House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Dec 1992

Column 308

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich) : Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute problem of congestion in central Greenwich, a problem which the Minister for Transport in London saw at first hand during a visit earlier this year? Can the Secretary of State give a positive response to the applications of the London borough of Greenwich for transport supplementary grant to explore the feasibility of a bypass to get round the problem and, in the short term, measures to effect a ban on heavy goods vehicles in the area?

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is very much aware of that issue. The Woolwich road improvement scheme would have started too late to be included in this year's announcement. I do not know what will be possible for next year, but the scheme has been given some annual capital guideline to help with the design costs, of some £400,000. I hope that he will find that helpful. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the importance of the town centre bypass feasibility scheme. He will continue his discussions with Greenwich borough council.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon) : I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, which will improve access to Wimbledon town centre and at the same time improve safety at a notoriously dangerous junction. Will he welcome the fact that this expenditure will complement the efforts of local residents, who have upgraded the area by a tree-planting exercise entirely from their own efforts, in conjunction with voluntary groups and with the co-operation of British Rail but without a single penny of help from the Labour-controlled Merton council?

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. I too pay tribute to the work that the local residents in Wimbledon are doing. I am sure that it will be a good scheme, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed it.

Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North) : Does the Secretary of State accept that Sunderland in particular and the north-eastern region in general probably have the worst road system to link it with other parts of the country that it is possible to imagine? Although the improvements on the A66 are welcome, two inferior roads go south--a two-lane motorway and the A19 trunk road--a dangerous road goes to the west of Carlisle and a dangerous road goes north to the A1. Much more is needed to bring the region into line with what one would expect for other parts of the country with similar populations. What is going to be done to bring the region up to that level?

Mr. MacGregor : I was in and near Sunderland twice recently. I am aware of all the improvements that are currently taking place. Some parts of the country would look with envy on some of the road improvements that are taking place there. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the keys is to improve routes to other parts of the country. Business men in the north-east tell me that one of their biggest obstacles in transporting their goods to their customers is the M25, which they must use to transport goods to major markets elsewhere. That is why there is heavy emphasis in the national roads programme on the motorway schemes.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the A66, which I know well. It has been substantially improved recently, and is very much a changed road. Those improvements

Column 309

will continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the massive investment that will take place to bring the A1 up to motorway standard from London to well up into the north.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Harwich) : I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon and thank him in particular for including the Little Clacton bypass. He will be aware that, with over 14 per cent. unemployment, Clacton has the highest unemployment in the south-east. Does he agree that the improved access via the Little Clacton bypass will be of great benefit and will generate more jobs and investment in the future? Will he also bear in mind for next year the dualling of the A120 to Harwich?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot make promises about future schemes, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the Little Clacton bypass. That is a scheme costing some £6.7 million. I am sure that it will bring the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred. He will also be aware that the TSG for Essex as a whole this year will be some £16.6 million, compared with £13.7 million last year.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : In a response to his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) the Secretary of State asserted that compulsory catalytic converters would have a great effect. We wish that that were so, but remain unconvinced. Would he be prepared to give us the evidence that he has received from his Department or to put it in the Library? Is not the truth of the matter that, with the 140 per cent. increase in cars during the past 25 years--my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) assures me that those are departmental figures--the only way to combat pollution is to transfer much more traffic to rail? Is he satisfied that some catalytic converters are not merely the racket that we are told they may be?

Mr. MacGregor : The scientific advice that I have, which I am happy to put in the Library, shows that, while convertors do not deal with CO , they deal with about 80 per cent. of the other pollutant effects of emissions, which is an important contribution.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : I readily acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has done outstandingly well to obtain major new investment for roads and rail. However, from the list of major new schemes it is noticeable that not a single project has been approved for the county of Kent next year. He will understand that there will be tremendous disappointment in many areas in my constituency and other parts of the county because many of them are desperately in need of bypass relief. Under the present TSG rules, there is virtually no prospect of a bypass being constructed for many environmental sensitive areas if a project is too expensive for the council but is not on a primary route.

