asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had in the last month with the National Advisory Body and the University Grants Committee about the future development of higher education.

My right hon. Friend has written one letter jointly to the chairmen of the University Grants Committee, National Advisory Body and the Welsh Advisory Body about student numbers in 1987–88. He is meeting the chairman of the UGC tomorrow, Wednesday 7 May.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the UGC, perhaps he will come up with the farewell message that cuts in higher education are off. Will the Government stop hiding behing the UGC and NAB planning exercise, come clean and make it clear that they are demanding cuts in the number of students going into higher education or in the resources per student? Why is Britain the only country that is cutting higher education? If we want an economic future, we should surely be investing in, not cutting, higher education

It is grossly irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to stir up unjustified alarm among students, parents and institutions about access to higher education. The Government have been enormously successful in expanding access to higher education, and it is not our policy to curtail it now.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the UGC, will he seek his assurance that there is no question mark over the future of Stirling university? Will he also put it to him that there should be a question mark over the UGG, and that it would be far better to allocate funds to universities and colleges of higher education on the basis of student demand, with resoures allocated according to student preference rather than by bureaucratic methods?

My hon. Friends asks a complicated question. I know that the UGC is concerned about financial trends. However, there have been no formal recommendations to the Government about closures, and the Government are monitoring closely any evidence of financial difficulty.

Does the Minister accept that there is a subsequential question mark over his Department's competence in dealing with higher education? Will he reverse the trend of trying to cram ever more students into polytechnics without making adequate provision for their funding?

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in that derogatory way about the success of public sector higher education in accommodating many new students. To be precise, there has been an increase of one third in the student population. I am sorry that he should take such a primitive economic attitude and believe that the success of the public sector in efficiently accommodating many new students is not a matter on which it should be congratulated.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the cuts proposed in the courses run by the Stourbridge college of art and technology, which is pre-eminent in the glass industry throughout the country, have caused alarm and despondency in my constituency? I look to the Government to put the matter right.

I hope that my hon. Friend will look carefully at the source of any speculation about cuts. I imagine he will find that, as is so often the case, that source is not the Government.

As I have no wish to be irresponsible or complicated, how should I reply to those in Leeds who write to tell me that the fine arts department at Leeds polytechnic is being considered for closure? Should I write and tell them that no such possiblity arises?

The right hon. Gentleman should ask his colleagues at Leeds polytechnic carefully to reread the letter that they received from the secretariat of the National Advisory Body. I believe that that was the source of the rumours. His colleagues will then note that the proposals in that letter are not endorsed by the Government.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity today to read the devastating indictment of Opposition, policies set out in the Opposition's house newspaper, The Guardian, by Hugo Young? If so, does he agree that it exposes the emptiness of the Opposition's promises on higher education, as on so many other issues?

My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. In higher education one is dealing with a rather highly educated class of person. I do not for one moment believe that such a person will be impressed by the Opposition scattering Mickey Mouse money in front of him for higher education, just as they have scattered it in front of every other topic debated in the Chamber.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had in the last month from the higher education unions about the number of students entering higher education in 1987–88.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that there is great uncertainty and anxiety about the future of higher education in this country, which has been directly caused by the Government's attempt to cut the number of resources going to all categories of higher education? Is it not time that the Government realised that Britain's future depends on the skill, training and education of our people? Why do the Government say that they must cut higher education? Such cuts would damage the country's future.

I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman should complain about uncertainty in higher education and at the same time deliberately fuel it by referring to nonexistent plans for cuts. I wish that he and other Opposition Members would stop doing down Britain's achievements by making international comparisons. They are a notorious minefield, and Opposition Members frequently step on rather obvious mines. The hon. Gentleman alluded to international comparisons, but the best bases for them are degrees and higher level diplomas. On that basis, the United Kingdom is on a par with West Germany and above others in western Europe.

