asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement about preparations for the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education examination.

The programme of preparation for the GCSE is thorough and of high quality. Never before has so much been done to prepare all teachers for examination reform. My right hon. Friend announced on 13 March a series of measures to ensure the successful completion of the training programme and the provision of adequate resources for schools.

Will my hon. Friend assure head teachers that, given the additional training and resources that we have made available, there is time available for proper planning by teachers, including an agreed syllabus? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that parents of third-year pupils in my constituency will soon have to choose subjects?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I know of some of the concern expressed about syllabuses. There is no reason why proper choices should not be made on the basis of the information available, including the national criteria and the draft syllabuses that have been in schools for some months.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that few head teachers or other teachers would recognise his description of the state of preparedness for the GCSE? Does he realise that most parents are not at this stage primarily interested in apportioning blame but are interested in ensuring that their children are properly prepared for the examination? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that postponement has now become a matter for much more serious consideration than hitherto?

Postponement of the examination would overwhelmingly lead to the very chaos which its supporters say they fear. Most fair-minded heads and teachers would accept that there has been more preparation for this change than there was for the introduction of the GCE O-levels or CSEs or for the raising of the school-leaving age.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the onus for ensuring that this new examination functions effectively is on the shoulders not only of my hon. Friend or his Department, but of teachers and the LEAs?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We must make this important change work. I do not believe that we have an option. The Government have shown that they are prepared to play their part. I hope that we can all work to make this new examination the success that it deserves and needs to be.

Does the hon. Gentleman still not recognise the widespread anxiety and concern among parents? Would it not be a sign of strength rather than of weakness by the Government if they postponed the examination and allowed proper preparation and proper resources to be devoted to this examination so that those worries and anxieties could at last be eased?

Of course I recognise those worries and anxieties. Last week I sat through a debate on this subject at the conference of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. I recognise that many of the anxieties expressed are the result of professional judgments rather than of politics. I do not believe that another option exists. I think that we can and should now work together to make this examination a success.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this morning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts that teacher disruption made the introduction of GCSE less sure? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, despite that problem, this important educational reform will go ahead whatever happens, so that parents are certain that their children's education problem is solved?

We shall press ahead. I hope that in all the teachers associations and unions wiser counsel will prevail than was shown by some last week. We cannot have a national syllabus determined by the annual conference of the NUT.

Is it not fact that parents, local authorities, teachers and students are concerned about the education system—in fact just about everybody except Education Ministers on the Front Bench. Is it that they simply do not care?

That is a ludicrous observation. If that were true, last month the Government would not have announced further phase two training and said that we were prepared to allow schools to close next term for a couple of days so that training could be completed. We would not have made available the £20 million in addition through the education support grant for the extra cost of books and equipment.

If certain teacher trade unions continue to refuse to co-operate with the introduction of the new examination, will the Government have contingency plans ready to deal with possible disruption of the curriculum in September? Will it be necessary to ask the Associaton of Chief Education Officers whether it thinks it would be practicable to go ahead with the new curriculum in September?

I am afraid that if some of the teacher unions do what they claimed last week they would do, it raises far greater questions than the introduction of the GCSE. In those circumstances we would have to look at contingencies, but I hope that that situation will not arise.

We share the Government's support for the new 16-plus examination. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only the teachers but the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associatons, many local authorities and two out of the five examining groups have expressed strong reservations about the new courses going ahead as planned? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that, without more resources and without more adequate preparation, it is fair to next year's fourth-year pupils to start work for the new examination in September?

I repeat that we have added to the literally unprecendented preparations which have already been made and which were agreed in 1984. I see no reason why every teacher should not have received perfectly adequate training by the end of next term. There are no GCE or CSE syllabuses for 1988, and in many cases the machinery which would be necessary to create them has already been dismantled.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to reorganise his Department.

Separate information technology and architects and building branches have been established this year on 1 January and 1 February respectively. I have no plans for any further changes in the organisation of my Department.

Given the variety of educational policies that have been espoused by the Secretary of State, his junior Minister, Lord Young and the Prime Minister, what structure of Department would the Secretary of State advise the Prime Minister to adopt and thus bring a notion of vision, clarity and purpose to a Government who seem to have no educational policy and who are fighting about it after seven years in office?