My right hon. Friend will know that I sent him a list of 36 villages in the county which have no prospect of relief. Will he comment on that, with a view to re-examining the criteria for much-needed environmental schemes, especially for the relief of many villages in Kent and other shire counties? In Kent, the figures are totally distorted by channel tunnel- related expenditure.

Mr. MacGregor : I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks but, among the projects that I am announcing under the special supplementary credit approval list is a

Column 310

scheme costing nearly £8 million--the Wainscott northern bypass, the Gillingham northern link and stage 4 of the Sittingbourne industrial route. I have to take into account the fact that Kent gets the highest TSG of any county--£75 million this year. That is a high TSG figure and will obviously have some effect, although I acknowledge that the channel tunnel link is a factor.

I also take note of my hon. Friend's remark about large schemes. There is a problem, and we have to get the balance right. If one simply concentrates on a comparatively small number of large schemes, which carry on from one year to another, it will pre-empt the ability to deal with smaller bypass schemes, which are often needed in many other countries for environmental reasons. I am trying to strike a balance between large schemes that flow over a number of years and new schemes, which could take place in a single year and benefit many towns and villages.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision to go ahead with the A16 Peakes parkway to Grimsby will be warmly received in my constituency? Does he acknowledge that the scheme has been on the stocks for far too long and that we are delighted that he has been able to agree the application from Humberside county council? Does that not put final seal on the excellent road network that we now have in my constituency, which started with the A180 dual carriageway about 10 years ago and the A15 Ermine street link, and will it not be the completion of an excellent road package?

Mr. MacGregor : I note my hon. Friend's considerable efforts to bring about the improvements to which he has referred, including the Grimsby Peakes parkway. He will know that in TSG terms that is a major scheme costing £13.5 million. Like him, I am glad that our efforts-- and his--have been able to bring it about.

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) : May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that there will be additional funding to deal with traffic problems in Norwich? Having pressed, with the local councils, for "park and ride" and similar schemes, can I ask whether my right hon. Friend can give a little more detail of that help, which is so welcome in Norwich and the surrounding area?

Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend will know, I understand the problems to which he refers, as I am frequently in Norwich. The Norwich "park and ride" scheme around the airport will come under the special supplementary credit approvals and will cost a total of £3 million. My hon. Friend will note that the scheme is in his part of Norwich, not mine, and I hope that he is pleased that we were able to bring it about.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth) : Is my right hon. Friend aware how warmly the people of Hounslow will welcome the new proposals on the Hounslow centre urban relief road? It is a much-needed scheme in an area that is highly congested. Will my right hon. Friend get on with it and start the scheme as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, indeed.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his overall statement, and I particularly thank him for making possible the new "park and ride" scheme in Chester. That is an invaluable

Column 311

initiative for historic cities such as ours, and will be welcomed by everyone in Chester--including, I suspect, the mother of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is a treasured constituent of mine.

Mr. MacGregor : I am glad that there is some agreement across the House on that issue. As my hon. Friend knows, I visit Chester fairly frequently, and I am sure that the scheme will being great benefits.

Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents in Eastbourne and Polegate will be delighted that the A22 Nightingale farm scheme is on the list? Without wishing to seem churlish, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look kindly on other transport infrastructure projects in east Sussex.

Mr. MacGregor : I note what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that he will agree that the scheme--at a cost of £4 million--will bring big benefits in the coming year.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extracting additional money from the Treasury. He knows that I have lobbied him and his colleagues before breakfast in Whitehall and before tea in Loddon in his constituency for a bypass around Stone, which is much needed due to the traffic congestion and the desire for pedestrianisation. Are we or are we not to have a bypass around Stone?

Mr. MacGregor : I remember my hon. Friend's lobbying, and I am pleased to tell him that the bypass around Stone is included in the programme. I am well aware of the special reasons why it is desirable. Its inclusion in the list means that Staffordshire has two major schemes in the programme for this year.