If and when my hon. Friend receives any representations from the higher education authorities, will he bear in mind that many of the numbers will represent people who may not even be properly qualified to go to university? Does he agree that those who have the privilege of going on to further education and who have the best grants in Europe available to them should aim to have a career to go to at the end of their three years of study? It is a privilege to go on to further education, and someone has to pick up the tab for that.

My hon. Friend has made many worthy points, and he will not expect us to dissent from them. I refer, in particular, to the notion that the vocational element of higher education should be stressed.

Will there be any cuts in 1987–88 in the number of resources going into higher education?

In the normal way, decisions on the funds that will be allocated to the public sector for higher education are calculated in the routine way, at the time when funds going to local authorities are calculated.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about pay and conditions of service for teachers.

Talks covering both pay and conditions of service continue at ACAS between the management side and the five unions which signed the ACAS agreement in January. The National Union of Teachers has excluded itself from the talks by refusing to abide by the agreement and end its disruption of schools. The National Union of Teachers has requisitioned a meeting of the Burnham primary and secondary committee for this Friday, 9 May.

Is it not a tragedy that the National Union of Teachers, which represents 48 per cent. of teachers, is excluded from the talks, when ever-increasing numbers of parents are voting with their feet by transferring their children from state to independent schools? Would it not be in the best interests of children, parents and teachers if the NUT ended its disruptive action and took its proper place at the conference table?

The National Union of Teachers could return to the talks quite easily by ending disruption and abiding by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service agreement. I wish that it would do so.

Is the Secretary of State aware that teachers are voting with their feet by leaving the other unions and joining the NUT? That is a fact. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that many of the activities which are carried out by all teachers of all unions, such as after-school club activities, Saturday morning sports games and activities outside lunchtime supervision, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be held to be other than voluntary? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that those duties will not be taken into consideration when trying to lay down the law and attaching them to salaries?

The hon. Gentleman should be wary before announcing exactly the flow of teachers to union membership. The duties of teachers have long included activities outside the classroom. It is the definition of duties that is being sought by the five teacher unions and the local education authorities under the ACAS umbrella.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one cannot say what a job is worth unless one says what it entails?

It is precisely for that reason that the Government regard the definition of duties, as well as the definition of pay and career structure, as important. That is why we are glad that the ACAS negotiations are taking place.

Have not the ACAS talks, which are a democratic interchange of opinion, always taken place when there are honest differences? However, on this occasion the employers laid down conditions before the talks began. They said that unless the NUT agreed with certain things, they would not sit down in the same room and talk. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot continue to organise the education of our children without the help and agreement of the NUT, which represents half the teaching force in this country?

The NUT should consider the interests of children. It professes to be concerned about education, yet it promotes the disruption of the educational process. The NUT has urged its members to refuse to carry out activities which have long been recognised as part of a teacher's work. I support the view of the local authority employers that the NUT should return to the talks only if it ends the disruption.

Would not a large number of teachers, including many members of the NUT, welcome a proper contract, fair assessment and the improved job and career opportunities that would follow? What does the NUT hope to gain by its continued obstruction?

My hon. and learned Friend's proposition is entirely correct. I cannot be expected to defend the National Union of Teachers' behaviour.

As this is almost certainly the right hon. Gentleman's last Question Time as Secretary of State for Education and Science, it is a pity that we cannot say farewell on a happier note. Does he accept the judgment of the Tory candidate in the Ryedale by-election that there is a wide gap between the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and what he has managed to achieve, so much so that our schools are now in a worse state than they were in 1981 when he took over as Secretary of State for Education and Science?

I accept that last year was a miserable year for education. Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question from me?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well.

Order. I did not stop the Secretary of State. I did not know what he was going to say.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he and the Government are still concerned, above all, with quality in education? Will he also confirm that he gives the highest priority to introducing a system of assessment of teacher performance, so that those who do well in the classroom are duly rewarded and those who do less well are encouraged to improve their performance?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's objective is to raise standards and, for that reason, to offer teachers much more effective in-service training, coupled with appraisal.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the availability of nursery education.