I commend to the hon. Gentleman the policies set out and which are being implemented in "Better Schools". Such policies can be perfectly carried through by the Department of which presently I am the head. There is no need on account of those policies to make any changes.

Will my right hon. Friend initiate a move to end the binary division in higher education, where there is much overlap and duplication and a need for better use of resources? Many of us find it strange that the polytechnics, having increased the proportion of young people going into higher education, now contemplate a massive cut in places.

I have to say to my hon. Friend that the report in The Times this morning about a decided cut in polytechnic places is rubbish. There is no need to change the organisation of the Department, of which I am presently the head, in the light of any decisions about binary or non-binary division in higher education.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there are many people who believe that the time has come to merge the MSC with the Department of Education and Science, but think that it would be anathema if he were to nationalise the locally provided educational service and would see that as going against the spirit and purpose of the Education Act 1944?

There is no intention to nationalise the education service. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, merging one Department with another would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his speech last week? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the belief that there is genuine local control of education is a complete fiction, and will he take urgent steps to transfer the cost of teachers salaries from local government to the central Exchequer and so take the burden off a handful of ratepayers?

In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question—yes, enthusiastically. I agree with every word of my hon. Friend's speech. I understand that he has made the same speech in substance several times before, and I am glad that it has received the attention that it deserves. On the last part of my hon. Friend's question—no, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of expenditure on text books in primary and secondary schools.

Since 1979 spending per pupil on books has fallen in real terms, as measured by the GDP deflator, while spending per pupil on books and equipment overall has increased substantially. It is for local education authorities and schools to decide on the balance of spending on these items, bearing in mind local priorities.

Is the Minister of State aware that the Prime Minister, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) yesterday, confirmed the judgment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate that one third of local education authorities have an inadequate supply of textbooks? Is it not an appalling condemnation of seven years of Tory mismanagement of education that children have to share textbooks and so cannot take them home and, in many subjects, are working from textbooks that are out of date? What will he do about it?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I obviously have the advantage of reading the whole of the letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), rather than just part of it. My right hon. Friend pointed out that Her Majesty's Inspectorate had found that the proportion of books and equipment was satisfactory in over two thirds of the local education authorities, and in only one tenth of schools was inadequate capitation judged to be the cause of shortage.

Does the Minister recognise that if there is a chronic shortage of textbooks throughout the education system we are in danger of creating the "yob society" about which he talked, which is already in evidence at the Federation of Conservative Students?

That would have been a more impressive supplementary question if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier answer. In its report the HMI noted that provision for books in schools has improved each year since 1981. It also noted that inadequate identification of needs and poor departmental management were a more common cause of shortage of books and equipment than low capitation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he remains satisfied that the representation of the teaching unions on the Burnham committee is pro rata to the size of membership of those unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will institute a biennial review of the composition of the Burnham committee teachers' panel; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that the representation of the teacher unions on the Burnham primary and secondary committee reflects the Burnham-relevant membership of the teacher unions as at 31 December 1984, which is the latest date for which figures are available for all the unions. I do not think that it would be appropriate to consider another review until the independent panel recently appointed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to assist management and teachers in negotiations on various matters, including procedures for negotiation, has completed its work.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that tens of thousands of moderate teachers who put pupils before politics are leaving the NUT, and have been since 1984, and are joining the Professional Association of Teachers and the AMMA? Should not those changes be reflected without further delay in the composition of the Burnham committee?

I am unwilling, at a time when there is widespread agreement that the Government should consider shifting from the present Burnham committee arrangements for negotiations—although without much agreement on what the shift should be towards—to confirm the durability of the Burnham committee by reviewing teacher numbers. After all, the only arrangements for the audited collection of numbers is at the end of the year, so the latest numbers available would be at the end of 1984, and, soon, 1985. It will be time enough to consider this when ACAS has reported.

Will my right hon. Friend not altogether exclude the possibility of a further review, and not confine that review simply to a pro rata arrangement, but consider the more revolutionary approach of according equal representation to all the teacher unions? That might reflect a better balance and better working within the Burnham system.

I certainly do not want to rule out the possibility of a review in a suitable form at a suitable time. I therefore heed what my hon. Friend says, but without necessarily espousing his last suggestion.

Is it not true that the problems of education will remain huge and will continue to move towards the centre of the political stage, no matter how much gerrymandering is done with the Burnham committee? As the right hon. Gentleman moves the goalposts on the Burnham committee, are not teachers going back to work embittered and angry because they realise that the Government are interested not in state education but only in private education? The Government care not for the education of the children, whom we believe should be educated to the best possible standard.

