To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the illiteracy rate among school leavers.

Evidence collected by my Department's assessment of performance unit suggests that very few 15-year-olds are unable to read or write a single word, but that some have difficulty with fairly simple reading and writing tasks. The national curriculum will help to raise standards of literacy at all levels, through the introduction of attainment targets in English. The national assessment arrangements will in due course provide information on the language capabilities of 16-year-olds.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and for the improvement that we expect through the use of assessment and the national curriculum. However, what is my hon. Friend's response to the many personnel managers who are dissatisfied with the current level of literacy among school leavers?

We accept that there are still some inadequacies in literacy attainment, which is one of the very good reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced a national curriculum to tackle immediately the problem confronting some employers.

Should we not have more teachers with special responsibilities for dealing with such children? That would need cash. It is clear from the written answer given by the Secretary of State on 8 February—it appears in columns 51–52 of Hansard—that he plans cuts in cash for special and secondary schools to the end of the decade and that there will be only about 1 per cent. growth in the sums available for primary schools. Given that the Secretary of State will not put the necessary money into the service, it is no wonder that some of our children leave school illiterate.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware that the grant given to the adult and literacy skills unit has been increased from £0·5 million in 1980–81 to more than £2 million in the current financial year. That is a substantial increase, which will contribute to solving literacy problems.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a direct relationship between indiscipline in schools and illiteracy? What action might she be able to take to improve discipline in our schools, particularly in the light of the recent Professional Association of Teachers survey showing that violence and indiscipline have been growing substantially?

Clearly, if we are to tackle the literacy problem in our schools in the long term, we must work towards breaking the cycle affecting a proportion of the weaker pupils with literacy difficulties. It is, indeed, an inadequate foundation, which catches some of the children least able to withstand indiscipline in school. Therefore, the PAT report was of great importance. We must establish discipline in the classroom so that weaker children can learn and therefore benefit from the introduction of the national curriculum.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish his proposed amendments to the Education Reform Bill regarding charges for school activities.

I shall be announcing the outcome of our consultations later this week, and would hope to table new clauses next week.

Is the Secretary of State aware that extra charges would fall particularly heavily on one-parent families, especially charges for field courses and arts and music courses? In his reply, will he dwell on the city technology colleges, which will find it extremely difficult to give their pupils what they need?

The Government will not be imposing charges but will allow schools to charge for extras if they wish. [Interruption.] This problem was brought to our attention by the local education authorities, which asked us to find a way through and particularly to protect them in their present practices. Before Opposition Members laugh too much, I remind them that many authorities controlled by the Labour party and the alliance charge for extras at the moment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that schools have always charged for certain activities, such as home economics, field trips and materials for woodwork and handicraft, as well as for skiing trips and so on? Is it not now necessary to make that practice legal, and is that not what Labour, Liberal and Conservative authorities want?

That is exactly the position, and I believe that my proposals, which will be published later this week—we have already discussed them with local authority associations—will be widely welcomed. I can confirm that, as my hon. Friend said, since the 1944 Act it has been the practice for authorities to charge for certain extra activities.

When the Minister of State said in the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill on 28 January that opt-out schools would be able to use parental contributions to employ additional teachers, was that a clear statement of Government policy? If so, does the Secretary of State realise that those contributions will become less and less voluntary and that opt-out schools will become fee-paying schools, which will be even more divisive than the Government's current proposals?

The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. We have made it clear in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to charge fees. They can certainly attract voluntary contributions, as can, and do, schools in the state-maintained sector. I should emphasise that our objectives in clarifying this policy are to preserve the principle of free education, to clarify the law and to safeguard current valuable provision.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the need for an early statement — which I would welcome — arose because it was hoped that the Government would make it clear that parents on income support and family credit will be exempt from such voluntary charges, particularly for field trips and so on?

My hon. Friend will see, when I announce the changes later this week, that we shall be covering that matter specifically. Should schools wish to continue to make charges for field trips, there must be remission arrangements for children whose parents are on family support.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Committee of Vice Chancellors and of Principals; and what subjects he discussed.

My right hon. Friend addressed the Committee on 30 October on matters concerned with the Government's higher education policy.