No such representations have been received.

How does the hon. Gentleman expect the United Kingdom to keep up with its industrial competitors if we perform so badly in nursery education? Should not such education be given a much higher priority by the Government and by the country generally? Is it not a fact that without that nursery education and some measure of performance by the Government we shall be found wanting in the future?

It is for local education authorities to determine the nature and scale of provision offered at that level. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in 1979 428,000 children were in nursery schools and nursery classes. By 1985 that figure had increased by 80,000—almost 20 per cent.

Before encouraging the commitment of yet greater resources to nursery education, will my hon. Friend consider how the role to be played by the pre-school play group movement might be enhanced by closer cooperation with the junior schools to which the children might proceed?

I welcome the growth of the voluntary sector, voluntary organisations and self-help groups. I notice that the Labour party in its recent commitment made no reference to the role of voluntary groups. Its proposals for making nursery school places free on demand to three-year-olds and four-year-olds would cost the United Kingdom more than £400 million in the first year and more than £300 million thereafter. What a cost!

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the importance that the Government attach to pre-school education is shown by the fact that they changed the law to make it clear that local education authorities were not obliged to provide pre-school education?

Local authorities have power, but not a duty, to provide nursery education. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in 1985 43 per cent. of three-year-olds and four-year-olds were in nursery schools or in nursery classes, compared with only 37 per cent. in 1979.

Will my hon. Friend tell the pampered actress whom the Labour party put on the television screen yesterday as a decoy for Bernie Grant and Mr. Hatton that there is no such thing as free nursery education, that it must be paid for by the ratepayer and taxpayer, and that many people feel that the mothers of three-year-olds and four-year-olds would be better advised to look after their own children than try to offload them on to the state?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I came to the same conclusion. The lady who appeared last night on the party political broadcast talked about nursery education as a basic right, but she did not want to talk about parental responsibility for bringing up very young children at home.

Will the hon. Gentleman check some of the facts that he has given to the House? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that nursery education is important? Does he agree that since 1979 the Government have been closing nursery schools, that in the past three years there has been virtually no expansion in provision in nursery schools or nursery classes and that, over the next two years, fewer children will enjoy nursery schools and nursery classes than have done in the past? Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, by the year 2000, at the present rate of progress, our provision for three-year-olds and four-year-olds will still be only half that in West Germany, France, Holland, and Italy?

The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect. Since 1979, 32 nursery schools have closed. However, the general increases, which I mentioned earlier, are to be welcomed. The Opposition parties make no reference to the role of the voluntary sector, and that is most lamentable.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the report from Her Majesty's inspectors' survey of good practice in schools in relation to homework: and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend hopes to receive this report during the summer.

As part of the policy of raising standards in the classroom, at what age do the Government think that homework should be compulsory for children? Do the Government accept that arrangements should be made for some children to do their homework at school at the end of the day if conditions at home are difficult?

I agree that where facilities are made available for doing homework at school, they are most welcome. I hope that Her Majesty's inspectors' survey will offer some useful evidence of current practices which will enable us to answer my hon. Friend's first question. I would point to the important role of parents in helping younger children especially with reading at home.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the provision in the Education Bill to prohibit the appointment of school governors under the age of 18 years.

The Department has received nine letters, including five from hon. Members, opposing the proposal. In addition, the matter has been discussed during debates on the Bill in another place.

Is the Minister aware that some local education authorities already include pupils under the age of 18 among their appointments to governorships? Does he not realise that a minority of pupils as school governors would further the consumer-based society that the Government claim to champion?

The Government have long held the view that a school or college governor holds an office of public and pecuniary trust. Minors are not eligible to hold such office. We are aware that there are contrary legal views, and that is why we are seeking to put the matter beyond doubt, especially in the light of the wider responsibilities now proposed for governing bodies.

