To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education or training in (a) 1979 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available.

There has been a dramatic improvement in staying-on rates since 1979. In 1989–90, 75 per cent. of 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes, compared to 46 per cent. in 1979–80. Corresponding figures for 17-year-olds were 58 and 29 per cent. respectively. If part-time provision is included, the figures rise to 86 per cent. of 16-year-olds in 1989–90.

Does my hon. Friend agree that assessing ability only in terms of academic achievement sells young people short? Is not one reason for the remarkable increase in the number of young people in training—from 6,000 in 1979 to 260,000 today—the fact that we have returned to the common-sense recognition that vocational training is of considerable value and more closely reflects the abilities of many young people? Will my hon. Friend explain how national vocational qualifications help vocational training?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is terribly important that this country takes vocational training seriously. We need to motivate young people, whatever their aptitude or ability, to acquire further qualifications if we are to have a competitive and well-motivated work force in the 1990s and the next century. National vocational qualifications are a critical element in motivating youngsters and ensuring that their achievements are recognised rapidly.

Has the Minister considered whether it would make more sense if young men and women from working-class families who leave school at 16 or 17 and are thrown into slave labour schemes where they earn a little over £20 a week, but who want to stay on at school, could stay on and be paid a sum equivalent to what they would get on training schemes? As a result, they would be better educated and would not be thrown on the scrap heap.

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would apologise to the House for the last Labour Government's appalling record. In 1979, only 46 per cent. of youngsters stayed on in full-time educational training. That figure has now risen to some 86 per cent., which shows the Government's achievement. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the welcome improvement in staying-on rates may be related to the quality of education in schools? Is not it significant that the 10 authorities with the worst staying-on rates are all Labour controlled and that many of them also figure among the 20 authorities whose students have the worst GCSE results?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is extraordinary that the Labour party consistently complains about resources and other matters yet is not prepared to point the finger where is should be pointed —at the performance of Labour-controlled local education authorities, as evidenced in staying-on rates and examination results. The Labour party should worry more about the quality of education offered by the education authorities that it controls, rather than going through its political rhetoric.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to enable local education authorities to improve the fabric of school buildings.

We have provided £1.8 billion worth of annual capital guidelines and capital allocations to local education authorities and governors of voluntary-aided schools since 1990–91. It is for them to ensure that those substantial resources are used effectively.

Is the Minister aware that that sum will in no way meet the amount needed for the enormous backlog of repairs to schools in England, Wales and Scotland? Is he aware that in St. Helens, of the two bids submitted, £1 million was requested to meet health and safety requirements and £1 million was requested for essential repairs? The authority was allocated £587,000. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge, therefore, that a number of schools have not yet been made safe for pupils? Is not that disgraceful?

I increased the allocation to St. Helens for improvement work from £311,000 last year to £556,000 this year. St. Helens' overall allocation was low because it did not bid for new places and put any proposals to tackle its serious surplus place problem. Some 6,900 surplus places exist there. That includes more than one quarter of secondary school desks, which are empty.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when the Education (Schools) Bill becomes law, local education authorities will still have an absolute right to inspect the schools that they maintain, whenever they want to, so that they are always aware of the maintenance that needs to be done?

Not to inspect schools, no, but LEAs will retain reserve powers to ensure that the budget delegated is managed appropriately. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, if an authority believes that a budget is mismanaged it has the ultimate power to withdraw it.

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is some relationship between surplus school buildings and the fabric of schools is nonsense. There are many surplus buildings in Liverpool, but that does not affect the way in which the local authority can carry out necessary improvements, particularly to inner-city schools.

I was simply making the point that there is a cost in keeping a school desk empty—in St. Helens it amounts to about £1.5 million every year. It is perfectly open to LEAs to obtain higher capital allocations from my Department by putting forward sensible proposals to rationalise their school provision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of standardised testing in schools.

Testing is the key to raising standards in our schools by providing clear information about pupils' progress. Effective annual tests of seven-year-olds are already in place. Tests of 11, 14 and 16-year-olds will follow in the next three years.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that last year's testing of seven-year olds showed that our schools need less play and more learning, less discovery and more teaching, less mixed ability and more setting, less child-centred education and more whole-class subject teaching? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to raise standards in our schools is to provide more testing and to make the results of those tests publicly available—both of which the Labour party opposes?

