The most disadvantaged pupils are only one third as likely to achieve a grade A in the 11-plus and only around half as likely to achieve five or more high-grade GCSEs as the least disadvantaged pupils. This matter has been debated for many years in Northern Ireland, and it is appropriate for me to set out its recent history. When we also consider the results of the 1996 international adult literacy survey, which showed that almost a quarter of the Northern Ireland work force are at the lowest level of literacy, it is clear that although the Northern Ireland school system does very well for many pupils, it does much less well for many others.

I agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I shall therefore limit the number of interventions that I accept.

Will the Minister give the House the figures that show how pupils in England and Wales are doing worse at the lower end even than pupils in Northern Ireland?

I could provide those figures, but I have chosen not to go into too much detail in my speech. We can discuss statistics, but there is broad consensus among the political parties, members of the educational establishment and the general public in Northern Ireland that the poor performance of the education system for the most disadvantaged pupils is unsatisfactory. That is largely the reason why we are discussing the subject today, and I should like to go into detail about these matters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the acknowledged inequalities in Northern Ireland, more children from working-class backgrounds there go to university than is the case with pupils studying at comprehensive schools in England?

Yes. As I said, the high level of success achieved by Northern Ireland pupils is remarkable. They deserve congratulation and encouragement, and any review that is set in train should not damage their success. I take my hon. Friend's point: the figures show that 4.5 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve no GCSEs, compared with 5.5 per cent. in England. However, it is important to take account of the number of pupils who achieve more than one pass at that level.

I do not want to get bogged down in statistics. Although they can enhance our debate, we are discussing questions of principle. I do not argue with the clear and demonstrable achievement of the grammar school system in Northern Ireland, to which the figures provide testimony. I want to explain today why the 11-plus is deemed to have been failing in Northern Ireland, and why there is such a broad consensus about the need for change.

Is not the strongest principle of all that we should not risk replacing a system that works well with one that works less well? The statistics show that fewer children in Northern Ireland emerge from school with no GCSE passes. They also show that pupils in England do slightly better in the next band above that, with 89 per cent. leaving school with five or more GCSEs at grades A to G, compared with 86 per cent. in Northern Ireland. However, the Minister must know that that is vastly outweighed by the fact that 57 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve five or more A to C grades, compared with 50 per cent. in England. The Northern Ireland system is achieving better than the system in England. She must take that fact very seriously as she considers replacing the Northern Ireland system with something that does not work as well.

Clearly, I take that very seriously. That is why we are approaching the issue with great care and engaging in detailed discussions with all those who have an interest and a stake in developing a new method of transferring children from primary schools to secondary schools. The wide disparity that exists in Northern Ireland and the concern about the low achievement of significant numbers of children was one of the key findings of research into the effects of the selective system there commissioned in 1998 by one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington).

A report by Professor Tony Gallagher of Queen's university and Professor Alan Smith of the university of Ulster, published in September 2000, emphasised the adverse impact of the transfer tests on the primary curriculum and the undue pressure placed on children, teachers and parents. It said that many children entered secondary schools with a sense of failure.

Further research by Professor Gardner of Queen's university found that the transfer tests had the potential to misclassify pupils by up to three grades above or below their given grades. Following the publication of that research my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), established a post-primary review body chaired by Mr. Gerry Burns—and mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim—to consult widely and produce recommendations for post-primary arrangements. The Northern Ireland Assembly's education committee conducted its own review of post-primary arrangements, and made an important contribution to the debate. Its report concluded that change was both necessary and appropriate, and was subsequently endorsed by the Assembly.

The Burns report was published in October 2001 for consultation. Its proposals have implications for every child in Northern Ireland, along with his or her parents, and for every primary and post-primary school. It generated huge interest, and sparked a healthy and continuing public debate.

Did the Burns review body look at results in Scotland? Rather than comparing, say, Kent with Northern Ireland, would it not be better to consider a comparable system across the water that has shown much higher levels of achievement because it has a universal comprehensive system—unlike England, which is a hotch-potch of grammar schools, comprehensives and mixed messages?

My immediate predecessor was looking at other systems. I cannot definitely say, hand on heart, that we looked at the Scottish system in detail, but I know that many different systems were compared, and I would be surprised if that were not the case.

Reflecting the importance of the issue, the consultation on the Burns report was the widest ever undertaken on an education matter. There were five strands. Twenty-eight ministerial meetings were held with the education sector, business, the Churches, the main political parties, and voluntary and community organisations. Moreover, more than 1,300 written submissions were received from a range of stakeholders, 40 per cent. of schools completed detailed response booklets, 200,000 people completed and returned household response forms, and the views of young people were obtained through focus groups and independent research.

Those responses were published last October and published in a report by the Department of Education. They demonstrated a clear demand for change. While there was little support for the review body's model in its entirety, individual recommendations attracted support. For example, there was consensus about the guiding principles, abolition of the transfer tests, and the development of a pupil profile.

I found the recent threat by the Irish National Teachers Organisation to refuse to co-operate in the development of the pupil profile extremely disappointing and unhelpful at this stage of the review. The majority view is that pupil profiles would be useful to teachers, pupils and parents and would formalise the good practice that already exists in many Northern Ireland schools, and I hope that the INTO will reconsider its position.

Confusion has arisen over the Burns report survey every time the Minister has come here to answer questions on the subject. Will she confirm, clearly and precisely, that although most of those surveyed opposed the existing 11-plus procedure, a majority did not favour the ending of a form of academic selection between primary and secondary school?

Yes. Now I will make progress while I am winning.

There was consensus on the need for more cooperation and collaboration among schools, and a common curriculum for those aged up to 14. Many respondents also thought 14 a more appropriate age than 11 for pupils and their parents to consider and make choices about the curricular options or pathways best suited to the interests, needs and abilities of those pupils. There was also agreement on the need for young people to have broader curricular choice and more flexibility to change the nature and direction of their learning. Support was expressed for a range of approaches enabling post-primary arrangements to reflect the differing needs and circumstances of local areas.

Following publication of the report on responses to the consultation, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster announced the abolition of the transfer tests and said that the last tests would be held in 2004. When I assumed responsibility for education, I considered the responses carefully. I was satisfied that there was a clear demand for a change in the current arrangements, and support from, among others, the political parties for abolition of the transfer tests. They have disadvantaged too many children, and that cannot be allowed to continue. I therefore announced, on 31 October, my intention to take forward the post-primary review and work towards the abolition of the tests as soon as practicable. I should make it clear, however—reinforcing the point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside)—that no decisions have been made about academic selection or the shape of new arrangements.

It is important for the review to progress in a way that has the confidence and support not just of parents but of the education sector and the wider community. I want to build on the emerging consensus from consultation as we proceed with the review. I believe it is the responsibility of everyone involved in education to work together to develop new arrangements. As part of the process, my officials and I have held a series of meetings to discuss the responses to consultation, explore the full range of suggestions for new arrangements—including arrangements involving academic selection—and consider the next steps in the review. I have already met representatives of the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Alliance party, and further meetings have been arranged with other political parties. My officials have met representatives of the education sector, and will meet parents tomorrow.

I have found those meetings very useful. When they have been completed, I intend to consider carefully the views that have been expressed—along with the responses to all strands of the consultation—before deciding on the next stages of the post-primary review.

Can the Minister give us an idea of when she might be able to share her conclusions? If she intends to proceed with these changes, she should bear it in mind that the clock is ticking.

There are a few more meetings to be held before I can begin to pull together all the strands of the thinking that is currently taking place. I hesitate to give a definitive timetable, but this should take only a few weeks. I am well aware that a deadline is looming. Schools want certainty: they want to know what to begin to plan for. I know of the pressure that is on us, and it is right for us to work under pressure. One of my reasons for saying that I would try to meet the deadline if that was practicable was my feeling that it was necessary to maintain pressure on my Department to resolve the issue.