Is it true, as the Daily Mail stated in an education article today, that it can cost more for a child to be educated in the public secondary sector than through a private school? If so, does that not suggest that the financial management of our schools leaves much to be desired? If that is the case, what is the point of governors who lack either financial or management skills having a say in how our schools are controlled?

We shall have the opportunity to discuss those matters when the Bill comes here from another place. It is fair to point out to the House that we intend to legislate for a degree of financial management in schools and to embark on and create training courses for governors so that they will know why they are appointed.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the past month from the teachers' unions about the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education examination.

My right hon. Friend has expressed to all the teachers' associations his willingness to receive any further and detailed comments they may have about the preparation for and funding of the introduction of the GCSE. The Department stands ready to consider these matters further.

Is the Minister aware that nearly six weeks ago I sent a letter from a worried parent, Mr. Beal of New Houghton in my constituency, to the Secretary of State for Education and Science? The letter says that he is concerned about the examination going through. I have not yet had a reply from this deadbeat Secretary of State or the junior Minister who is trying to get his job. Is it not a scandal that the Minister cannot reply to my constituent in six weeks and at the same time is trying to tell parents and teachers to rush through this tinpot examination? Why does the Secretary of State not make way for somebody else?

I am grateful for that balanced contribution. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the light of his question, I shall see that his constituent receives an early reply. I am equally sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to reassure his constituent about the importance of this examination being introduced smoothly in September.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the GCSE was demanded by teachers' unions, that it has been most thoroughly researched and prepared, and that £30 million has been made available by the Government, in addition to the sums provided by local authorities? Does he agree that the new examination will do a great deal to improve the quality of education in our schools?

I could not have put it better myself.

Will the Minister confirm that a substantial sum of money is being granted to north Yorkshire, and Ryedale in particular, for the GCSE? If that is true, will he do his best to let counties that are not having by-elections have similar grants?

Thanks to the education support grant, all local education authorities will be able to add to the capitation which, doubtless, they are making available for the introduction of the GCSE. That is what the £20 million is for — for all local education authorities. Unfortunately, some local education authorities do not have quite as much as they might like for that purpose. For example, Derbyshire, is spending £60,000 on overprinting all its stationery with the news that Derbyshire is a nuclear-free zone.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the teachers' unions—[Interruption.]

Order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware——

We've got the muesli vote in west Derbyshire.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had one question. He cannot keep interrupting other people's questions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the teachers' unions are putting forward figures for the cost of the GCSE and the time that its introduction will take which are very much in excess of the figures and the time that his Department has produced? Will he quickly examine those figures and refute them, because everyone wants to see this important examination introduced?

I shall certainly ensure that we continue to put sensible figures into play. The fact is that there has been a good deal of exaggeration. There is a tendency for some teachers to pile all their ambitions into an argument about resources for the GCSE. Nevertheless, we want to have serious discussions with the teachers' associations about the resources for this most important examination.

Is the Minister aware of the situation that is faced by some of the heads in schools in my constituency where, out of a possible 97 syllabuses, only 27 have been received so far? The syllabuses that are being submitted need to be amended in many ways. Therefore, the teachers are having to draw up programmes only weeks before the introduction of the GCSE. Will the Minister take his head out of the sand and realise that there will be great difficulties in the introduction of the GCSE?

The arrangements for the introduction of syllabuses are exactly as they were when we first discussed that issue a couple of years ago. Over 235 syllabuses have now been approved. They are being mailed daily to schools. The arrangements for the approval of syllabuses are entirely on course.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was the teachers' unions that demanded this examination in the first place? What conclusions has my hon. Friend drawn as to the reason for the change of attitude now shown by the unions?

I still believe that the overwhelming majority of good and professional teachers want to see the examination introduced smoothly. Unfortunately, one or two people have been trying to use it as part of their pay dispute, but I hope that that will not apply to all teachers.