BILL PRESENTED

Declaration of War (Requirement for Parliamentary Approval)

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Graham Allan, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to provide that war may not be declared, nor troops committed or kept abroad, by Her Majesty's Government without the approval, by a two thirds majority, of the House of Commons : And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 January 1993 ; and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales)

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

Column 312

Welfare of Animals

4.23 pm

Mr. Alan Milburn (Darlington) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the keeping of fur- bearing animals under intensive conditions ; to make new provision with regard to the treatment of animals ; and for connected purposes.

I have chosen to introduce the Bill in an attempt to eliminate the most heinous of farming practices and to modernise the law governing the treatment of animals. My Bill has two aims : first, to end fur farming in this country immediately ; secondly, to make the welfare of animals the yardstick by which farming practices should be judged in future.

Hon. Members will remember that, a fortnight ago, the House debated the Mink Keeping Order. Unfortunately, hon. Members were unable to take into account the welfare of mink and Arctic fox in reaching a decision on the future of fur farms. I believe that there is widespread support in the country and on both sides of the House for an end to animal abuse on fur farms.

A recent survey by Lynx showed that 78 per cent. of the population wanted a ban on fur farming. British people believe that fur coats are out of fashion, and they do so for all the right reasons. The fur of animals belongs on their backs, not on ours.

This morning, accompanied by some of my hon. Friends, I had the pleasure of presenting a petition to 10 Downing street, calling on Her Majesty's Government to end the practice of fur farming, with immediate effect. The petition was signed by 500,000 people and was organised by Lynx, Compassion in World Farming, the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Despite the strength of public opinion on this issue, however, there are still 24 mink factory farms and two Arctic fox farms in the United Kingdom. That is 26 too many.

The conditions in which mink and Arctic fox are kept could not be more unsuitable to the nature of the animals. Mink are semi-aquatic. They spend much of their time in the wild either in the water or patrolling their territory, which can be up to 22 acres wide. They are solitary, and they have a tendency to avoid others of their kind.

Yet on the fur farms, mink are forced to live on top of one another in cage sizes recommended by the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom-- just 24 in long by 15 in high by 12 in wide. The cages are so small that the mink cannot rear up on their hind legs, something they do continually in the wild. They are denied access to water, except through a drip, and are deprived of the opportunity to perform even the most basic of functions written deep into their genetic code.

This leads to chronic stress, resulting in what animal behaviourists describe as stereotyped behaviour patterns. Mink and foxes kept in these conditions mutilate themselves, and cases of infanticide and cannibalism are widely reported. From birth to death, mink and Arctic foxes are incarcerated in conditions that drive them mad. Born in May, taken from their mothers and caged in groups, they are killed in November at the age of six or seven months when their first winter coats emerge.

The fur trade likes to describe these places as farms, but that is the last thing they are. They are factories--wildlife hellholes where animals are mass produced and treated as pieces of machinery for making skins for coats that

Column 313

nobody needs. Each year, 250,000 mink are killed in these factories, usually by gassing in large killing boxes linked to the exhaust of a tractor or car.

It takes 65 mink and 24 foxes to make just one full-length fur coat. Ironically, since fur sales in this country are in rapid decline, most of the pelts are shipped to Scandinavia, where they are auctioned. This is one export trade of which I hope all hon. Members will agree this country should be ashamed.

The conditions in which mink and Arctic fox are kept in Britain's fur factory farms have been universally condemned by animal welfarists, by vets, by animal behaviourists and by zoologists. They have all concluded that it is impossible to rear and kill these animals for fur without causing undue suffering. Indeed, the Government's Farm Animal Welfare Council will not issue a welfare code for fur farming in case that gives the factories a stamp of approval.

Fur farming also contravenes article 3 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, which states :

"animals shall be housed and provided with food, water and care which is appropriate to their physiological and ethnological needs".