The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned issues relating to higher education and student support. Northern Ireland is fortunate in having so many young people, and indeed mature adults, with access to higher education. It is also fortunate in having a superb range of higher education provision in its universities, teacher training institutions and further education institutes. Northern Ireland has around 40,000 undergraduates in the university system at present, of whom more than 28,000 attend the local institutions. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman said, almost 15,000 undergraduate students study part-time in Northern Ireland. In total, that represents a rise of 33 per cent. over the past five years.

The Government and, indeed, the Executive, have pursued policies that continue to encourage the movement of students within the United Kingdom while, at the same time, steadily increasing the number of places in local institutions. As the hon. Gentleman said, from 1999 to 2005, it is planned to have an additional 5,500 full-time undergraduate places in Northern Ireland. He is right that there is more to do, but that was the programme that was in place; it was the objective of the Executive, and we are continuing to work towards meeting that objective. There is no cap on part-time students; the system caters for as many as wish to undertake their studies in that way.

The expansion in full-time places has included additional places at St. Mary's and Stranmillis for diversified courses, the pilots of foundation degrees in further education institutions and, of course, expansion at the two main universities. The figures show clearly the expansion of local places and the growth of overall participation. The proportion of young people who leave Northern Ireland for their higher education has reduced, from 31 per cent. in 1996 to 27 per cent. in 2001.

I appreciate that money has been found for research for Queen's university and the university of Ulster. However, is the Minister aware that Stranmillis university college and St. Mary's university college received no money for research and that, under the new regulations, they are required to have research facilities or they will be marked down in the next review? Has she been given any account of that and can she give us any guidance and hope?

I was not aware of that issue, but now that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention, I will look into it and write to him, if he will permit me so to do.

A significant proportion of young people seeking undergraduate education clearly wish to undertake it outside Northern Ireland. They are attracted for a variety of reasons including, no doubt, the desire to experience life elsewhere, as in my wonderful home town of Liverpool. Those who wish to undertake their higher education in the rest of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to do so. The Government are, at the same time, conscious of the need to expand local provision, and have responded positively to that need. We will keep the issue under consideration.

Student support was an area of much interest to the Executive. A major review of student support was carried out in 2000–01 and resulted in a number of changes to the prevailing arrangements. Grants were reintroduced in 2002 for full-time undergraduate students from lower-income families. The threshold for the payment of a private fee contribution to higher education was raised to £20,000 in 2001, and has since been raised further in line with inflation. Child care grants were introduced in higher education and a number of further education bursaries were introduced in 2001 for full-time students over 19 on vocational courses, to supplement the existing discretionary awards. The threshold for such bursaries was set in line with the higher education scheme.

The changes have begun to affect the system. Some 11,000 students have so far availed themselves of the reintroduction of grants in higher education, and around half of all students do not have to pay the fee contribution either in full or in part. Some 300 students have taken up child care grants, and in further education, more than 400 students have so far taken up the new bursaries. The question of thresholds is important. The Executive set the further education and higher education bursary thresholds at the same level. It will take time to judge whether that is the appropriate level.

Student support arrangements, including bursary levels and income thresholds, are kept under continuous review. I shall consider them again in the light of any proposals that may be contained in the higher education White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will shortly publish. In addition, I shall be considering how we might make entitlements to the rather complex student support system easier for students to understand.

Last month, the Government announced the budget for the three years from 2003–04. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), gave the details. It provides an additional £239 million for education by 2005–06, an increase of 16.6 per cent. In addition to maintaining existing service levels, the budget delivers £52 million across the period for real-terms increases in schools' core budgets to improve schools' capacity to achieve further improvements in pupil performance. A further £530 million will be available for a major programme of investment to improve the education estate.

I am pleased that the budget includes an increase of £10 million a year for funding for research and knowledge transfer in the universities, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) alluded. The increases will allow Queen's university, Belfast and the university of Ulster to sustain and build on their performance in the 2001 research assessment exercise.

In addition, there is to be an increase in higher education capital funding of £5 million for next year, rising to £10 million a year for the following two years as part of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Combined with the injection of £25 million from 2003 to 2007 under the second phase of the support programme for university research, those additions represent the most significant investment in higher education for the past decade. They will allow Northern Ireland to play its full part in the Government's science strategy, "Investing in Innovation". Including the proposals for the strategic investment programme, it represents an overall increase by 2005–06 of just over 27 per cent. in student support and 31 per cent. in higher education. I am delighted that we have been able to make these very significant increases in the capacity of our universities, through the excellence of their teaching, the breadth and quality of their research and their expanding regional mission to contribute to society and the economy in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Antrim made three points. He asked me about Springvale, which I should like to deal with briefly. As he knows, the current plans are for 4,500 full and part-time students to enrol at Springvale. He will be aware of the difficulties that we are facing with the project. However, I remain committed to it. I want to see it taken forward, if not in its original form then in a revised form that offers the best and most appropriate provision for the people of north and west Belfast. Given the pressing needs of this part of Belfast, I am not prepared to walk away from the current difficulties.

rose—

I hesitate to give way, given the time, but I will as long as the intervention is very short.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is making the mistake of talking about Springvale benefiting north and west Belfast. That is a political decision. If we want an additional campus within the university of Ulster, it should benefit Greater Belfast and the whole educational outreach area of Northern Ireland. To sell something academically for political reasons is a mistake; to sell an additional campus as benefiting all the people of Northern Ireland but based in north and west Belfast is very different. Does the Minister agree?

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes his point forcefully and I hope that he will have the chance to reinforce it. That is my initial response on Springvale.

The hon. Member for East Antrim talked about the common funding formula. I will not delay the House on that today; I hear the hon. Gentleman's points and there will be an opportunity to discuss it further in the debate on the order, which will take place soon.

The hon. Gentleman talked about morale among teachers, and I accept his point. However, we have set up an independent inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions, being careful to ensure that the unions agreed. The employing authorities and unions have received an interim report on principals' and vice-principals' salaries and differentials. We will discuss all that through the negotiating machinery in the immediate future. The full report is scheduled to be received in the spring. I appreciate that teachers are not merely concerned about pay and remuneration, but about many other issues that affect morale in the difficult environment in which they work in Northern Ireland. We are listening and responding to the representations that teachers have made and are making.

In conclusion, there has been—

Will the hon. Lady give way?

The hon. Gentleman will get a chance to make a speech later in the debate, but I will briefly give way.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as I realise that she is coming to her peroration. I thank her for her general support for the Liberal Democrat amendment and I listened carefully to her remarks to ascertain whether there would be anything other than that general message of support. She will be aware that there is mounting interest in the possibility of opening more integrated schools in Northern Ireland, especially the Maine integrated school in Randalstown. As I have heard nothing about that possibility, can she tell us when we might hear something about it?

Very, very imminently but not today. We remain extremely interested in the development of that sector. Everyone working to develop such schools deserves our support and encouragement.

There has been extensive and inclusive consultation on the Burns report, which provides a firm basis on which to take forward the post-primary review. I do not accept the description of the current situation as "chaotic". I am determined to build on the emerging consensus to achieve the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential and that will maintain the current high standards of achievement.

We have a major success story in Northern Ireland with regard to higher education in all its forms, whether one looks at investment, participation or performance. Higher education is a tremendous asset, especially for supporting economic development and attracting inward investment. All those who work in the sector deserve our congratulations and encouragement and I am sure that the House will join me in confirming that later in the vote.

rose—

Order. May I say to the House that, in a limited debate, of which an hour has already been taken up, it would be appreciated if all further contributions, whether from Front or Back-Bench Members, could be moderated with that in mind?