Will the Minister tell us how his talks with the National Union of Teachers are going? Does he not accept that he has a short time to win public acceptance—the acceptance of parents, pupils and teachers—for the new examination? If the Government showed a little urgency and gave a little extra in resources, that good will could be won. What are the Government doing to achieve that?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been talking about the examination for the best part of 15 years. We only recently announced increased resources and training. But we are still talking to the teachers' associations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the NUT, and the Department's officials are talking to some of the NUT's officials at the moment. I hope that it will be possible to persuade them to take part fully in making the examination the success that it deserves to be.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to make an announcement of the conclusion of his consideration whether an inquiry should be held into the politicisation of education.

The Government's decision will be announced as soon as possible in the light of all the views expressed about measures to be taken against indoctrination, including those in another place about the possibility of legislation in the Education Bill.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He might like to know that in my constituency the headmistress of Rainham girls' school invited the three main parties to offer people to speak to her sixth form pupils. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a better way for pupils to be exposed to political views and policies? Will he issue a circular suggesting to other head teachers that that is a good way to go about such matters?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that that method is widely practised.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is thoroughly bad luck that my question is No. 56 on the Order Paper? The point that I would have raised in my question is that much claptrap is talked on both sides of the House about the politicisation of education. The problem is that it is not being done properly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said. More resources should be directed to teaching politics in schools.

My hon. Friend must realise that, outside the direct teaching of politics, a small minority of teachers introduce politicisation and indoctrination into lessons. Many parents are, alas, deterred from making complaints, but no responsible holder of my office should ignore the widespread anxiety about possible indoctrination.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the science part of his Department's budget.

I have received 230 representations, all urging more public spending on basic scientific research.

In view of the increasingly unsatisfactory way in which the Government administer the science budget, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be a Minister in his Department whose sole responsibility it would be to pull together all the strands of the science budget in the Government's spending programme?

If my hon. Friend's suggestion would mean an improvement, it would deserve careful consideration. The Government delegate to the research councils and the universities the decisions about how to spend the allocation of taxpayers' money. That is a continuing process. We do not need a Minister especially devoted to science to achieve that.

When did the Secretary of State last discuss this matter with the chairman of the Medical Research Council? In view of its latest report, is he aware that problems have arisen because of short funding of the clinical research centre at Northwick Park hospital, which is funded jointly by the Medical Research Council and the North-West Thames board?

I would see the chairman of any research council who asked to see me. Normally, I receive advice through the chairman of the Advisory Board on the Research Councils. There has been almost an explosion of research possibilities in almost every area. It would be almost impossible for any Government to fund the complete implementation of them all.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, increasingly, many industrialists, including the newly appointed science adviser to the Cabinet Office, Mr. John Fairclough, have said that the tightness of funding on basic science and the cut in university science are gravely undermining our science base and that the diversion into applied research is selling out Britain for the long term?

I am aware of the widespread sense of dissatisfaction, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that one difference between us and our neighbours in northwest Europe is that industry here contributes far less than it does in neighbouring countries to scientific research. That is another factor that must be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what targets his Department has issued for primary school pupil places; and if he will make a statement.

Targets were promulgated in the 1986 public expenditure White Paper for the removal of surplus places by 1991 in schools of all types. The targets are not broken down by type of school, but incorporate an assumption that local education authorities will be able to remove half of the national surplus of primary school places.

Why does the Minister's Department take so much less heed of the rising number in the primary sector than of the falling number in the secondary sector of education? Does he accept that this will be an end to the rising-fives, which for many children is the only provision, educationally, that is available?

Proposals for the closure or amalgamation of any schools are matters for local education authorities. Those proposals come before the Secretary of State by one route or another and, in the light of representations made, the Secretary of State makes a decision. In the context of the hon. Gentleman's question, local authorities must take account of the growth or decline in the school population in the area served by the school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the position of co-opted members of local authorities' education committees.

My right hon. Friend continues to pursue the policy set out in circular 8/73.