The hon. Gentleman is mischievious in his suggestions and entirely unjustified. Let him read "Better Schools" to see the practical interest of the Government in the improvement of standards in state education. The only power that I have used in reviewing the membership of the Burnham committee was given to the holder of my office by statute by a Labour Government.

When will the Secretary of State respond to the calls of those on the Burnham committee and elsewhere in education, and resign?

Answer.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that that was a rhetorical question.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received in support of legislation to privatise educational services; and if he will make a statement.

There have been many responses to the Government's consultative paper on compulsory competitive tendering by local authorities issued in February 1985. The Government remain committed to the principle of requiring local authorities to submit certain of their in-house services to the discipline of competitive tendering against outside private contractors and are preparing the necessary complex measures for inclusion in the legislative programme as soon as is practicable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the demand for private and independent education in this country has never been higher? Will he now consider introducing new incentives to satisfy that demand? Does he agree that the alarming expressions of teacher power over the Easter weekend will serve only to encourage those who believe that the privatisation of state education services is now due?

As the House knows, the Government continue to consider all possibilities for improving school education. We also take the view that the greater the variety available to all parents, whether in the maintained or the private sector, the better for the future well-being of the country.

May I commiserate with the Secretary of State for being described in today's Daily Telegraph as

"the most misunderstood man in British politics"?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity of his supplementary question, but it has no relation to my hon. Friend's original question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the Government's wholesale success in privatisation across Government Departments, the privatisation of existing schools should not be ruled out?

I am certainly prepared to consider any schemes along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, but I must point out that we are concerned about privatising educational services and that many of the least efficient local authorities are the least interested in increasing efficiency. That is why the Government propose to take this step.

As education should be a right for all and not just a commodity to be bought and sold in the market place, may we have a categorical assurance that the Government will reject the crazy proposals of some of the Right-wing extremists in the Tory party and also, apparently, Mr. John Pardoe of the Liberal party, who want to take education out of the hands of elected local education authorities and contract it out to private agencies and private schools? That will be the surest way of creating the type of "yob society" to which the Minister of State referred during his speech last week.

I feel that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of not understanding the debate about the future of the education service. His rather crazy and convoluted question does not deserve an answer from me.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the situation in schools, following the declared end of the teachers' industrial action.

Following the 1985 pay settlement and the opening of talks led by the ACAS appointed panel, many teachers have returned to full normal working, but I am sad to say that disruption has continued in many schools in England and Wales. Such disruption is even more indefensible now that talks covering pay, structure, duties and responsibilities are taking place.

I welcome the belated agreement to the 1985 pay settlement at a level ahead of inflation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any long-term solution must not only consider improved pay and promotion prospects for teachers, but must include an unequivocal definition of teachers' responsibilities and some sort of performance assessment? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that any disruption in the schools before these talks are concluded, or any attempt by any union to dismiss certain parts of what must be a total package; will be vigorously objected to not only by parents but by the public at large?

I think that what my hon. Friend has formulated lies within the agreement reached by ACAS with the local education authorities and with at least five of the teacher unions. The National Union of Teachers, to a certain extent ambiguously, is associating itself with the talks.

My question refers to the abiding situation in schools. Does the Secretary of State realise that one of the deplorable features in state schools is the increasing level of violence outside and inside the classroom against members of the teaching profession? Has the Secretary of State received a report from the NAS/ UWT on the appalling level of violence against teachers in some parts of the country? Has he considered it, and if not, will he consider it carefully and consult local education authorities as to ways in which this deteriorating situation can be dealt with?

Yes, I have received such a report. I share anxieties about it. I have to point out that although the subject has validity, the report represents a 3 per cent. response to an inquiry by the NAS/UWT of its members. Nevertheless, I do not doubt that violence takes place and is enormously to be regretted. I take the view that a good head teacher makes a huge difference to a school. I shall certainly study the report and anything that might be done seriously.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some schools in my constituency of central Suffolk no homework is being set, some pupils have had only one school report in three years, and many pupils are now having to decide on their state examination options without their parents having had any consultations with the teachers who will be teaching them throughout that period? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the teachers concerned in this action must be well aware of the permanent damage that they are doing to the children and that they ought to be made to carry out at least those basic duties?