I take note of your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it is my intention to be brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on choosing to debate this vital matter this afternoon. Although my congratulations and my pleasure in discussing the topic are entirely sincere, equally sincere is my sense of regret that such matters should be decided here in Westminster and that we have brought to an end debate in the Assembly.

I hope that that suspension will not be for too long, but I warned the Government that once institutions are suspended it takes a long time to get them going again. I fear that the current period of suspension will last much longer than the Government calculated and while it continues we must do the best possible job, but I cannot disguise from the House our regrets about the present situation or the fact that these matters cannot be discussed by the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who could take the time that is required to go through them in detail. Some of the confused statistical discussion that we have already heard this afternoon has demonstrated how damaging and dangerous it is to deal superficially and rapidly with such important matters. I greatly regret that it has not been possible for the Assembly and the Executive to continue to play their role in making important decisions about the future of education in Northern Ireland.

Before I talk about schools, I should like to say something nice and, I hope, encouraging to the Minister about higher education. I was delighted and heartened by the commitment that she gave from the Dispatch Box that she will not allow the Springvale development—the university of Ulster campus on the Springfield road site—to be dropped, as there was real fear of that. The Minister and I have discussed the matter privately and I am glad that it will not happen.

I agree very much with the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim: such a campus will be an asset for the whole of Northern Ireland and especially for the greater Belfast area—for obvious reasons—and we look forward to it. However, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are two especially strong reasons for locating a campus in that area? First, it is close to the most deprived communities in Northern Ireland. More than anything else, people in such communities need ready and easy access to education locally, if we are to solve the problems of deprivation. Secondly, as the hon. Lady knows, the campus will be within walking distance of both the Falls road and Shankhill road areas, which are not merely deprived but also subject to paramilitarism and extremism of all kinds. Those communities suffer from a sense—even a complex—of being neglected hitherto by the establishment and by people who have an easier life than them. It is important to reverse those feelings and to provide for people from both communities so that they can work together and share in making a success of an institution that is located, literally, between both of them. It will enable people to form the normal social and personal relationships across the community divide that have been so lacking in that part of Belfast. The Opposition set great store by the coming to fruition of that project and we support the strong commitment to it that the Minister has made so clear this afternoon.

Anyone coming to Northern Ireland afresh, as I did when the Leader of the Opposition asked me to take on my present role, is immensely and immediately struck by the extremely high standard of and commitment to education. As an Englishman, I can perhaps say that we are a bit philistine in this part of the United Kingdom. That problem does not exist so much in what is sometimes known as the Celtic fringe. It certainly does not exist in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland, in Scotland or in Wales, where people value education even if they have not had the chance to benefit very much from it. People set great store by their children being able to have access to education. Teachers and university professors have the status that they deserve.

The achievements in Northern Ireland have been striking. The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned some of the figures—57 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieved five or more GCSE at grades A to C in 2000–01, whereas the corresponding figure in England was only 50 per cent. A further statistic from the same period struck me forcefully: 93 per cent. of Northern Ireland pupils achieved two or more A-levels whereas the figure in England was only 82 per cent.

Those are statistically significant differences. Those results were achieved despite the apparent disadvantage faced in Northern Ireland due to the troubles and the difficulties in access to schools caused by the sectarian divide. As the Minister pointed out, some schools were targeted by paramilitaries. Those results were achieved despite the fact that prosperity in terms of per capita income is lower in Northern Ireland than in England. Normally, there is a positive relationship between per-capita income and educational performance.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Gentleman but, like the Minister, I shall not give way frequently this afternoon.

The hon. Gentleman repeated a statistic that I hear again and again—that 93 per cent. of pupils gained two A-levels—but it relates to the 93 per cent. of pupils who enter the final year and actually sit A-levels. Can he tell us the number of pupils who enter the S1—secondary 1—in Northern Ireland and who then achieve two A-levels before they leave high school education?

When I am a Minister, I shall be delighted to take the initiative in publishing such figures. However, for the moment—I hope that it does not last long—the Conservatives are not in government so the hon. Gentleman should ask his Front-Bench colleagues to publish the statistics.

I emphasise that the figures I quoted are aggregate figures, so they do not reflect the performance of one sector—the grammar schools. They reflect the average position, taking account of the performance of other secondary schools. Therefore, it is not true that the better outcomes of the grammar schools in Northern Ireland are discounted by the less good performance of other secondary schools. The aggregate position takes account of both types of school.

The Minister's treatment of the statistics was somewhat confusing. One point struck me, and it would have been an egregious piece of special pleading if it were not confusion. She prayed in aid in her argument against selection the fact that adult literacy rates in Northern Ireland are lower than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom. Adult literacy rates reflect the education that was delivered 20, 30 or even 50, 60 or 70 years ago and they are an extraordinarily poor guide to the current performance of the school system. If one is taking important strategic decisions on that basis, God help education in Northern Ireland or whatever else they may affect.

I am not the only one to have been struck by the fine performance of schools in Northern Ireland. Many visitors notice that, and the people of Northern Ireland are extremely proud of their system. They relate the performance of their schools to the existence of selection. There can be no doubt about that. That is why the responses to the Burns report showed that, although people were not satisfied with the test currently used, there was overwhelming support for selection itself. Of those who returned the household response form—more than 200,000 people and far more than ever take part in any opinion poll—64 per cent., or nearly two thirds, opposed the ending of selection. Some 62 per cent. of teachers who returned the survey opposed the ending of selection. Those are very eloquent figures.

The previous Minister of Education in Stormont used his last hours of power before the institutions were suspended to try to establish a fait accompli by abolishing the test. It is extraordinary that the Minister of State has simply endorsed that decision. She has not listened to other views and not taken the opportunity afforded by the Ulster Unionist party in this debate to tell us with what she intends to replace the current system. The current position is that the test will be abolished in 2004, but we do not know what will replace it. That is a thoroughly irresponsible approach to administration and a particularly irresponsible approach to schools, because of the long-term consequences of any decision that is taken. How can one abolish anything at all without knowing what will replace it?

The Minister has acknowledged that the existing system of education in Northern Ireland is working very satisfactorily, and that makes her approach even more irresponsible. Surely the right professional approach to the problem would be to leave the present system in place until and unless she is persuaded that a better solution exists. She should then come before the House and argue for that better solution. To destroy a system or to create a gap without knowing how she will replace what has been destroyed or how she will fill that gap is extremely frivolous.

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me to intervene on his diatribe and on his heaping of coals on my head. Surely he accepts that I inherited the decision when I took up my post. If I had reversed it, I would have created even more chaos. I considered carefully the reasons and details for the decision, and my work is now entirely focused, with the Education Department in Northern Ireland, on coming up with an alternative. As I have made clear, we will seek to find an alternative but the current system will continue until we do so.

With respect to the Minister, I cannot accept that excuse. She took over her new functions almost within hours of Mr. McGuinness having signed the decree to abolish the test. No structural consequences had flown from his decision and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have reversed it. She could have said that the Government were not going to allow an outgoing Minister to take a decision in his last few hours in office without their being clear as to what would be put in its place. They could have decided to allow the present system to continue while they restored confidence and discussed whether to maintain selection and whether it should be conducted under the 11-plus or some other test. When they had come up with a better system, they could have introduced the changes.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way at this stage for the reason that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have already given. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point in the debate.

The fact is that the Minister took a decision. She may have decided that it was easier to do nothing than to do something, but it was a decision, if only by default, and it was quite unnecessary. By default, she endorsed the destructive decision taken by Martin McGuinness just before he left office. The decision raises anxieties, particularly because a Labour Government are behaving in this way. We know that it is in their nature to try to do things by stealth. The nastier the thing that they are trying to do, the more likely they are to want to use the weapons of stealth. We must seriously ask whether the Government are ideologically committed to destroying good schools in Northern Ireland, but do not have the courage—they never have the courage of their convictions—to say that they will abolish selection and will force excellent schools to cease to have any further role in selecting their pupils. The Government do not have the courage to say that they are destroying the character, ethos and individuality of those schools, and they will not tell the public in Northern Ireland or in Britain as a whole.