I recognise the constructive contribution that the co-opted representatives of the teaching profession make to education authorities. Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern at their right to vote without accountability to their electorate, particularly in those hung authorities where they hold the balance of power? Will he draw these matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as soon as possible?

Any abuse of any system will inevitably bring that system into disrepute. Those who are overstepping their terms of reference should contemplate further their action because, without doubt, they are bringing the system into disrepute. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement about progress with his plans 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 an examination reform. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 13 March are designed to ensure the successful completion of the training programme and to allow authorities to fund a real increase in spending on books and equipment for the GCSE. I hope that all teachers will seize the opportunities now available to make the GCSE the success which they, as much as we, know it can be and should be.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. If it is true, as some teachers are suggesting, that there is a shortage of time for training them in the new syllabuses for the GCSE, could they not come back from their summer holidays a couple of weeks earlier?

We have provided for a couple of days of training during the summer term, which should help a great deal. Phase four training will be particularly important, and I hope that teachers will play a full part in that as well as in phase three.

Does the Minister recall that, when he opened a recent debate on this subject, he said that it was probably the greatest innovation in the history of education, or words to that effect? In those circumstances, is he not taking the greatest possible risk in setting in train these matters when he knows, and his knowledge has been reflected in his answers so far today, that he does not yet have the full co-operation of teachers? Will he listen to what they are saying?

This is a considerable innovation, which is why we are putting considerable resources into it. I hope that we shall be able to introduce it with the full consent of the overwhelming majority of teachers, but it is possible to make too much of the difference between what is going on in schools where there are good curricular practices, and what will happen when the GCSE is introduced.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Educational Publishers Association on the provision of books in schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the provision of books in schools.

During 1985 the Educational Publishers Association made representations to the Department about the level of expenditure on school books, and in particular the provision of books for the GCSE. I also had a meeting with it last February at which these issues were discussed. In addition, Ministers have received a number of letters from members of the public about the level of expenditure on school books.

How can the Minister defend a 28·4 per cent. cut in real terms in book expenditure in the past five years? Is he aware that in the London borough of Richmond, controlled by the Liberal party, there has been a reduction in the past year of 77 per cent. in book

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the total number of students in higher and further education; and how this compares with previous years.

The numbers of students have been increasing and in higher education are now at their highest ever level. I have arranged for the detailed figures since 1979 to be published in the Official Report.

Will my hon. Friend confirm, more specifically, that the number of full-time students in higher and further education has increased by over 13 per cent. in the past six years, and that that, in spite of much misleading propaganda, is a trend worthy of commendation rather than condemnation?

I am glad to have this chance to put the record straight, following earlier exchanges. The numbers of students in higher education since the Government came into office in 1979 are 80,000 up. The proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds entering higher education is 15 per cent. up and the numbers of mature students — an important category—are 12 per cent. up. If those are cuts, they sound very kind cuts to me.

Life is difficult enough without trying to explain the Liberal party to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree with his figures. Under this Government spending per pupil on books and equipment has gone up by 8 per cent. for primary schoolchildren and by 5 per cent. for secondary schoolchildren. Expenditure on books and equipment per pupil fell by 7·3 per cent. in real terms between 1975 and 1979.

Does the Minister's answer take into account last year's HMI report on books in schools, which said that one third of schools were under-provided with books?

What the HMI report actually said was that poor management and inadequate identification of needs were a more common cause of the shortage of books and equipment than low capitation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 6 May.

I have beeen asked to reply.

Can the Leader of the House reassure my constituents about radiation fallout? What is the size of the unit monitoring the effect on food and beverages? Is the evidence readily available? Are imported food and vegetables being monitored?

I am sure the hon. Lady will have all those points comprehensively and satisfactorily answered when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment makes a statement on the matter later this afternoon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that events at Wapping at the weekend were utterly disgraceful and that we now know that the real policy of the Labour party is to condone mob violence and attacks on the police?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point. The evidence was available for all who watched their television screens. Those scenes at Wapping were not only a shameful travesty of the true traditions of trade unionism, but underline how wise we are to have proceeded with trade union reform.