I share entirely the reaction of my hon. Friend. I have time and again paid tribute to those teachers, including head teachers, who, despite every pressure, have not responded to the encouragement to disrupt from some teachers' unions. I deplore the disruption that some teachers' unions have encouraged their members to take. It is entirely wrong that pupils should be penalised, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The employers—the local education authorities—must consider their reaction to the behaviour of such teachers.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the sensible agreement reached between the Scottish Office and the Scottish teacher unions has made his task of trying to reach a sensible agreement with the English and Welsh teachers' unions almost impossible? Will he guarantee that no matter what ACAS recommends in its inquiry into the dispute, he will accept it?

I cannot give that assurance to the House. The Government have said that they will seriously consider any recommendations that emerge from ACAS. The hon. Member must realise that the position in Scotland was not paralleled in England, where the ACAS initiative has broken the deadlock.

One tragic side effect of the dispute is the loss of contact time out of school between the teaching profession and pupils. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that this is, therefore, a good time to deregulate Sunday trading, when that might lead to pupils having less time for school preparation? The teachers unions are extremely worried about that. Will he ensure that there is no unfortunate educational side-effect to this measure?

I congratulate my hon Friend on introducing his views on Sunday trading into this question. I cannot accept that, whatever happens to Sunday trading, it will have the result that he fears.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, after four and a half years as Secretary of State, and after seven years of Conservative Government, that even Ministers acknowledge that our schools are in a crisis? As he is an honest man, will he accept that when the contenders for the succession so publicly and obviously submit their competing job applications, and when he has so clearly lost the confidence of parents, teachers and local authorities, the time has come for him to stand aside and allow someone else to clear up the mess?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement earlier that the Opposition agree with the Government that the new GCSE examination should be introduced. A by-product of the present tragic state of schools is the fact that all parties in the House acknowledge that higher standards in the state education service are greatly to be desired, for the benefit of children and the country as a whole. I hope that, out of that general recognition, much good can come from the present misery.

Is my right hon. Friend not constantly amazed at his tolerance and patience? If the NUT now demands a veto on what its members will teach and when they will teach it, has not the time come to scrap the Burnham machinery and introduce legally enforceable contracts between teachers and employers?

I need no persuasion that it may be sensible to abolish the Burnham machinery. I need to know what might suitably and appropriately take its place.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the arrangements of local education authorities in giving effect to section 2 of the Education (Amendment) Act 1986.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the arrangements made by local education authorities for training supervisors for midday supervision as a result of section 2 of the Education (Amendment) Act 1986.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on lunchtime supervision in schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have not yet sought additional funding for lunchtime supervision for schoolchildren.

Sixty five local education authorities in England have submitted bids or draft schemes in application for education support grant for midday supervision. Thirty two LEAs have yet to submit a scheme, although 26 of these have made informal inquiries of the Department. Forty nine LEAs have had their proposals approved. This represents satisfactory progress in the short time since the Education (Amendment) Act 1986 came into force. It is for LEAs to make their own arrangements for training supervisors.

Does the Minister realise that the plain truth about the midday supervision scheme is that it is grossly underfunded, and was introduced without adequate consultation? It is causing great concern to parents throughout the country, including those in my constituency. Should he not grasp the nettle now and introduce a national plan, which would at least prevent an unmitigated disaster, even by the pathetic standards of his own lame duck Department?

I am delighted that the Oldham local education authority has submitted a scheme, which we have been able to approve, subject to certain inquiries on our part. That represents good progress. But I fear that if we had suggested a national plan we would have been accused of centralisation, and that really would not do.

Does the Minister not agree that a national scheme would be more beneficial and would give equal supervision to all children? If the scheme is left to local education authorities, what confidence can parents have that the supervisors will be adequately trained and will have the necessary experience?

This is an issue for local education authorities, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will have every confidence in the scheme submitted by the Manchester local education authority.

Is it not scandalous and dangerous that children should be locked up in schools during lunchtime? Is not the Act, and the way that it is working, to be welcomed? Is my hon. Friend aware that some head teachers are concerned that assistant teachers operating the scheme may earn more than they do, and that that is why they have some reservations? Will he look into that possibility and ensure that it does not arise?