The Government are acting indirectly by saying that the decision was taken before the suspension of Stormont. They say, "We can't do anything about it. It will take us months to look at the matter. We are awfully sorry but there is no alternative in place to the system that we are going to abolish." I am not suggesting that the Minister is making plans along those lines, but to abolish the existing test without being clear as to how it will be replaced raises justifiable suspicions. There are only two possibilities in such circumstances. The first is that the Government do not have an agenda and have abolished something without knowing how they will replace it. When I made that suggestion, the Minister leapt to her feet in indignation. I accept that it was not a particularly flattering suggestion and, as I have said, I do not accept her explanation.

The alternative is that the Government have an agenda, but they will not tell the House or the people of Northern Ireland what is in their mind. The Minister might not know what the agenda is, but perhaps she will receive orders one day from Alastair Campbell, who wants to create what he has described as "bog-standard comprehensives" in Northern Ireland. She may be acting in entirely good faith and be sitting here with her brief without having yet received her orders from Alastair Campbell. She may have been told to soft-soap the House of Commons to try to keep us all as happy as possible in the meantime. I have no idea whether that is true. However, if one is abolishing something and is not clear with the House about how one will replace it, we can come to one of only two conclusions. The first is that the Government do not know and do not have an agenda. In that case—this is probably the more likely explanation—they are being irresponsible. The second is that there is an agenda, and we will not be told what it is today. That would be a far more reprehensible course of action by the Government.

I am glad that we have had an opportunity to air these issues, and that my remarks have smoked out some response.

I am delighted at the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. Will he comment on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) that we should establish an education advisory panel? Does the hon. Gentleman support that proposal?

The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier remarks if she was in the Chamber at the time. I expressed reticence about deciding such matters of detail in the House. It is unfortunate that the Government have placed us in this position by abolishing Stormont. Before we make detailed decisions about how we replace the present test, there should be much more detailed, thorough and professional discussion than we have had in this debate or are likely to be able to have. In the meantime, we should keep the existing system and lift the threat to it. We should do what I have already suggested the Government should have done and leave well alone. It is a fine and performing system and we should not replace it until and unless we have persuaded ourselves that there is a better solution. So my answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I am not committed, nor are the Conservative Opposition, to a particular form of selection test in Northern Ireland. We are committed to supporting good, thriving schools and to the principle of choice—that is fine—and we are against any act of educational vandalism. If a technically better mechanism to achieve selection than the present one can be found, we are open to being persuaded to consider it.

However, the mechanisms are not in place for the House to take an intelligent decision, given the very limited time now available to discuss Northern Ireland business. Meanwhile, when in doubt, we should not destroy what we have got, and I hope that the Government will think again about what was obviously an extraordinarily rapid—if it was not worse—decision simply to endorse Martin McGuinness's final present to the people of Northern Ireland.

I welcome this debate and congratulate the Ulster Unionist party on initiating it. I hope that it will help to make the Minister—I see that she is now leaving the Chamber—and the Government realise that they should be cautious about what is happening in Northern Ireland. I want to urge caution on two levels.

First and foremost, it is still quite dreadful that not a single person in Northern Ireland was able to vote for the party that will now take the decisions about the future of the education system. The reality is that there is a huge democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. It is very sad indeed that the Assembly is not taking such decisions and I hope, like everyone, that it will soon be working again.

Given that the education system has done so much for so many years, such changes should not be rushed through by dealing with them in this Chamber, when they could easily be delayed, allowing more discussion and debate, so that the decisions could be left to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that those in the Assembly want to get back to work as soon as possible and that such issues would be on the horizon for them. So caution really does need to be shown.

I want to declare an interest: I am absolutely convinced that I would not be a Member of Parliament if I had not had the opportunity to have a grammar school education in Northern Ireland at an extremely good school, Belfast Royal Academy. It is still an extremely good school, and it takes children from all parts of Belfast and all sorts of backgrounds. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) talked about his farming background, but my background was probably more deprived. I grew up on a much smaller farm. I have absolutely no doubt that, without the opportunity offered by that school, I would not have been able to go on to college and university and become a Member of Parliament.

I have another interest to declare. I often visit schools in Northern Ireland, so I know that the standards of all schools—grammar and secondary schools—are so much better than anything that we have in England. So I urge caution because it seems absolutely amazing that we should want to destroy something that is working. I accept that too few people in some areas of Northern Ireland are able to go on to the right sort of education, but that happens in my constituency and deprived areas of England. The idea is that, somehow, what is really good and works should be destroyed to give, in theory, more children from deprived areas a better education, but we have shown that that just does not work in many other parts of the United Kingdom.

As recently as November, the Prime Minister himself condemned the "enormous damage" done by the pursuit of the comprehensive ideal and said that he is determined to provide choice and diversity in education. He said that it is time to lay to rest the controversy over the future of the comprehensive system and that

"It has all too often carried with it the notion that children should be treated as of the same ability."

Given that not one person in Northern Ireland had the opportunity to vote for a Labour Government, I cannot understand how we can try to push the current proposals through. The Burns report is clear: there is unhappiness with the 11-plus. That is taken for granted. My sister and I both passed the 11-plus. I went along feeling absolutely wonderful and looking forward to taking that test. Apparently I told my mother and father that I was looking forward to meeting lots of children. I lived in the country, but went elsewhere to take the test and it was nice to meet other children. My sister was much brighter than me, but she was absolutely terrified by the test. She hated it and worried about it. Children are different, and there is no doubt that the test needs to be adapted. We need profiles and different ways of doing things, but I do not accept that a majority of people in Northern Ireland favour ending academic selection. It is nonsensical to try to change what has proved to be very good indeed.

I also want to give the Minister some sense of caution about the Education and Libraries Bill. Again, the provisions in that Bill may be pushed through by an Order in Council—I am not quite up to date on when that may happen—and it will give the Minister strong, dictatorial powers. The Minister will have the power to remove all the governors of any grammar school—quite unacceptable—and make all sorts of changes to alter the system by stealth. I urge the Minister that that measure should not be pushed through the House, and I will certainly not support it. I do not understand why any Labour Member should support any measure on Northern Ireland when we do not even allow people in Northern Ireland to join the party that is governing them.

Lots of Members wish to speak, but I want to say that the standards of education in Northern Ireland are unquestionably high. That does not mean that we cannot do better or that we should not give greater encouragement to those children from some parts of Northern Ireland who do not even sit the exam. They do not take that opportunity for all sorts of reasons, which are similar to those in some of the worst parts of my constituency, where the assumption is that parents and children cannot become properly involved in education. Such problems should be considered, but I want to urge caution.

I recently visited one of the best girls schools in Northern Ireland, Strathaern school. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) knows it well. Some of the children at that school have come from the most deprived parts of Belfast. The young girl whom I presented with the overall achievement award was from a very poor part of Belfast. In my constituency, such children would have great difficulty getting the sort of education that they would receive at Strathaern school, because no school in the immediate area offers that kind of opportunity.

Another important thing, which has not been mentioned at all in today's debate, is that private education hardly exists in Northern Ireland because no middle class parent needs to buy private education. The changes will affect the work being done by schools such as Belfast Royal Academy and the Methodist college—I could name many others—if they are no longer able to select pupils.

My hon. Friend knows that I hold her in very high respect—we share many similar views—but she sadly appears to be guilty of trying to portray the future of Northern Ireland without selection as being like the position in her constituency, Vauxhall. Does she accept that, in fact, it would be more comparable to parts of Scotland, where the comprehensive education system allows parents to work hand in glove with the local education authority to improve the results? That vision may be denied to the people of Northern Ireland to protect the privileged system that she herself came through.