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) has raised a question which requires a response. The Labour party does not condone violence of any description by mobs or individuals in any circumstances.

As to the first point, of course I realise that the right hon. Gentleman, with total integrity, condemns the kind of violence outside Wapping at the weekend that was shown on our television screens. Whatever may have been said in the heat of the moment by others of his party, certainly I acquit him of having in any sense condoned what occurred. It was for that reason that I deliberately used the word "travesty". None the less, what happened at Wapping is a reminder of what can happen once those who stand behind trade unionism and who wish to manipulate it get out of hand and gain control.

I know that there will be a further statement, but there is an important issue. The right hon. Gentleman is answering for the Prime Minister, so may I put this point to him? Does he agree with Mr. Eddie Ryder, the Government's chief nuclear inspector, that after Chernobyl there will have to be a pause before any further decisions are taken about the future of nuclear power in Britain?

I would have thought that in the whole development of nuclear power—and this will be attested to by those who work, and work for a proud tradition, in that industry in the United Kingdom—we have never hurried these matters.

If my right hon. Friend is in touch with the Prime Minister in the course of the day, will he pass to her congratulations on the successful outcome of the talks in Japan, the reports on which seem to be very favourable indeed?

I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for both Government and Opposition Members in applauding the successes that have been scored at the economic summit at Tokyo. I shall ensure that the message goes to the Prime Minister. The House will have a chance to learn direct from her on Thursday, when she will be making a statement.

Reverting to the events at Wapping on Saturday night and Sunday morning, does the Leader of the House recall that similar language was used about Orgreave and that every miner charged with riot was acquitted? Does he recall that the police video showed that six cavalry charges occurred before a single stone was thrown and that four hon. Members, including myself, who were present on that night saw a succession of baton charges by the police against innocent people? Will the Home Secretary make a statement so that he can be held to account for the action of the police on Saturday night?

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman—and as he was there he might perhaps have reflected before making the statement that he has just made——

The right hon. Gentleman was not there.

No, of course I was not. One hundred and seventy police were injured at Wapping on that evening and the wounds were not self-inflicted. If the House, like the nation, is to have any sense of balance about these matters, it will know that the police were acting under the most severe circumstances. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not have used the same language as the Leader of the Opposition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the consequences of the nuclear disaster in Soviet Russia has been to show that the Soviet authorities are keener to save face than to look after their own people?

There are many lessons to be learnt from the whole of that episode, one of which is the great dangers that attend an enclosed society that has nuclear power and a nuclear accident of this nature occurs. The way that we are reacting to it in the West—and that will be underlined by the statement later this afternoon—demonstrates that our main concern is to secure public confidence, which can be achieved only by a proper system of disclosure.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 May 1985.

I have been asked to reply.

Bearing in mind what the Leader of the House has said about the need for proper public disclosure in the nuclear industry, and bearing in mind also that the minor explosion at Dungeness was kept quiet for a number of weeks and that my constituents have had a considerable job trying to prise any information out of the Atomic Energy Authority in preparing a case against the Dounreay expansion, has the time not come for us to review the whole ethos of secrecy that pervades the British nuclear industry? Should we not make a start by abolishing the Official Secrets Act?

On the specific point about Dungeness, there has been no safety factor involved in that which has any relationship whatever to nuclear power, and the hon. Gentleman's implication is wholly unfounded. I dare say that quite soon we shall be able to arrange for a debate on nuclear power and, although I have no wish to usurp the authority of the Chair, I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and himself will both be called so that we can hear their sharply contrasting views on the subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members represent coal miners and those who work in coal-fired power stations, particularly in Derbyshire, the smoke from which has been accused at most of damaging the health of a few trees? Therefore, will he encourage those Ministers concerned to ensure that we can look to the refurbishment and redevelopment of those power stations to help provide the energy needs of the future?