I understand what my hon. Friend has said. We want to see that head teachers are paid properly for the responsibility that they carry. That would, of course, have been one of the consequences if the teachers associations had accepted the 12 September package.

What action can be taken in the case of those head teachers who are not co-operating in making the new arrangements work?

It is more a question of encouraging the remaining local education authorities to put in bids for schemes. I very much hope that all head teachers will help to make the arrangements work. I know how hard head teachers have had to work during the past year, and we greatly admire the way in which they have carried their burden.

Why does the Minister not admit to something that no one knows about? Why does he not tell the House that the £40 million is not only not enough, but is taken out of the £1·25 billion being offered to the teachers, which is in itself inadequate? Ministers never tell people where the money is coming from.

As a matter of interest, both the public and the teachers, in particular, were told that on 5 August 1985.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I and many teachers and parents are convinced that teachers make the best supervisors? They should be encouraged to pick up the extra money and to supervise school meals. The only thing stopping them is the NUT, in particular, and some of the other unions.

I do not think that only teachers can supervise at lunchtime, but some local education authorities are introducing schemes involving teachers. We have made it clear that teachers should carry out such duties on a contractual basis.

Why did the Government not heed the Opposition's warning that there should he national standards for midday supervision and a basic training scheme? Does the Minister agree that he has now offended the National Association of Head Teachers as a result of his proposal? Have we not seen yet another example of the Government's determination to offend everyone involved in education, and to cause as much difficulty as possible?

No.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both parents and governors are writing to us suggesting that some schemes put forward by local education authorities propose an inadequate level of supervision? Will he ensure that when he approves schemes he takes careful account of that so as to reassure parents and parent governors?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the National Association of Head Teachers to discuss the implementation of the Education (Amendment) Act 1986.

My right hon. Friend met the NAHT on 3 January. I met the NAHT myself on 28 January. My right hon. Friend and I are always willing to discuss matters of common concern with the teacher unions, although no date has been set for a further ministerial meeting with the NAHT.

Is the Minister aware that the National Association of Head Teachers, 16 counties and 24 metropolitan district counties, including my district council of South Tyneside, have suggested that there should be a national plan for midday supervision? Why does the hon. Gentleman not listen to them? How does he propose to ensure that children are properly and equally supervised?

That is the general view of local authorities. I am delighted that South Tyneside local education authority was one of the first to apply for help under the education support grant. We acted in the Education (Amendment) Act 1986 to deal with a longstanding grievance. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and others are criticising us for doing so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the size of the 1986–87 science budget.

My right hon. Friend has received 193 representations about the resources available for science. These representations relate generally to the Government's plans for science funding over a period of years rather than to the budget for a specific year. The Government's plans for the science budget will be reviewed during the annual public expenditure survey.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great concern felt in all parts of the House that if we are to compete with the Japanese and United States of America we must spend a great deal more money on civil research and not so much on military research? Does he agree that we should have a national policy, and will he take steps to move towards that?

There is a standing case for spending more on science, as there is in many other areas, but it is a question of priorities. It is a question of getting the money first and of making sure that that money is well spent. In that connection, I should like to pay tribute to the considerable efforts made by the research councils to rationalise the way in which money is spent. But it is not just a question of the Government spending money; industry, too, should spend more on research and development. Pointing to the fact that British business spends less on research and development than any other Western economic competitor, and to the fact that our wage increases are higher by far than those of any other economic competitor, my right hon. Friend recently described that as "a suicide pact".

Does the Minister accept that one of the major criticisms of his Department is that resources for teaching and research in science are not adequate? Is it not nonsense that in industrial areas we should be closing down science departments in polytechnics? What will he do about that? Does he not think that a Minister for Science should be appointed?

My right hon. Friend earlier described the so-called cuts in polytechnics as rubbish. I do not think I can do better than that. I am sure the hon. Lady knows that it would be wrong to lend her name to a campaign of alarmism about so-called cuts in polytechnics. [Interruption.] I am chairman of the relevant committee of the NAB, which has made no such recommendation for cuts; has my right hon. Friend. He will be considering in the normal way at the end of the year, in the first round, the amount of money available for expenditure in the public sector of higher education.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Cambridge at least there are definite signs of a brain drain, which could be resolved by the expenditure of a relatively small sum of money? Will he and his colleagues fight the Treasury on this much more vigorously in the future than in the past?