This requirement is echoed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its list of freedoms which encompass the fulfillment of an animals basic needs : freedom from discomfort, by providing a suitable environment ; freedom to express normal behaviour, by providing sufficient space and proper facilities ; and freedom from fear and distress, by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

Unfortunately, the current law--by ignoring those freedoms--allows the Government to license people to keep a range of animals in appalling conditions. There is widespread public concern about battery cage hen production, the de-beaking of poultry, and multi-tier pig cages. There is also public abhorrence of the international trade in primates. Those naturally wild animals are kept in cages no larger than a filing cabinet.

Right hon. and hon. Members may know of a recent case at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. where primates were kept

Column 314

with no bedding and exercise, and their treatment breached Home Office guidelines--yet that place remains open for business, licensed by the Government, licensed to torture, and licensed to kill. All those practices should be ended. None of us needs a coat made of mink or fox, and we do not need to keep hens in battery cages to fulfil our lives. In fact, most people in this country and right hon. and hon. Members would have the quality of their lives dramatically improved by the ending of fur farming and the intensive rearing of animals in overcrowded and inappropriate factory farms.

Thankfully, public opinion is ahead of the law when it comes to concerns about animal welfare. Wearing a fur coat is no longer seen as a status symbol : it is regarded instead as a badge of cruelty and shame. Just as the trade in elephant ivory and in baby seal skins was ended by public outrage, it is time that the law caught up with public opinion and banned the trade in fur.

My Bill will do precisely that. It will also update the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to incorporate the FAWC freedoms, so that the conditions in which animals are kept will meet their behavioural requirements. The Bill will ensure that farming takes place without inflicting unnecessary cruelty, will give a new meaning to animal welfare, and will make society that much richer as a result. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Milburn, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Alan Meale, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Brian Wilson, and Mr. Tony Banks.

Welfare of Animals

Mr. Alan Milburn accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of fur-bearing animals under intensive conditions ; to make new provision with regard to the treatment of animals ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

Column 315

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)

4.32 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I beg to move

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education Bill.

Committee 1.--(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 9th February.

(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 10th February.

Report and Third Reading 2.--(1) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day.

(2) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(3) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of each of those allotted days as the Resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.

(4) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House. (5) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (4), and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House. (6) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken.

Proceedings in Standing Committee 3.--(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) The Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceedings 4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory Motions 5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. Extra time 6.--(1) On the first allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

Column 316

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to that period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to that period of two hours.

Private business 7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings 8.--(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)-- (

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair ;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill) ;

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government ; and

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded ;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock--

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time ;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders 9.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

Column 317

(2) If on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed for bringing proceedings to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving 10. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall--

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order ; or (

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal 11.--(1) Reference in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation 12. In this Order--

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day ;

"the Bill" means the Education Bill ;

"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee ; "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

I do not intend to detain the House long, but clearly the House will expect me both to explain the background to this timetable motion, and to say something about the arrangements for which the motion provides. The House is, of course, familiar with the purpose and content of the Bill itself, and it would in any case not be appropriate for me to describe it at length as if this were a Second Reading debate.

I will therefore merely remind the House that the Bill provides in part I for the setting up of new funding authorities for schools in England and Wales ; sets out in part II arrangements for grant-maintained schools ; reforms in part III the existing provisions affecting children with special educational needs--as a matter of great importance to many parents ; lays down in part IV provisions designed to help ensure pupils attend school ; provides in part V for education associations to be set up to run schools that fail to provide an acceptable standard of education ; and provides in part VI for the establishment of the school curriculum and assessment authority. Those purposes clearly command considerable support in the country ; indeed, they follow commitments given in the election campaign earlier this year, and in the White Paper "Choice and Diversity : A New Framework for Schools", published in July, which people rightly expect to see implemented. The aim of the motion is to facilitate that, in what I believe to be an entirely sensible and responsible way.

To explain why we have thought it right to table the motion, I need do little more than set some simple facts before the House. So far, after 65 hours of consideration

Next Section

Home Page