I have great respect for my hon. Friend, and he also supports my view that people in Northern Ireland should be allowed to join the Labour party. The statistics about Scotland, however, are not necessarily as good as he made out earlier. The comparison would not be between like and like, although I do not want to go into the detail of that now.

The other thing that is different about Scotland is that there is still a large amount of private education there. People who go to Northern Ireland, perhaps to take a job in the BBC or in the civil service—the kind of people who would pay for private education here—are helped to move when they realise that they will not have to pay to get their children into a good school, as there are so many of them. If we opt for a straightforward, one-sizefits-all comprehensive system in Northern Ireland, we will have private schools as a result, and we will lose the fantastic mix in the very best schools in Northern Ireland, in which young people from very poor backgrounds—the kind of background from which I came—can mix with the children of people running Northern Ireland industry. That mix still exists, and it is a huge advantage to young people.

I therefore urge the Minister to be cautious. There is absolutely no reason to go ahead with what Martin McGuinness did in his last few hours, outrageous and vindictive as it was. Instead, we should use the opportunity of the current lull before the Assembly is reconstituted to bring people together to talk about a solution that will build on our best provision, not destroy it.

I welcome this debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) for his opening speech, which set out in detail and with great clarity the issues that confront us in terms of the future of education in Northern Ireland. I want to speak about my experience both as a parent and as a constituency MP, having spent a considerable amount of time visiting and getting to know the teachers, boards of governors and parents associated with the various post-primary schools in my constituency.

First, speaking as a parent, may I say that my eldest daughter underwent the 11-plus transfer test last year? As it happens, she did very well. She got an A grade and was accepted into Wallace high school, which is one of the grammar schools in my constituency: a very successful school named after one of my illustrious predecessors, Sir Richard Wallace, who was the Member of Parliament for Lisburn. Wallace is one of a number of post-primary schools in my constituency enjoying considerable success. The Friends school, which comes from a Quaker background, is an equally successful grammar school. Secondary schools such as Laurelhill community college, Forthill school, Lisnagarvey high school and Dunmurry high school are all proving successful and improving the standards of educational attainment in the greater Lisburn area and the Lagan Valley constituency.

My eldest daughter, however, like my youngest daughter, who sat the 11-plus last November, undoubtedly felt the stress and the pressure of the 11-plus examination, and it was the focus of concern and discussion in our family home for months. We felt the pressures on our children—we await the results of the test for my younger daughter, and I hope that she will be successful—and, as a parent, I see the need for the reform of the transfer procedure and of the 11-plus examination. I agree with many in the field of education who believe that two examinations are not the best or fairest way of determining a child's academic ability at the age of 11. I strongly disagree, however, with the recommendation in the Burns report on post-primary education for an ending of academic selection. Having looked at the practicalities, in my constituency in particular, I do not see how the proposal for a collegiate system can work in practice and be fairer than the academic selection that exists at present, even though I support reform of the method but not of the principle of academic selection.

I have received a large number of letters and telephone calls and have had many conversations with parents in my constituency who are very concerned about the proposals in the Burns report and the impact that they will have on their ability to have a proper choice to send their children to the school that they desire. The Burns report is very much based on the concept of parental choice, but the consequences of its proposals will, in many cases, limit the choice of parents. To give a simple example, I live in the village of Moira, which is on the outskirts of my constituency and about 10 miles from the city of Lisburn. It is also right on the boundary of the Craigavon area, which operates an entirely different education system known as the Dickson plan, under which transfer takes place at the age of 14 and a system of junior high schools and senior high schools or colleges exists. That system has been quite successful in many respects. Lurgan college and Portadown college, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will know, have a record of successful educational achievement for their pupils. Lurgan college is particularly well placed in terms of its results, although I do not want to single out schools in the constituency of another Member too much—I am simply repeating what I read in the newspapers.

Do you believe them?

Not always.

Under the system that would exist if the Burns proposals for post-primary education were adopted, however, parents living in Moira would be at a real disadvantage. A constituent from Moira wrote to me:

"The new system is supposed to introduce parental choice. I should be able to list my school of choice, which would be a school suitable to the academic ability of my child. I have an extremely bright child. His reading ability is of the standard expected of children three years older. Under the new system he will have no chance of gaining a place at"—

what is currently known as—

"a grammar school because he lives in a rural area, even though he currently attends a school next door to a grammar school."

Under the Burns proposals, that child will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of gaining a place at such a school because of his place of residence. Many of my constituents are therefore afraid that we are moving to selection by postcode.

Another constituent wrote to me:

"We should find some way to retain an academic sector at the same time putting a great deal more emphasis and funding into a technical and vocational sector. This would give us the best of both worlds—excellence for all. Selection ultimately by postcode offers no real parental choice and should be vigorously opposed."

That is from a constituent living in Lisburn who is in closer proximity to the post-primary schools in my constituency than those who live in rural areas.

The collegiate system also has other consequences. In terms of fairness, section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1988 places on Departments an obligation to treat people fairly and equally. The consequences of implementing the collegiate system, however, can be arbitrary. Let me quote two examples in which people in my constituency will be placed at a distinct disadvantage, and, in my opinion, will be discriminated against. A constituent living in Dunmurry has written to me to make the point that since Dunmurry will be in the west Belfast collegiate area, the parents of Protestant boys attending primary schools will no longer have any choice to send their child to what is now a controlled grammar school, because there is no controlled grammar school for boys within the west Belfast collegiate area. The only controlled grammar school within the west Belfast collegiate is Hunter House, which is a girls' school.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the chances of Hunter House getting anyone from west Belfast are nil and that it will be cut off from the natural hinterland?

I accept that. Indeed, the principal of Hunter House college made precisely that point to me when I met her recently.

Protestant families living in Dunmurry are discriminated against and severely restricted in their choice of school. However, Roman Catholic parents from Lisburn wrote to me explaining that Roman Catholic families from that town who wish to send their children to what is a maintained grammar school have no choice within the collegiate area covered by Lisburn, Banbridge and Crumlin. In fact, when the previous Roman Catholic maintained grammar school in Lisburn was closed in the 1960s, the Education Department gave a written undertaking that the parents of Roman Catholic children in the area would be given preferential places at Rathmore grammar school, the replacement for the new school. However, Rathmore is now in the west Belfast collegiate, so Roman Catholic parents living in Lisburn will no longer have that choice. Those are the hidden but real consequences of the collegiate system and the manner in which it discriminates against parents and parental choice.

May I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend expresses clearly? The Government will be aware that parents are entitled to have their children educated in accordance with their philosophical and religious convictions, as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, and that, when not suspended, the Assembly will have to abide by those obligations.

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must consider not just the equality obligations in section 75, but the implications under the Human Rights Act. That has not been fully thought through in the proposals in the Burns report.

There is much that one could say on the issue. However, I shall deal briefly with two key aspects of the proposals in the Burns report. The first is the admissions criteria. There is little doubt that the criteria set down by Burns will lead to the creation of area comprehensives. Without any form of selection, schools will have an all-ability intake. By making distance from school the determining criterion, schools will increasingly draw their pupils from the immediate area, so introducing an element of social injustice. Parental choice for those who live in rural areas, such as those in my constituency, will be substantially curtailed.

Friends school, for example, draws its pupils from a wide catchment area. Of the pupils in years 8 and 9, 60 per cent. come from the Lisburn area postcodes of BT27 and BT28. A further 20 per cent. come from Hillsborough and Dromore, with the postcodes of BT26 and BT25. But a significant proportion of year 8 and 9 pupils come from areas such as Moira, Aghalee, Maghaberry, Ballinderry and Glenavy. They will all be disadvantaged under the proposals because of the distance/proximity criteria. The Minister and the Department need to consider that.