Yes, I certainly accept that. The results show an unacceptably wide difference between the performance of the very best and that of the very worst. They show that those tests have nothing to do with the amount spent per pupil in individual authority areas—some of the biggest spenders were right down at the bottom. They also show that results do not necessarily have anything to do with socio-economic circumstances or anything of that kind. I share my hon. Friend's belief that the answer lies in the sort of suggestions that he made and which have been revealed in the report of the three wise men.

Does the Secretary of State understand that the testing of seven-year-olds does not quite mean that? He needs to be more careful. An academic year has three terms and children enter school at various stages in that year. Many of the children who are tested are only six. The results over two to three years will include those for children who missed out two terms and who were tested before the age of seven—they will account for a large percentage of the results. The Secretary of State has got it completely wrong. Daily assessment has gone on for all these years, with tests occasionally being undertaken—that is a reality. If testing is to be done, it should be done properly. The test for seven-year olds should not include children who have not yet reached that age.

First, the good news. I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] I meant the hon. Gentleman, but he almost became my hon. Friend because of his grudging acceptance of the principle of testing. It is certainly true, as he says, that tests for seven-year-olds are a shorthand way of describing the progress of those at a particular stage. Some of them have spent more terms in schools than others— which must be borne in mind when looking at the position of an individual pupil—but all those factors even out in the local authorities. For example, the performance of the hon. Gentleman's authority, Sheffield, was markedly inferior to that of Rotherham, although the discrepancies of the sort that he described do not exist in those two authorities.

Do not we owe it to all our children, right across the country and irrespective of their primary schools, to identify their needs, strengths and weaknesses at an early age? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Labour party is a party of slow learners? Not only has the Labour party not realised that GCSE results at 16 in Labour-controlled authorities are some of the worst, but it has learnt nothing—it still opposes standardised testing from the age of seven.

I agree that it is essential to get the basics of primary education right, because until a child has mastered them it has no possibility of gaining access to the rest of education. I agree also that it is absurd to suggest that there is anything wrong with national testing of pupils' progress at certain ages, both to inform parents and to inform localities about the performance of their schools. It is extraordinary that that has been resisted even before we have received the first results.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most damning conclusions of the report on primary education which he published last week was the evidence that standards of reading among seven-year-olds have slumped since 1988, over precisely the period when Ministers have produced one change after another in the system of standardised testing for seven-year-olds? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman ashamed of that record —of the fact that the reading standards of seven-year-olds have slumped by up to five months? Is he ashamed of the fact that every month he has been in office reading standards of seven-year-olds have fallen? Why is it that the Government promised higher standards of education in 1979, 1983 and 1987 but the results of 13 years in office have been lower standards of education?

I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who until recently persistently argued that standards in our schools were not falling and that he resisted pressure for changes in teaching methods and other ideas designed to correct the fall. He merely strengthens the conclusions of the three wise men, who think that there may have been some recent decline but who certainly did not atribute it to the national curriculum, as the hon. Gentleman did. They reject that argument.

The hon. Gentleman has no evidence for asserting that standards have dropped month by month. If he is beginning to share the public anxiety about standards in our schools, he should be ashamed of himself for having resisted each and every reform that has been aimed at reversing the trend and improving them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the population attended university education in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland in 1990–91.

Separate age-participation indices for universities only are not calculated, nor are separate indices for England and Wales; but taking higher education as a whole, provisional data for the 1990–91 academic year show that 19.3 per cent. of young people entered higher education in Great Britain compared with 26.5 per cent. in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman might do well to remember that Great Britain includes Scotland. I think that he meant England and Wales for one part and Scotland for the other.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the higher participation rate in Scotland and the importance of the four-year degree there, it would be right to allocate proportionately more resources to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council? If he does agree, how much more does he propose to allocate?

The division of Universities Funding Council funding will be decided in due course in consultation with all the Departments concerned, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, always a powerful advocate for Scottish interests, has said that Scotland will receive a fair share of those resources.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our achievements in that aspect of education could not be better illustrated than by that which pertains in Nottinghamshire, where the university now has the highest ratio of applications to available places and where Nottingham polytechnic, which is soon to be a university, is planning to increase its capacity over the next couple of years to 16,000 student places? Is not that real success in higher education?

As a Nottingham Member, my hon. Friend is justly proud of the higher education opportunities for his constituents in their own home city where we have a fine polytechnic and a magnificent university. I readily join him in paying tribute to the remarkable achievements of the academic and other staff in those institutions of higher education in terms of the wonderful opportunities that they are offering to more and more of our young people and to people of all ages.