My hon. Friend makes a point to which we are devoting considerable attention. We are awaiting a report from the Royal Society on the brain drain. We also listen carefully to the representations from the "Save British Science Campaign", which includes many distinguished men and women.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his latest estimates of the cost of introducing the general certificate of secondary education examinations.

The Department is contributing more than £9·5 million to the national programme of in-service training for the GCSE. We have also proposed devoting £20 million expenditure, supported by education support grant, to books and equipment for the GCSE. It is not possible to draw up precise estimates of local education authority expenditure, but the general criteria for the GCSE provide that syllabuses and methods of assessment should not make unreasonable demands on resources.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that one of the issues on which confidence has been lost in the teaching profession and among parents is the utterly inadequate level of funding of the examination? How has the £20 million figure been reached? Are there any detailed costings which will be subject to public scrutiny? When will any of the money be made available to the examination groups?

The money will be made available during the next financial year— it should be available by the second half of the academic year. As for the assessment of how much money we should make available, we took account of what was already being provided through capitation and what we could afford on top of that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of Kiribati. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner for the President of the Republic of Korea.

Does the Prime Minister endorse the actions of "Rambo Ronny" who, at this very moment, is exploding a nuclear device in the Nevada desert? Does she agree that that is against the spirit of world peace? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] If the Prime Minister is in favour of a comprehensive test ban treaty, will she say so? Will she—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—further assure the House that this test is not in any way connected with the present British Trident programme?

I have seen press reports on the prospective test. As a nuclear power, we understand the reasons for nuclear testing. It is not possible to have a comprehensive test ban treaty until methods of verification have cleary been worked out.

Has my right hon. Friend seen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—a copy of this document, which I have in my hand, which purports to be guidelines for members of governing bodies in secondary schools and which seeks to destabilise, damage and destroy the relationship of head teachers with governors and children in schools? The document is circulating in the north-west of England. Will my right hon. Friend do what she can to publicise to head teachers, governing bodies and parents the nature of this insidious and seditious paper, which is put out by the extreme Left-wing of the Labour party?

I have seen today the report of that document in The Times. I agree with my hon. Friend. The document should be compulsory reading for everybody. It shows how the extreme Left really works.

asked the Prime Minister of she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 April.

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

Has the Prime Minister ever known a time when the education system as a whole was in such a chaotic mess and when morale among all sections involved, whether parents, teachers, students or university lecturers, was so low? When will the Government understand that massively increased investment in this area would be the wisest possible decision that the nation could make now?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and, of course, disagree with most of it.

"I fear that those whose only answer to these problems is to call for more money will be disappointed … The challenge in education is to examine its priorities and to secure as high efficiency as possible by the skilful use of existing resources."

In view of the recent appalling events in Protestant Loyalist Ulster, has not the time come when we should reconsider very carefully the expenditure of lives and money to keep Ulster within the United Kingdom?

I share my hon. Friend's view about the recent appalling events in Ulster, when the police have been attacked in a terrible way, which all of us should utterly condemn. I think that we must carry on with the Anglo-Irish accord and do our best to try to restore some peace and stability in the Province. We really must call upon all decent Unionists utterly to condemn this kind of activity and to do their best to see that no more of it occurs.

First, may I completely endorse the Prime Minister's last answer and express the hope that the message goes to all parts of the community of Northern Ireland so that they will comprehend the determination, jointly shared in this House, to see that the agreement is upheld in peace as a way to peace.

The number of places in polytechnics in 1986–87 will be 172,000, an increase of 43 per cent. over the number in 1979, which remained static under the Labour Government. As for trying to get more scientific courses in both universities and polytechnics, an extra £43 million has been made available by the Government to get the courses which industry requires. Industry has contributed another £24 million towards those courses. That augurs well for future co-operation between universities and polytechnics and industry.

If the position is as the Prime Minister describes, why is it that her own National Advisory Body and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics say that they cannot make any further cuts without destroying the quality of provision in all the subjects that she mentioned? Will she heed the words of her own Green Paper last year on higher education, which acknowledged that if present trends continue we shall fall even further behind our competitors in engineering and technology?

I saw the right hon. Gentleman sitting in his place when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is chairman of the National Advisory Body committee utterly repudiate that report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] He should know, because he is the chairman.

In that case, was the dispatch of a letter from the National Advisory Body committee to the directors of the polytechnics a mistake, or did it not take place, or is it another fantasy?