Did the Minister discuss the 20 per cent. reduction in funding for Scottish universities over the past four years, compared with a reduction of only 13 per cent. for England? Did he discuss the implications of that on the ability of universities to contract to provide courses under the new system of funding? More important, did he discuss the future viability of the four-year honours degree in Scotland, which is the envy of the academic world? What will he do about this attack on Scottish education?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the University Grants Committee is a national organisation and it pursues a policy at arm's length from the Government. The distribution of funds between the different institutions in the United Kingdom is a matter to be determined by the University Grants Committee. Last year we increased expenditure on universities at the central level by 10 per cent., and this year it will increase by 8·2 per cent.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the proposed amendments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relating to higher education. Does this not show the value of consultation? Is it not nice to know that occasionally sanity can prevail?

Sanity has always prevailed. The Government listen to what is said during debates in the Standing Committee and outside, and they respond to that. We have responded with amendments to other parts of the Bill, and we are so responding in respect of the clauses that will be debated this afternoon.

The amendments — details of which have not yet been announced—may deal with academic freedom. The Government claim that they are not increasing their powers, but, under the present proposals, are they not abolishing a 70-year-old convention not to intervene and replacing it with specific powers to intervene on a day-by-day basis? How can the Minister square that with the claim that the Education Reform Bill is about freedom? Is it not about the iron fist of central control? Is it not about the imposition of control on universities, which is a constitutional violation?

This is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman is offering us a travesty of the true position, which is that, with regard to the balance of power between central Government and the institutions, the proposals contained in the Education Reform Bill make no difference in substance between what is already established in the case of the UGC and what is proposed for the Universities Funding Council. There is no impact, either positive or negative, on that balance; it merely sustains the old arrangements on a new footing.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss in Committee the subject of the money raised by the universities? Will he make it abundantly clear that universities such as the University of Lancaster, which has raised up to £3 million of its own funding, will not find my hon. Friend or any of his successors being able to dictate what they do with such money? Will that be clearly expressed in the Bill?

The University of Lancaster and all universities are to be congratulated on their successful efforts to diversify funding. It has never been the Government's intention that the universities should be held to account for the money that they have raised under their own steam. My right hon. Friend will make a statement this afternoon in which he will say that the Government intend to make that clear beyond doubt in the legislation.

Does the Minister accept that there is considerable concern in all Scottish universities that have four-year degrees, in places such as Keele in England and in other colleges of higher education that have four-year degrees, that they will lose as a result of the new method of bidding for funding? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government do not intend any of those four-year degree courses to lose out?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have no views or policy on the academic policy of institutions. The four-year degree in Scotland is to be decided by the Scottish universities and the UGC. Expenditure on students in Scotland is one third higher than the level in England and Wales. That is the extent to which we recognise the importance and value of the four-year degree in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the University of Southampton has done well in co-operating with industry on research and development? At the moment all seems calm, but people who have written to me from the university—several times—have expressed three fears. They are concerned, first, about the Secretary of State's ability to appoint the Universities Funding Council, secondly, about the interest charges on spending, and thirdly—we must kill this fear—that they will lose some of their independence.

We do not believe that the proposals in the Bill compromise the independence of universities or polytechnics; rather, they enhance the independence of the polytechnics. For universities, the position is neutral as between the existing arrangements and the proposed ones. Appointments to the Universities Funding Council will be made by the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as he appoints members of the UGC now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in primary schools (a) in England as a whole and (b) in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available: and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices.

Local education authorities in England spent an average of £690 per primary pupil in 1978–79 and £815 per primary pupil in 1985–86. The comparable figures for Staffordshire are £695 and £815.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show an impressive increase in expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Staffordshire and the whole of England since the Government came to office? How can the Labour party justify claims of cuts in education under this Government, either in Staffordshire or in the rest of the country?

My hon. Friend is right. Between 1978–79 and 1985–86 expenditure per pupil rose nationally by 19 per cent. and is currently at its best ever level. Opposition Members never acknowledge that improvement.

Will the Under-Secretary acknowledge that it is a Labour authority that has provided those good educational standards despite restraints on spending by central Government?