Scottish universities now take many students from the Republic of Ireland and Scotland has to pay the full tuition fees for all those students. Given that the Republic of Ireland does not pay the tuition fees of the few Scottish students in the Republic, is that additional burden on Scottish universities taken into account and are larger grants made available to those universities on that basis?

The right hon. Gentleman is alluding to the arrangements for the support of students in higher education that apply within the European Community. All relevant factors are taken into account by the funding councils when they decide how to allocate resources.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.

I am delighted to say that, to date, 315 schools have opted for grant-maintained status.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is not it a fact that the Labour party would throw out of the window all the grant-maintained schools and return them to the control of its friends in the town halls? Is not it also a fact that pupils in the worst authorities, run by Labour, have the worst GCSE English and maths results? That is what would happen to education if that lot ever gained control.

The Labour party is dedicated to lowering standards. One of its latest pledges is to destroy our A-level system. My hon. Friend is right that the Labour party would be prepared to overrule parental ballots and to take grant-maintained schools back into the throes of LEA control, which is exactly what parents have voted to escape.

The Minister has just appointed two of his own governors to Stratford school in my constituency. Given the national publicity surrounding that school and the instability and chaos there, what procedure exists for schools that lose or have removed from them their grant-maintained status?

It would be wise if the hon. Gentleman actually looked at the record of Stratford school. When Newham had finished trying to destroy that school, it had about 300 pupils, but there are now almost double that number. When Newham's custody of that school ceased, the standards of education were appallingly low, but Her Majesty's inspectors now report a significant improvement in educational standards there—

Answer the question.

Those are the real facts about Stratford, not the black propaganda that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put around.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal attraction of grant-maintained schools is not the additional funding that they receive but the greater independence from the LEAs that they then enjoy? Does he further agree that, following the re-election of the Conservative party to office after the next general election, there will be an avalanche of applications from state schools seeking grant-maintained status?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he has first-hand experience of the benefits of GM schools, as the school that used to be known as Wold Newton transferred to grant-maintained status a few months ago and is showing the way and what can be achieved as a result of a move to grant-maintained status.

Will the Minster confirm that if the bribes that the Secretary of State reinforced in terms of capital allocations for grant-maintained schools last week were extended to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's other pledge to extend that to every possible school, the cost would be the equivalent of more than one penny on VAT?

The hon. Lady is somewhat confused. I have not heard even the chief Opposition Treasury spokeman talk in terms of putting one penny on VAT. Perhaps the hon. Lady should go for a tutorial with him to understand how VAT is collected. As to her other point, I can say only what I said to her about her calculations on nursery school resources. She is not even at level 1 in maths, and should get some help.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to make a decision on the application for grant-maintained status from Torrells comprehensive school, Grays, Essex.

Not later than the end of February.

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that my constituents, particularly those who are parents at this school, will be pleased to hear that he will make a fast decision. He will be aware that the parents at the school voted by a ratio of nearly 3:1 for grant-maintained status. I am sure that he will wish to join me in congratulating the governors, the headmaster and the parents involved in the school on their wisdom in applying for grant-maintained status so as to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of the local education authority. Will he ensure that the decision that he makes is a positive one?

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I stand by what I said—I shall do my utmost to get a decision by the end of February. I welcome the commitment that has been shown by the head of the governing body, but I cannot give any hint of the decision that I will be taking by the end of February.

Will the Minister have a care with Torrells school in view of the mistake that he made with Stratford school? Is he aware that Father Reilley, the chairman of the governors, has already been disposed of, that the new chairman had a brawl with the head teacher, to which the police had to be called, that the chairman has purported to sack the head teacher and that the Department has intervened and had correspondence and has appointed new governors? Do we have—

Order. The question is about Torrells school.

Do we have local management of this school or is it run by the Department?

The hon. Gentleman probably needs a geography lesson. Stratford school is not in Essex, as he should know. With regard to what he said about Stratford school, if he had taken rather more interest in the school when it was in the control of Newham and insisted on the school keeping up to reasonable standards and if he now put pressure on Newham LEA to ensure that it raised standards in schools, he would be doing more for his constituents than he is by his performance today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current number of established city technology colleges.

Thirteen city technology colleges are already established, and two more will be open by autumn next year. The extension of CTC principles and practice into the rest of state education is also under way. I announced on 15 January the establishment, with the joint support of British Aerospace, of Hutton grammar school in Lancashire as the first voluntary-aided technology school. We are receiving many worthwhile bids from schools wishing to become technology schools in response to the announcement we made of the availability of capital funds for this purpose.