It was not a committee. It was a secretariat. The National Advisory Body will not submit formal recommendations about academic provision in particular polytechnics in 1987–88 until September. In the meantime, I repeat that this Government have an excellent record in the provision of science courses in polytechnics.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this House will not countenance intimidation from the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland, any more than it would countenance it from the IRA? Does she agree that it does not lie in the mouth of any person who attacks anyone who wears the Queen's cap badge to call himself a Loyalist?

I agree with my hon. Friend that terrorism and violence must be condemned equally, no matter from what quarter in Northern Ireland they come. I am sure that the police will uphold their duty totally impartially and will not be intimidated by terrorism.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how it is that, when Sunday trading was not in the Conservative manifesto at the last election, the Government are intending to introduce the Bill to this House next week on a three-line Whip? Should there not be some issues left to a conscientious free vote of the majority of Members of this House?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we have had the Auld committee report, that it made a full report on Sunday trading, that the Bill has been through the other place and that it will shortly be coming before the House. He knows that whipping is never decided until much nearer the time.

Referring to Northern Ireland, does my right hon. Friend recall that long before Portadown, when we were debating the Northern Ireland agreement, I asked in the House for an assurance that, in the event of the police needing protection for their families, that protection should be provided? As Ministers promised it and it did not materialise until the petrol bombers struck, does my right hon. Friend not understand that that is why there is among the rank and file of the Royal Ulster Constabulary a great measure of dispiritment at the present time?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and I know he will agree with me that we have great admiration for the RUC, for the totally impartial way in which it carries out its duties. My right hon. Friend will take every action he possibly can if any further action is required to see that the families of the RUC are protected.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister have time today to look at the chorus of criticism of her Government's educational policies? Her Government have been in power now for seven years, yet at this time her Ministers are publicly both confused and divided about the educational policies of her party and her Government. When will she do something to put at rest the minds and hearts of parents and deal with the confusion and chaos that exist in our classrooms today?

This Government have committed substantial resources to education. Indeed, expenditure per pupil is up by 16 per cent. in real terms and pupil-teacher ratios are at their best-ever levels. So resources and increasing numbers of teachers have been provided. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of us are shocked at the action that some of the teachers have taken recently. It is not befitting any profession, let alone a profession which expects, and should expect and enjoy, a good deal of prestige.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that most of us woke up this morning to a marvellous fillip on hearing of the launching of HMS Coventry? Does she agree, further, that the management of Swan Hunter has shown that it is leading a marvellous shipyard in the northeast, and does this not augur well for the order for the new auxiliary oil replenishment vessel going to that region?

Strenuous and successful efforts were made to ensure that the frigate HMS Coventry was launched on time, and I congratulate all concerned. I have nothing further to report on the order which two shipyards are hoping will come to them. Further inquiries are being made to ensure that the figures about competition are fair, because that is vital to both shipyards.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 April.

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

The Prime Minister is no doubt aware that in a letter replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) she admitted that reports by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools indicated that at least one third of local education authorities in this country were vitally short of textbooks for the education of our children. Is that not an appalling record for someone who has been the Prime Minister of Britain for the last seven years?

If the hon. Gentleman reads that report in full he will find that a good deal of the problem is due to bad management of the resources. He has heard about the tremendous extra resources that the Government have made available per pupil for education. Expenditure per pupil is up by 16 per cent. over and above inflation and pupil-teacher ratios are at their best-ever level. With increasing resources per pupil, and an increasing number of teachers compared with pupils, there is good reason to expect that, if those resources are properly managed, education will be at a high standard.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to tell the House whether, in her opinion, there would have been an Anglo-Irish agreement if there had riot been an IRA terrorist campaign?

There is an Anglo-Irish accord, and it must be implemented. It is intended to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland. Obviously that requires the goodwill and active co-operation of decent men and women on both sides of the community. As Burke said, all that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. Now is the time for good men on both sides of the community to make their views known.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 April.

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

What monetary price does the Prime Minister put on the pain and suffering of people who are waiting to go into hospital? Will the Government cut the waffle and put their money where their mouth is?

The number of nurses and doctors has increased considerably, the number of patients treated by the NHS has also considerably increased and the waiting lists have decreased. In 1979, when the Government were elected, expenditure on the NHS was £7·5 billion. This year it will be £17·5 billion.