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the catchment area of a particular grammar school. Does he give any consideration to the people who live beside that school and who are denied access to it because they cannot pass the academic qualifications in the 11-plus? They have to watch people receiving the higher education that they are denied.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but Friends school and Wallace school are within a few hundred yards of each other. Within half a mile of them and on either side are two excellent secondary schools, Forthill and Laurelhill, so I fail to understand his point. People who live within a mile radius have at least four excellent post-primary schools from which to choose, whereas my constituents in Moira, Glenavy and Ballinderry have none of those choices and will be discriminated against under the system.

The second key aspect that worries me is the transfer test and the issue of selection. The end of a selective system will inevitably mean the end of grammar and secondary schools as currently defined. However, Burns envisages that schools will offer specialist provision and that parents will decide on the most appropriate school for their child on the basis of the information contained in the pupil profiles and in consultation with primary school principals. The report appears to be offering the best of all worlds: the end of selection and the continuance of schools with a specialist academic provision, with guidance from the pupil profile and, ultimately, free parental choice. Surely, however, the former grammar schools will not be able to offer a specialist academic curriculum and meet the needs of individual pupils in an intake that, without selection, will inevitably cover the full range of ability. So it is misleading to assert that parental preference will be given priority when particular schools will be oversubscribed.

I hope that the Minister and the Department take on board the real concerns expressed in the debate and understand that the proposals in Burns are not the way forward. There has to be another way that commands a much broader consensus within Northern Ireland.

I am reluctant to contribute to the debate, because Northern Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom that I visit frequently and I would not want to be sufficiently presumptuous to comment in detail on its schools. However, I feel strongly about secondary school admission policies and want to make a few remarks that may inform the future debate in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) made a balanced and broad presentation, and most of us would agree with much of what he said. However, when he tries to defend selection at the age of 11 by academic ability and at the same time says that he wants parity of esteem between the academic and the vocational, he is treading on difficult ground. It is intrinsic in any system that selects by academic ability that the academic will always be seen as superior to the vocational when it provides a superior level of per capita investment and superior life chances to those young people.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I hope the hon. Lady will accept that, as I only have a few minutes in which to speak because many of my colleagues want to contribute, I do not want to give way.

It is significant that the Government will next week publish their White Paper on the development of 14 to 19 education. We anticipate a great leap forward in the establishment of parity between the academic and the vocational which I fear many people in Northern Ireland have not yet appreciated. I note the concerns of the hon. Member for East Antrim and the consensus that the Burns report reflected on the need to do away with the existing testing regime. The debate should now focus on what is the best alternative.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke of upholding devolution and his regret at the suspension of the Assembly. Almost in the same breath, however, he criticised the Minister for merely upholding the decision taken by the Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly. He cannot have it both ways. In addition, he should not criticise the Minister for supporting the response to the consultation on the Burns report, which clearly called for an end to the existing selection test, by saying that she should not have taken that decision. It is important that we take a consistent approach to these matters.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If I had something by way of reciprocation, I would give way.

It is important that those now grappling with this issue in Northern Ireland realise that the matter has been exhaustively debated on the mainland for 40 years. The overwhelming conclusion in most parts of the United Kingdom system is that a comprehensive admissions policy serves to raise standards and build social cohesion. Even the most passionate advocate from the Ulster Unionist party cannot with conviction claim Northern Ireland as a model society for the rest of Europe in terms of social cohesion. We have to examine very carefully the nature of the secondary school system that we create and its consequences for society.

Those who argue the importance of academic selection at age 11 have to be convinced of certain factors. First, they must be convinced that it is possible accurately to identify a child's ability at 11, the age of transfer from primary to secondary school. That age is arbitrary; in a different system we could have transfer at 13 or at nine. They must be convinced also that the young person's ability will not increase, change or develop in their teenage years, and that there is a means of identifying that ability. Clearly, the consensus in Northern Ireland is that the current means, the 11-plus, is insufficiently accurate.

We should appreciate that as standards of education rise across the board, and as more primary school children attain high levels of performance, the challenge of discriminating between those who are above a given threshold at age 11 and those who are below that threshold becomes even more difficult. As levels of achievement rise, discrimination between the twenty-fifth percentile point and the twenty-sixth percentile point becomes almost impossible. The defenders of selection have to be convinced that a test, an interview or a pupil profile can accurately distinguish between those who will subsequently be given advantages and those who will be denied them.

Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and other colleagues, will say that the opportunities that I received were entirely due to my passing the 11-plus and my subsequent achievements at grammar school. However, we have to ask how many people are denied the opportunities that I had because they do not go to grammar school, having failed the 11-plus, and are subsequently labelled failures. Many of them feel that sense of failure throughout their lives. We cannot consider the advantages of those who succeed at 11 without considering the consequences for those who fail at 11.

Once we have made that decision and are confident that we can identify ability and that we have an accurate testing system, we have to pick up the social consequences for the 75 per cent. who are not selected. In her opening speech, the Minister of State gave statistics for attainment in Northern Ireland. She said that the GCSE rate in Northern Ireland is slightly higher than on the mainland, but she pointed out that there is a huge amount of under-achievement. We accept that that is a factor not only for Northern Ireland but for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Comparing Northern Ireland with England on the assumption that the education system in England is 100 per cent. comprehensive is a fallacy. Although the system in most of England is, in theory, comprehensive, a significant minority is selective, and in the majority that is comprehensive, many subtle layers of selection operate. We must make sure that we compare like with like. We must be clear about the consequences of selection at 11 for those who are not selected.

We are talking about standards for the population as a whole, not for an arbitrarily selected minority, and we are also talking about social exclusion. I ask Ulster Unionist Members to remember that this issue is not a new one for the mainland; people have grappled with it for 40 years. There is now a consensus in most parts of the mainland, although not yet in Kent, Buckinghamshire or Lincolnshire—I accept that. If we believe in parity between the academic and the vocational, in equality of opportunity for all young people and in a society that minimises social exclusion, a comprehensive admissions policy is the way forward.

We are all agreed that Northern Ireland achieves impressive results for a proportion of the young people who go through the education system.

Including you.

Including me. I am ever so grateful to have had the opportunity to go to the Royal Belfast Academical Institution. It is certainly the best school in Northern Ireland and probably the best in the world. I took the 11-plus, and I wish to talk about that and then move on to integrated education.

As I listen to the debate, it seems to me that we are concerned about the abolition of the 11-plus because we fear that it may materially alter the excellent schools that many right hon. and hon. Members had the privilege to attend. Let us bear it in mind, however, that Gerry Burns was very clear about the 11-plus process in his report. He said:

"We have been left in no doubt that the Eleven-Plus Transfer Tests are socially divisive, damage self-esteem, place unreasonable pressures on pupils, primary teachers and parents, disrupt teaching and learning at an important stage in the primary curriculum and reinforce inequality of opportunity."

He clearly feels that the test is a divisive tool.

Thinking about trauma, I can remember doing the 11-plus. The first time I mucked it up, but by an act of fate some naughty people had stolen a few papers and I had the chance to re-sit it. Obviously, I then passed it and got into the institution. However, I remember the enormous stress that I felt, and I am one of those people who prefers examinations to continuous review.

We need to recognise that the issue is not really whether the 11-plus is the correct system of selection; it is how we maintain what is best in the Northern Ireland education system while ensuring that those who are not selected are protected from harm and given an opportunity to shine academically and make more of their education.

On the question of whether the majority of people in Northern Ireland are for or against selection, the answer is not as clear as it may at first seem. Paragraph 4.26 of the Department of Education's report on responses to consultation on the Burns report indicates that only 30 per cent. support the ending of academic selection. However, let us remember that only 16 per cent. of the population responded, and the response rate from better-off areas was almost three times greater than that from less-well-off areas. More than 50 per cent. of the responses were from the parents of grammar school pupils. It is hardly surprising that people who benefited from the system want to retain it.