Is not it the truth that CTCs have emerged only as a result of the lavish use of taxpayers' money to prop them up? Will the Secretary of State accept that in Bradford, the capital expenditure on one CTC is roughly the equivalent of the whole of the capital expenditure for one year awarded by the Government, but Bradford public schools are in dire need of expenditure? Is not it true that the Government's attitude towards CTCs is private affluence and, towards the rest of the education system, public squalor?

The Mickey Mouse figures on CTC expenditure that critics in Bradford tend to use compare capital expenditure on schools starting from scratch with that for existing schools that do not have to be built. The funding of CTCs is on a par with that of other local education authority schools, and their recurrent funding will not be different from that of other schools in their areas. CTCs offer education opportunities to children of all abilities—particularly those drawn from the most deprived parts of the cities that they serve. It is unbelievably churlish if, for ideological reasons, the hon. Gentleman remains hostile to the best innovation in Bradford for years, while defending a local authority that had the worst results in the country in the recent tests for seven-year-olds.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the establishment of city technology colleges—not least among them, Brooke CTC in Corby —provides a model for the future normal state schooling system? Will he take urgent steps to ensure that the spread of city technology colleges is accelerated as quickly as possible? I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's school technology initiative, and hope that he will favour Our Lady and Pope John school in Corby for funding under that scheme.

I am closely following the progress of Brooke CTC, the site of which I visited only recently. I know how popular and successful it has become. I agree with my hon. Friend that the next important consequence to flow from the CTC programme is that the benefits of all the curriculum development work undertaken by CTCs will spread to the rest of the education system. The technology initiative is an important element in that.

Whatever the difference of view held across the House, given that CTCs are funded by public money, will the Secretary of State take urgent steps to give parents whose children are refused admission to them the same right of appeal that is available in respect of all other publicly-funded schools?

I view CTCs as exemplifying the principle of parental choice that operates in many other parts of the education system. I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point, because it is our aim to put CTC's on a level with others in regard to funding and other aspects. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such a point, rather than displaying the ridiculous opposition that we have seen from Labour, which still seems pledged to getting rid of some of the finest schools in the state education system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received in connection with state schools in west Norfolk.

We have received representations about capital funding for several schools in west Norfolk. Earlier this month, I saw a deputation that opposed Norfolk education authority's proposals to close Bradenham voluntary controlled primary school, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard).

Will my hon. Friend the Minister pay tribute to the professionalism of Norfolk teachers and in particular to those who work in small, rural primary schools? He will he aware of the important role that such schools play in local communities. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the Labour group on Norfolk county council, he believes in small primary schools? Will he confirm that, provided they can deliver the national curriculum, they will continue to have an important role in modern education?

Yes. I am happy to pay tribute to those teachers and to the well-run Norfolk education authority. It was one of the first to introduce local schools management, which paved the way for a series of applications for full grant-maintained status.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make increased provision for special schools.

The local authority finance settlement for 1991–92 allows for local authorities in England to spend nearly £17.5 billion on education—16 per cent. more than the 1990–91 settlement. The settlement for 1992–93 allows for spending of over £18.7 billion, a further increase of 7 per cent. Given good management, that should be sufficient to enable LEAs to provide for children with special educational needs.

Is the Minister aware of the special need in all such schools for nursing cover of the kind currently provided through the health authority? Is he further aware that many special schools, including the excellent Weston Park school in my constituency, are worried about the threat to that cover? If it is not to be provided by the health authority, will the Government give an assurance that the schools themselves will be empowered and funded to offer the nursing care that children with special needs require?

I shall certainly consider that point. Total spending per pupil on special schools and related provisions is currently running at a level four times higher than on pupils in ordinary mainstream schools.

Is my hon. Friend aware that needs and expectations in regard to special types of education seem to be rising all the time? It is felt that resources do not always match every kind of special need that may occur, especially in rural primary schools. Does my hon. Friend consider that it is time to take a fresh look at the whole question?

It is for local authorities to allocate their priorities. We have encouraged those who introduced local management of schools first to look again at their schools, and to ensure that the right balance exists between the funding of secondary schools and that of primary schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the level of expenditure on maintenance for Cleveland's schools; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that Cleveland's schools need a £50 million maintenance programme? His Department has not allocated a single penny to that programme for 1992–93. Is that part of the disgraceful, phoney citizens charter?