I acknowledge that it is a Labour authority — I wish it were not. I remind the House that Government plans for local authorities current expenditure in 1988–89 represent an increase in cash of nearly 8 per cent. over the plans for the current year. I am extremely proud of that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that Labour-controlled authority is reorganising primary education in Burntwood in my constituency? Before my hon. Friend approves any of those proposals, will he ensure that he is satisfied that the complaints of the parents that the accommodation proposed by Staffordshire county council is inadequate will be taken into account?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a legal duty to examine the proposals for closure and the arguments for and against. I am grateful for the fact that in the past my hon. Friend has brought deputations to see me. Their views, as well as those of the authority, will be carefully taken into account before my right hon. Friend makes a decision.

Why do the Minister and his colleagues continue to deceive us? Is it not a fact that since 1979 central Government spending has been cut by 20 per cent. in real terms, and that in that time it is the much maligned local authorities that have increased their spending by 8 per cent.? It is those authorities, not the Secretary of State and the Government, that have protected our schools.

That question was much laboured, if I might use that word. The Government's strong record is supported, not only in cash terms, but by other objective standards. For example, the overall pupil-teacher ratio on January 1987 was 17·3:1 compared to 18·9:1 in January 1979. Average class sizes have been improving in primary and secondary schools and there are now far fewer classes with more than 30 pupils.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the figures for Staffordshire and England as a whole compare with those for ILEA? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the effectiveness of the last figure?

I do not have all day to do that, but my hon. Friend is right to point out the massive difference between expenditure levels in ILEA and even the more extreme Labour authorities out in the country. The reasons for abolition are quite clear.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the First Division Association branch of his Department.

No, Sir.

I am pleased that that answer suggests that the Government have got over their slight problem with First Division Association on the stand at the Ideal Home exhibition. Is the Minister aware that parents in my constituency will not benefit from any of that wonderful information — I understand that it will cost at least £30,000—because they will not be able to afford to go to the Ideal Home exhibition? They would much rather see that sort of expense put into the schools to ensure that their children have books. If the Minister is interested, I could give her many more effective and cheaper ways to communicate with parents.

We hope that parents who have access to the Ideal Home exhibition will benefit from the information that will be disseminated there. I should make it perfectly clear that that information about the rights of parent governors is to do with the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Parents in the hon. Lady's constituency will also receive information and leaflets, which will be distributed to all parents at all the schools.

Is the Minister aware that concern has been expressed among the members of the FDA about the so-called efficiency payments that are now paid in the Department to high education officials? Can she tell the House who decides to whom those payments will be made, and how does she distinguish them from straight political patronage?

There is no question of political patronage. These matters are properly decided within the association and its general negotiating circumstances. It does not come anywhere near Ministers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in the county of Cumbria.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the future of secondary education, particularly Catholic secondary education, in my constituency is now being prejudiced directly as a result of the cuts that the Government are imposing on Cumbria county council's education budget? Does the Minister understand that people are getting angry? Is it not true that the Government are pressing the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make attacks on the clergy as part of a campaign to undermine the truly independent position of the Church in Britain?

I thought that the question was about secondary education in Cumbria. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Cumbria received a prescribed capital allocation for schools of £4·651 million in 1988–89. That was a generous allocation and represented 83·3 per cent. of the county councils plans, compared with the national average of 47·2 per cent. That is rough treatment indeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study he has made of the trends in the number of British students of high ability wishing to do postgraduate training and research; and in what subjects he sees cause for concern because of poor career prospects.

Institutions are responsible for the provision of and recruitment to postgraduate courses. Overall, however, the recruitment of British students in 1986 compared with 1980 was 6·6 per cent. higher on full-time courses and almost 28 per cent. higher on part-time courses.

Is the Minister aware that despite his answer, there are many young, outstanding scientists in Britain who are deterred from undertaking postgraduate research or who go abroad to do that research because of the poor career prospects in Britain? Does he agree with Sir David Philips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, that we are in great danger of falling behind our foreign competitors in terms of industrial development because of the Government's failure properly to invest in civil research? Will the Government ever understand the close connection between Government-backed investment and industrial development?

I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the numbers of postgraduates in science have increased by one third since 1979. As for his observations about Government expenditure on civil research and development, an examination of the proportion of the national product invested in civil research and development by Governments makes it clear that we spend more than the United States and Japan.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that as our economy picks up and our manufacturing industry expands throughout Britain the opportunities for students to move into engineering and manufacturing disciplines have never been better?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The recruitment of graduates and postgraduates into a wide range of occupations is flourishing. That is confirmed by all the statistics relating to graduate and postgraduate recruitment.