I accept that a large body of people and organisations support the idea of a selection system, but once again the figures are very telling. Responses from the education sector show that 60 per cent. of primary schools and 93 per cent. of secondary schools believe that academic selection should be abolished, but not surprisingly only 10 per cent. of grammar schools hold that view.

There are many examples of organisations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or changing it. It is not surprising that individuals who have benefited from the system or perceive a benefit to their work would prefer the status quo, whereas those who feel that it is harming the children in their care or has harmed their personal opportunities would be in favour of a change. For that reason, we need to look at the issue more strategically and ask how we can best find a consensus solution that is satisfactory to the great schools that Northern Ireland has and does not compromise their performance, at the same time as widening access for other groups.

The Alliance party has proposed some interesting ideas. It suggests that although the age of 11 is the natural time in light of emotional, physical and mental development for students to progress from the single classroom atmosphere of primary education to a system of multiple specialist subject teachers, it is not an appropriate stage of development to distinguish between students on the basis of academic ability. The Alliance party proposes that children should progress together in post-primary schools that provide a general middle school curriculum for the first three years—say, to the age of 14.

At the end of that period, children would be in a much better position to understand their strengths and areas for development and, crucially, what their personal aspirations were, whether vocational or more academic. At the age of 14 it is more likely that they can make informed decisions about the rest of their education. It is surely not beyond the wit of politicians in the Chamber, consulting closely with the vested interest groups in Northern Ireland and led by the Northern Ireland politicians, to find a solution bringing all that together in a way that works.

I move to the second issue that I want to cover. Although I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to those thoughts and suggestions with regard to selection, the most striking feature of the motion and the Government amendment is the absence of any written recognition of integrated education. That is one of the most significant social developments in the past 20 years in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education describes its role as

"the bringing together in one school of pupils, staff and governors, in roughly equal numbers, from both Protestant and Catholic traditions. It is about cultivating the individual's self-respect and therefore respect for other people and other cultures. Integrated education means bringing children up to live as adults in a pluralist society, recognising what they hold in common as well as what separates them, and accepting both."

I hope that the amendment tabled by me and my fellow Liberal Democrats adequately reflects what is missing from the motion and the other amendment.

The first integrated school was Lagan college, established in 1981 by All Children Together, a campaigning parent group. There are now 47 integrated schools in Northern Ireland, 18 second level colleges and 29 integrated primaries. There are also eight new integrated education projects across Northern Ireland. The expected announcement of the opening of Maine integrated primary school in Randalstown, and the transformation of Springfarm primary school in Antrim and Glengormley primary school in September will bring the number of integrated schools to 50. Surely the Minister would agree that that is glowing testimony to the fact that things are changing and that parents believe that that is a good way forward. Can he assure the House that the recent rapid increase in interest in integrated education will be fully supported financially and in other ways by the Government and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland?

More than 15,000 pupils now study in integrated schools in the Province. That represents just over 5 per cent. of the total school-going population. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that there are so many and that the number is growing. Will the Government ensure that the obvious and continuing demand for places at integrated schools in Northern Ireland is facilitated? According to the Northern Ireland Audit Commission, there are 45,000 unfilled places in Northern Ireland schools. The only sector with no unfilled places, and the one that the population seems keen to use, is the integrated sector. There is, therefore, pressure on the Government to act more quickly.

I remind the Minister that in the Good Friday agreement, the Government stated that they would facilitate the development of integrated education. It is disappointing that one of the few changes made to the Government's "Building on Progress" document was the removal of support for growth in integrated education from the Department of Education's public service agreement. That was a telling change and it concerns me. Can the Minister explain why it took place and assure the House that support for the growth of integrated education will be pursued, and that there has not been a move away from the integrated education project?

If anyone doubts the benefits of integrated education, I advise them to visit an integrated school. I went to Hazelwood integrated primary school in Newtownabbey last September. After speaking with the principal, Jill Houston, I met many pupils. We discussed what made Hazelwood special. They replied that anyone could go to school there. When we asked whether it mattered where they came from, how clever they were or what colour hair they had, the children said no. Clearly, there is much more to integrated education than simply bringing together people from different religious traditions. One little boy had been turned down by other primary schools in the area because he had a hearing difficulty. I pay tribute to the fact that integrated education is about showing that all of us should be regarded as equal. By encouraging their children to go to those schools and to learn together, parents are actively contributing to the peace and reconciliation process in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Minister will focus on those two substantive points—selection and integrated education. I have set out the assurances that I seek on integrated education. May I impress on him the need for a clear timetable for the changes in selection procedures, as I requested from his colleague in my intervention? It is right for the schools to be nervous about the vacuum left by a stated change in policy and the absence of any detail. Perhaps even today, the Minister can say when we may expect those details to come out for consultation.

I remind all hon. Members once again of the importance of recognising that educational reform goes hand in hand with the kind of cultural reforms that I consider so important. It is a shame that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman took a full hour between them in a debate that properly belongs to the Ulster Unionists. I hope that by curtailing my remarks, I have enabled others from those parties to speak.

I hope that I shall not take too long. The debate is welcome, as it is a debate about real politics called by the Ulster Unionists. It is an opportunity to discuss an issue that has been central to the politics of this country for many years—selection by academic ability at the age of 11 and its impact on educational achievement as a whole.

I remember the 11-plus. The key thing about it was that one passed or failed. The word "fail" dominated the lives of so many people who were then passed on to a secondary system. Their self-expectations were thereby reduced. I come from a city, Sheffield, which shares with Northern Ireland the justification which, I understand, was part of what the Burns committee took on board in its deliberations on the matter—the research done by the Programme for International Student Assessment. This concentrated not on the achievements of the educational system in Northern Ireland, which I recognise is very high, in terms of the percentage of pupils getting high grades at A-level and so on, but on the differential between the best and the worst achievers. That differential reveals some of the worst symptoms of academic selection at 11.

Sheffield is a widely disparate city in terms of educational achievement. I was greatly relieved that the 11-plus had finished by the time my children went to school there. In Sheffield, the pressure was on from day one to live in the right place. As people said that the only schools to go to were those with sixth forms in the southwest of the city. They were the schools that enabled students to get into the top universities and that was the only place to live. That residential discrepancy has, in a sense, dominated Sheffield and ensured that the educational and social achievement differences between those living in the Hallam constituency and those in the Central and Brightside constituencies are some of the greatest in any city in the country.

This debate on selection is important and gives Labour Members the chance to demonstrate how the issue has played a part in determining our priorities. As Northern Ireland is a key part of the United Kingdom, we are a Government who are intent on driving forward equality of opportunity there. If we are going to achieve that, which I think is the thrust of the point made by those who tabled the motion, it is essential first to say that the test will be abolished. Continuity is an important point. Different things cannot be done simultaneously, so I completely endorse the idea that the first action of the Minister in wanting to change to system should be to say that the academic selection test at 11 will be abolished. It is then necessary to move forward, as I believe the Government are, in establishing further ways in which the factors that affect educational discrimination can most usefully be dealt with.

More will be needed than the abolition of the academic test at 11, including greater emphasis on integrated education and schools. From what I know of the integrated schools, they are playing a major part. I welcome what the Minister of State said about the expansion that is being proposed in further and higher education in Northern Ireland. The opportunity of part-time and full-time places for students and part-time places for mature students will also be essential in raising expectations and opening up possibilities for dealing with disparities between the top and bottom ends. Abolition of the test is only a first step. I hope that this Government, while the current system remains in place, and also the devolved Administration, which I hope will be re-established before too long, will be able to work on those further steps and encourage the child care provision, integrated schools and extra student support that will be necessary in taking them.