As I increased Cleveland's capital allocation from £2.9 million to £3.8 million, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the allocation for improvement work in Cleveland's schools has risen from £90,000 this year to £1.4 million next year.

When considering the principle and amount of funding for schools in Cleveland, will my hon. Friend also consider the funding of schools in Ealing? Today, the Department approved grant-maintained status for five schools in wealthy, middle-class and less wealthy areas in that borough. Are we not being taught the lesson that parents want independence for their schools— whether or not they are in the state sector—because that is the best way of achieving the best possible education for children in Ealing, Cleveland and everywhere else?

Indeed. I congratulate those schools on obtaining grant-maintained status. Ealing has led the way, and I hope that it will not be too long before other education authorities such as Cleveland follow.

Is it not sad that no Cleveland Conservative has been able to come and represent the children of Cleveland today, and that that task has had to be left to a Conservative from Ealing?

Is the Minister aware that 18 schools in the Cleveland authority area were built before 1914 and that in the current financial year Cleveland has received only a quarter of its capital allocation? It is therefore not surprising that thousands of children in Cleveland's schools are being taught in sub-standard conditions—which must have an effect on education standards. Is it not about time that the Government invested in Cleveland's schools? Or are we seeing yet another example of the application of double standards, with Ministers providing no money for the public sector, while sending their own children to school in the private sector?

I do not see how either the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) can describe the £3.8 million allocation for Cleveland as "no money". The plain fact is that there are steps that Cleveland should be taking to improve the way that it manages education spending. Cleveland has some 20,000 empty school places, and spends some £80 per pupil on its central administration, while only £40 per pupil is spent across the border in North Yorkshire.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the results of testing seven-year-olds.

The national and local results of the tests of seven-year-olds which I published on 19 December give, for the first time, a clear picture of how our seven-year-olds are performing.

We should remember that over 70 per cent. of seven-year-olds did reach the targets for that age in English, mathematics and science. However, the wide fluctuations in the performance of individual local education authorities cannot be fully explained by variations in social and economic circumstances or by variations in spending on education, and show that there is plenty of scope to improve standards.

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that school children in my borough of Havering came fifth overall in the national listings. That is a considerable achievement.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my local Labour party is circulating a leaflet, from which I shall now quote—

No quotes.

Order. Paraphrase, please.

In deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so.

According to the leaflet, testing at seven is harmful and impractical. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our talented children deserve better than a Labour council, let alone a Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is certainly right. The publication of the results allowed tribute to be paid to the local authorities whose results were good and where the hard work of teachers was showing results. The publication of results need not be taken as a threat to a good education system. I also share my hon. Friend's regret that some people still seem to think that one can teach a national curriculum sensibly without testing children's progress in an organised fashion. I am astonished that for so long we decided that the results of such tests should be kept secret from the public. It is a great pity that such reactionary ideas are still harboured by the Labour party in Havering and elsewhere.

I am glad that the Minister recognises that the results confirm previous studies—including those by Her Majesty's inspectorate—that most children, teachers and schools are getting or offer a good education. Will he commission a report to consider in detail and with expertise the fluctuations to which he referred rather than, as he has, jumping to his own conclusions about why such fluctuations should exist? After all, some areas include children with special needs and some do not; in some areas children have English as a second language and in others they do not; and, as he admits, teachers have had problems with the tests themselves. Will he commission such a report?

I do not think that we have had such a clear picture before of the extraordinarily wide variations between different parts of the country. I believe that the publication of these results will cause people to focus on the reasons for the low standards in some places, except for hon. Members representing Bradford and Newham—the two lowest scoring local authorities—whose reaction is that one should not have such testing and that it is merely a problem forced on the local authority. The report that I commissioned to get a debate going on why some schools were failing was commissioned from three people whose expertise has not been challenged and nor, as far as I know, have most of their conclusions. However, I agree with the three wise men and with the hon. Gentleman. The vast majority of teachers are working extremely hard to achieve good results under the national curriculum and our aim is to get all schools up to the standards of the best.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend notice that last summer the independent report into Leeds primary schools showed clearly that the schools that had had enhanced resources and more teachers could not show a positive correlation between extra resources and higher standards and, moreover, that the report highlighted the problem of teaching methods? It said that far too many teachers had the perception that unless they followed the good practice set down by local authority advisers, their career prospects in the city would be blighted.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The report by Professor Alexander into the Leeds primary school experience should be read carefully by anyone who is interested in primary school methods. There was a project that led to considerable extra expenditure in primary schools which was closely steered into the dogmatic application of a version of teaching methods and which had harmful consequences in schools. It showed not only that there was no correlation between expenditure and results but that the rather ridiculous pursuit of ideology involving child-centred education led to a reduction in standards because of the pressure on teachers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that according to figures provided in a parliamentary written answer by the Minister of State about the proportion of seven-year-olds reaching the highest level of attainment —level 3—Labour-controlled Haringey is equal top and that Labour-controlled Merton, Camden and Hackney are in the top five placings, streets ahead of Tory Wandsworth which is the source of so much dogma about Tory education policies? Will the Secretary of State now applaud those London Labour boroughs for their excellent results?