I shall certainly carry out that request.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 May.

I have been asked to reply.

When the Prime Minister recommended her economic policies as appropriate for adoption by the other Heads of State at the Tokyo summit, the economies of nearly every one of which has higher current and prospective growth, higher productivity and investment, plus lower unemployment, interest rates and inflation, can the Leader of the House tell us whether anyone laughed?

No, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to play his contribution for laughs, I am sure that there is a by-election electorate which wants to consider Britain's achievement in terms of output, exports, falling interest rates and falling levels of inflation, and to contrast that with the policies essayed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), sustained by the leader of the Liberal party, which resulted in the debacle of Labour's defeat in 1979.

Does the Leader of the House recognise the profound impact that the Soviet nuclear explosion has had on British public opinion, leading people to recognise just how enormous the consequences of such an accident will be, however unlikely? Has he forgotten his own days as a nuclear rebel, when he voted with us and against the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he sought to expand Windscale?

It is just possible that the sight of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) caused me to scurry into the Lobby alongside the hon. Gentleman, but that episode demonstrates that I have always been open-minded and even-handed about nuclear power, arid one has never needed that more so than now, when certain forces in our society that want to undermine and destroy what benefits nuclear power can bring point to the Russian example to draw exactly the wrong conclusions. What the hon. Gentleman should be saying, I hope that he will be saying it on a future occasion, is how impressed he is by our nuclear industry's safety record and how wise we are to have the kind of planning procedures that attend its development.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is bad enough that over 170 police officers should be attacked and beaten by a mob of Left-wing thugs, but what is infinitely worse is that Labour Members should use the occasion not to condemn lawlessness but to pillory the police? Can any political party that harbours such views seriously be fit for Government?

Enough was seen on television to ensure that those who have taken the stand that they have this afternoon in making an attack upon the police demean themselves much more than they can be demeaned by any words of mine.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 May

I have been asked to reply.

Has the Leader of the House seen the reports on the Top Salaries Review Body proposals, which will probably lead to an increase of £100 a week for certain top brass in the Army, the Civil Service and judges? Will he give an undertaking now on behalf of the Government that when that report is formally received there will at least be a freeze on any proposals along those lines so that we do not have the obscenity of many people in Britain having to live on about £100 a week while it is proposed that people in certain positions should receive £100 a week on top of the high increases that they received last year?

Yes, I can confirm that I have seen the newspaper reports of the reviews, and it is true that they have now been deposited with the Government. I have not seen those reviews, and I do not know what figures they contain, so I cannot comment upon the right hon. Gentleman's assertion,. but they will be treated in the appropriate prudent and measured way.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the Ealing Labour party election manifesto, which proposes the banning of sexist calendars——

Order.

Order. The hon. Member's question must relate to the responsibilities of the Leader of the House.

I am asking my right hon. Friend to read that document. The Labour party will double the rates in two years. Would not the electors of Ealing be thoughtless if they voted for Labour on Thursday?

My hon. Friend is quite correct to draw attention to that document, which he has otherwise called a treasure-house of absurdity — a masterpiece of understatement. My hon. Friend is wise to draw the attention of the House to the basic nature of the divisions in local authority that affect Londoners and others. People can either vote for a Government of proven experience and success, backed by their supporters, or for the uncertain Labour voices that appear to have only one thing in common, which, is a desire to, spend more public money, either ratepayers' or taxpayers'.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 May.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a major reason for the Government's espousal of the pressurised water reactor is that it will confer considerable industrial export opportunities upon Britain? In the light of the Russian experience, does the right hon. Gentleman now agree that the prospect of such orders should be viewed with much greater caution? Does he further agree that no country with an inadequate bureaucracy or insufficient technological capacity should be seen as a ready customer?

The hon. Gentleman is a very fair and well-informed controversialist in these matters, and would agree that these are all factors for assessment and report in the Sizewell inquiry.