I want to mention one other aspect of education in Northern Ireland of which I had some experience when I worked with the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland as their Parliamentary Private Secretary. I was given a brief of keeping closely in touch with educational work, especially for adults and among women in Northern Ireland. On a number of occasions, I visited the award givings of the Belfast Women's Training Services organisation in Northern Ireland. Hundreds of certificates were distributed and the courses were full year on year. I was struck by how young women from the working-class areas of Belfast on both sides of the sectarian divide were so eloquent about the fact that it was only after they had left school that they were starting to realise their own educational potential, as well as their potential for taking a useful and active role in the community. I pay tribute to a lot of the work that has been done by that organisation among mature students in the working-class areas of Belfast, as well as by the Workers Educational Association and other adult education movements, which I got to know well.

Such organisations have lessons for many of us in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially in respect of inner city areas where such disparities of educational achievement exist, but the better way forward is to establish an educational system that does not end up with huge disparities for mature students. It is in that context that I think that the Government were correct—the Minister made a strong case built on the Burns report and the work of the devolved Assembly—that it was right to say at the start was that there would be no academic selection at 11, which can be divisive, and that they would abolish it as soon as was practicable, and work hard to establish how best to ensure that the transfer from primary to secondary education results in a society in Northern Ireland that is as little divided educationally as possible.

Of course, all of us in the House hope that a society will come about in Northern Ireland that is also as little divided as possible in any other way. This debate plays its small part in that wider political role as well.

I was not in the Assembly when my party and the others chose their election portfolios. Ministries are always a difficult matter. The old hands, such as the now Lord Kilclooney—an old hand and one of the few Unionists who were in government in the old Stormont Parliament—always go for finance first, as that has the purse strings. That may be right or wrong, but I would have argued for education as the top priority with farming second on the list. That is my personal preference, but I was not there at the time.

The Executive cannot be reformed in the foreseeable future because of the former Education Minister's continuation with an operational terrorist criminal organisation, but if and when it does come back with some sort of structure, I hope that my party and the Democratic Unionist party, which is represented on the Benches to my left, will try to get together next time around and take education as our priority. It is the one priority that we should take. It is the major challenge and has the most importance for the future prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland.

The administrative vandalism to which the motion refers was an act of vicious vindictiveness. It was the act of a man who is not interested in the long-term future of Northern Ireland. I hope that he never again has an opportunity to hold that portfolio, but what happened happened, and what happens under the law we must accept. The Minister, who is not now in the House, will have to make a decision in the near future about the uncertainty that is now in the minds of all parents. Parents who have a child at school in year 6 do not know what is going to happen. They do not know about the selection procedure or about how their children will proceed into secondary education. Children do not know whether they will go to grammar or secondary school, or whether there will be a new form of selection procedure.

That uncertainty must be ended. I hope that it will end by reflecting the views of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, and the greatest possible number across the teaching establishment, as well as the political establishment, including all the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Minister's decision does not have majority support from either the Protestant or the Catholic community in Northern Ireland.

I went to the Antrim grammar school prize giving last year, and was extremely proud. I saw increasing academic standards—a proud school, good staff and pupils who want to be part of that school. Just after I was elected, I went to Ballyclare high school and had a briefing there, and then to the senior civil servant in the North Eastern education and library board to ask for a rating of the schools in the constituency. He said, "When we bring in visitors from outside Northern Ireland, we take them to Ballyclare high to show them an excellent school, a state school performing well." As has been said, we do not have private schools. I say to the Government: do not destroy this excellence.

Defending grammar schools does not mean that we will lower standards for our secondary sector. I heard the expression of some views that should have died with the Labour party in the 1960s—a lot of old fashioned socialist clap-trap, the sort of language that made it sound as if going to a grammar school somehow means that a social stigma attaches to the secondary school that might be only a couple of hundred yards away. When I attended one of the best institutions in Northern Ireland, the Coleraine Academical institution, I did not find such a stigma with the secondary school next door. I do not find it in my constituency now. I do not find a social stigma attaching to the very fine pupils who go to secondary school.

Let us not try to re-fight an old class battle of the 1960s. Comprehensive education failed in this country and was a disaster economically. A few academics involved in the Burns report share the left-wing parentage of the failed academia of the 1960s. Let us not make that mistake. We have a good, strong system with high academic standards that is highly respected by the community. Do not destroy it.

After making the strong point that we need a form of academic selection, let me turn to some related subjects. Whether it is Dickson or the American high school system, let us get the academic selection put in place so that parents and children, especially in year 6 but going back to years 5 and 4, have that uncertainty removed and we know what the transfer procedure will be from next year.

Two points on funding concern me. In this wide debate, I want to try to represent the concern within the primary sector. For historic reasons, going right back to the Education Acts of the 1940s, primary education in Northern Ireland has been the poor relation in funding terms of secondary education. On the mainland, in England and Wales, the amount in pounds per head spent on the secondary sector and on the primary sector is pretty even—within single percentage figures. In Northern Ireland the primary sector is very much the poor relation. As we all know, the overall budget is the problem on funding, but it is also the overall budget plus the allocation. I wish to make a plea on behalf of the primary school sector, which feels that it is often the poor relation of the secondary sector.

I move on to the problem of research. Years ago, I used to advise the Industrial Development Board, which is now Invest Northern Ireland. When it brings Japanese, Korean and American business men into Northern Ireland, our standard of education, our secondary education and our highly trained workforce feature right up high in the slides and presentations. That gives us a competitive edge in inward investment when there is so much competition in the United Kingdom between the regions. Let us not destroy that. Let us try to be conservative. If it is good, do not wreck it. Keep it there, because it is a selling point for Northern Ireland.

There is a point about research that I raised with the Secretary of State for Education last November. The underspend per head of population in Northern Ireland for the two universities, the university of Ulster and Queen's, is very low compared with that in England, Wales and Scotland. The matter needs to be considered by the Government. We need research linked into our universities, because that is how to get industry in and how to get good, modern, high-tech companies to come into Northern Ireland, where we have had considerable success in recent years.

In conclusion, I repeat to the Government: do not wreck it. We do not need an elected dictatorship in Northern Ireland telling us that it will destroy our grammar school system. We have a fine grammar school system, a fine secondary system and a fine primary system. There is a great deal of room for improvement and we want to take part in that. If the Government follow the action of the former Minister of Education, they will impose a comprehensive form of education in Northern Ireland that is not supported by the vast majority of the people, Protestant and Catholic, and that will destroy the grammar school system. I say to them: do not do it.

I have only a few minutes, so I shall be swift.

My constituency is in Scotland, so it might seem that I would not have much to say about education in Northern Ireland. However, I spent a short while running a small but fairly diverse education service in Northern Ireland, and I did a couple of higher degrees while I was at it, so I got to know the Northern Ireland education system fairly well.

Some strong points have been made from both sides during the debate. The main points that I can raise in the time available relate to selection and the method of transfer between primary and secondary education, and the whole business of grammar schools and how to correlate them with grammar schools in England. We have none in Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) received short shrift from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) when he mentioned pass rates. The pass rate referred to was 93 per cent. in Northern Ireland obtaining two A-levels at A to E, which is not the case. The point that my hon. Friend was trying to make was simply that that is the proportion of people who sit A-levels.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the correct figures. As a proportion of the 18-year-old population, the appropriate figures are, for those obtaining two or more A-levels in 1999 to 2000: in England 30 per cent.; in Wales 27 per cent.; and in Northern Ireland 37.7 per cent. Again, the Northern Ireland system is delivering better results.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but the point made earlier confused overall attainment with the degree of selectivity. One could have a pass rate of 100 per cent., but it would not tell us anything about the people who did not sit the exam. That is different from the way in which we express GCSE figures, which gross up the whole cohort.