When I announced the results I paid tribute to places such as Wigan and St. Helens— [Hots. MEMBERS: "And Hackney".]—and to Hackney if the figures are accurate for level 3 attainments. The hon. Gentleman resisted publication of the information on which he now relies. He reduces it to this petty party political level and then he makes excuses for all the lowest-performing local authorities, which are Labour-controlled, and resists any idea that we should address the teaching methods that have so badly let down children in Newham, Bradford and all the other areas in the bottom 20, almost all of which are Labour controlled.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals regarding capital expenditure on new university teaching buildings.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time on a range of matters, including the capital and recurrent funding needs of the universities.

Is the Minister aware that the Government are cramming more and more university students into the same buildings as a consequence of the fact that they are trying to have people obtain degrees on the cheap? Does he realise that, for example, in University college, Cardiff it is proposed to put an extra 1,000 students into the humanities building over the next three years? Does not he realise that there is a serious danger of recreating the student ferment of 1969? This time, however, it will not be about the great philosophical issues of class warfare and who should run the world; it will be simply about where students can sit to hear a lecture.

Our policy is to promote wider participation and more opportunity in higher education. At the same time, we are asking for reasonable management efficiency gains on the part of institutions. University capital investment in 1992–93—money provided by the taxpayer—will amount to £216 million. By any standards that is a very significant sum.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency of Blyth Valley eagerly await the RECHAR money? As there is a split in his Cabinet will he get off his backside, stop swanning around that desert island and have the money paid?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the RECHAR money has been paid by Britain into the European Community and that we should have it back. I hope that Commissioner Milian will release it speedily.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we already see benefits flowing from the citizens charter? I refer, for instance, to shorter hospital waiting lists and to school performance league tables. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what future benefits—proven benefits—the people of this country will see flowing from the citizens charter?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are determined to get the best possible value for the enormous amount of public money that is available at present. In addition to the improved information and guidance systems that we have already set up, there will be much more flexible opening hours in the case of tax offices, benefits offices and employment service offices, and a much more detailed and personal service for the taxpayer, who has the cost of those services compulsorily extracted in taxes from his or her pocket.

Will the Prime Minister now give a categoric assurance that he will not impose any increase in VAT? Will he please answer yes or no?

We have no plans to increase value added tax.

Why cannot the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Is he aware that the words he has just used are exactly the same as those that were used by his predecessor just before her Government increased VAT? Why cannot he tell us now what his plans are? Or is he trying to forget that the Government have increased VAT five times in 13 years? Is not that why everyone has good reason to know that Tory Governments mean higher VAT?

There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them. So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions.

It is time that the Prime Minister came clean with the country. In view of the record of Conservative Governments in always putting up VAT and in view of the Prime Minister's promises on other aspects of policy, how can he pretend that his intention is not to put up VAT? Do not a Tory Government make VAT rises a certainty?

Before the right hon. Gentleman carries that fib any further, does he recall a further and earlier prediction about value added tax? I quote:

"Labour foresees 60 per cent. VAT. VAT could rise to 60 per cent. if radical tax changes …are introduced by a new Tory Government."

The right hon. Gentleman may recall that prediction by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) before the previous election. That was also the time when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that Labour would win by a landslide in the 1987 election. He was wrong on both points then and he is wrong now.

Does my right hon. Friend agree —[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

Order.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a party's commitment to public services is best judged by its record in government? Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ascertain who controls the 20 authorities that have the highest community charge, the highest rent arrears and more vacant properties than any other authorities? Does my borough of Southwark feature among them?

My hon. Friend makes a sound and fair point. All too often, Labour-controlled councils provide shoddy services at far too high a cost. I well recall the Opposition saying, "If you wish to see what a Labour Government would be like, look at Labour local government."

On the subject of predictions, and while the Prime Minister reflects today on the gloomy report by the Confederation of British Industry, does he recall on new year's day this year saying on Radio 4 that in retrospect, we would look back and say that the economic recovery had already started? In retrospect, does the Prime Minister agree that he might spend less time talking up false economic dawns and more time taking action for economic recovery?

The right hon. Gentleman is becoming a professional gloom monger. When we look back to the present, it will be perfectly clear that in many sectors of the economy, the recovery has indeed started.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as an unfair and anomalous tax on savings and on the rewards of personal enterprise? What would he say today to anyone who was stupid enough to recommit himself to reintroducing it, as Labour has done?

I would certainly find that extraordinary. I would find it even more extraordinary from a party that claims to care about investment, yet clearly has no understanding that investment comes from savings.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Given the commitment in the citizens charter to parental choice in education, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a small delegation of parents from William Gladstone school which has an excellent academic record and an expanding roll but which faces closure as Brent council wishes to sell the school because of its site value?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to see the hon. Member concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest service he can continue to do for the British public is to keep inflation below 5 per cent? Is he further aware that the public remembers that inflation under Labour was 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent? In order to keep the level of inflation down, will he have a look at what is happening with the six major grocery chains, the increased share of the margins that they are getting and the fact that their margins are now twice the level found in the major grocery chains throughout Europe?

As my hon. Friend says, inflation is low and we are determined that it will stay low. He will recall that inflation never fell below 7.4 per cent., and that for only a very brief period, while the Labour party was in Government.

I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Before the Prime Minister retires to his desert island, taking with him his Trollope and a very large section of my constituency—without my permission—will he give a clear and simple statement about what he will offer to pensioners so that they can retire with some luxury? Will he match Labour's commitment to pensions?

A commitment to pensions means nothing if it is not matched by a commitment to low inflation.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister for many months, and not in this Session, unlike some other hon. Members, now shouting "Marginal seat."

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the study in The Financial Times on 6 January which pointed to the fact that the northern region has very much benefited from the economic restructuring of the 1980s and is now coming out of recession faster than any other part of the country, due to the success of the regeneration programmes that the Government have put in place in the region?

I have seen that myself in visits to the north. There is no doubt that the north has seen the start of many good things in this country and I am certain that it will be the same again with the economic recovery.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that last Wednesday he had lunch with Lord Rothermere? Did he take the opportunity on that occasion to co-ordinate the campaign of lies and vilification that the Rothermere press has been conducting against the Labour party?

I took the opportunity to enjoy an excellent luncheon. [Interruption.]

Order.

As my right hon. Friend prepares himself for the important meeting with President Yeltsin later this week in London, will he take the opportunity of seeing what can be done to deal with the massive threat which still exists from all the different independent Russian states?

As my hon. Friend says, this will be an important opportunity to discuss with President Yeltsin both the international difficulties posed by the break-up of the old Soviet Union and the extent to which the west might usefully help the Russian Republic in the difficulties that it faces at present. I anticipate that both those matters will be on our agenda.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Haringey council and the children, teachers and parents of Haringey on the fact that our schools came joint top in English, maths and science in the level 3 standard assessment test and top in the individual subject of science? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind the fact that Haringey is an inner-London borough and has all the associated problems? Is not he ashamed at the remarks of his predecessor and of his ministerial colleagues who have constantly criticised Haringey's education policy and have cut its revenue support grant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Haringey receives an increase in its revenue support grant and standard spending assessment as a result of its excellent work in educating the children at its schools?

I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am especially pleased to hear that he now supports the tests introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I can tell from what he said that he is a strong supporter of the parents charter, without which those results might not have been fully known.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to congratulate British industry on the fact that it has achieved record exports in the past quarter, that 27 of the top 50 European companies are British and that Britain exports more of its national product than Japan? Are not those successful British companies sick and tired of being talked down by the doom-monger Labour party?

My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday's trade figures showed clearly that export volumes were at record levels even in a worldwide economic downturn. My hon. Friend was also right about some Opposition Members talking down the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said in his letter to supporters at the beginning of this year that Britain had a £20 billion trade deficit, when the truth was that the deficit fell by a half and the right hon. Gentleman's figures were wholly wrong. Perhaps he will now write again to his supporters and correct his error.