Will the Minister confirm that the proportion of well-qualified students with first-class honours and good second-class honours who are failing to get research funds has steadily increased during the past few years?

I shall have to look into the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted, and I shall certainly come back to him on that point. The resources made available by central Government for science have risen by 15 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by 1·5 per cent. in the past year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the cost implications of the Education Reform Bill.

Many of the responses we have received have commented on the resource aspects. All representations, except those from individuals, are deposited in the Library.

I recognise that spending per pupil has increased considerably under the Government and that we have substantial resources for the implementation of the GCSE, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government education initiatives will depend on adequate resources being made available for the national curriculum and for the delegation of school budgets? Will he assure the House and parents that those popular policies will be properly financed?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government are providing £150 million over the next three years specifically to help to implement the national curriculum proposed in the Education Reform Bill, which is now being considered in Committee, and to introduce CTCs. Substantial resources are also available for education support grants. It is important that such reforms should be financed properly. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the national curriculum will be phased in over a number of years.

What particular aspects of the Education Reform Bill does the Secretary of State think will benefit schools in places such as inner-city Bradford?

Specifically, the national curriculum. There is no doubt about that. The emphasis on basic skills in the national curriculum, the delegation of budgets to school heads, and the greater responsibility for head teachers and governors are all policies that are not only popular, but are to be supported by all the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues upstairs.

Is not the key part of the Education Reform Bill its proposals for local financial management, and have not these proposals been welcomed by every major teachers union? Will they not ensure that money is spent more cost-effectively and responsibly, according to the wishes of head teachers, parents and governors?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. In those schools which already have delegated budgets the general pattern has been that money has been spent more effectively. Money has been saved and spent on the sharp end of teaching on extra facilities of one sort or another. These proposals are fundamental and important and will be introduced in the course of the next three or four years. They will certainly lead to greater efficiency and more cost-effectiveness.

Is it not a disgrace that Edinburgh university—as revealed by the former admissions officer, Mrs. Ann McGuckin — discriminates against Scottish working-class youngsters in favour of deadbeats from English public schools with inferior qualifications? Is that not something that the Minister should consider? We speak about Victorian values, but is that not unacceptable to the majority of Scottish people?

I know of no discrimination against Scottish applicants going to Scottish universities. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome applications from English children. I am sure that many English children will benefit enormously from a Scottish education.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a national curriculum will lead to curriculum-led staffing and the removal of the previous system whereby teachers were produced for non-existent subjects, and that that will itself lead to the saving of cash and the better deployment of teachers?

Certainly there will be a need to retrain some teachers. A concentration of subjects is implicit within the national curriculum and there will be some need to redeploy and retrain teachers in the foundation subjects. I agree that that will lead to the better redeployment of many teachers in our schools.

Is it not the case that over the next three years, according to DES figures, only £67 million will be spent as a direct result of the Education Reform Bill, and that money will be spent on developing assessment procedures and the work of the Schools Council in terms of the national curriculum? How much money will be spent in the classroom and on each individual child? Or will the Government's reforms simply be paid for by local authorities so that, yet again, the Government will not foot the bill for our children's education?

No. Schemes of assessment and testing, and their moderation, will be paid for from Government funds. We are providing £9 million to help polytechnics to become independent, and another substantial sum for the CTCs, which are part of the Education Reform Bill.

Do we take it from the Secretary of State's apparent denial that there is bias against Scottish-qualified applicants to Edinburgh university that he has read the allegations referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown)?

I have seen the allegations, but there is little in them. The Government do not influence the admission procedures of various universities. They are a matter for the universities. It does little good to besmirch the reputation of such a great university as Edinburgh.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is the Government's intention to publish the results of assessment tests for children aged seven years; and if he will make a statement.

The task group on assessment and testing has recommended that schools should not be required to publish aggregated national assessment results for seven-year-old pupils, but should be allowed to do so if they wish. I shall be considering this in the consultations that will be taking place on the task group's report.

I am glad that the Minister is considering further the testing of seven-year-olds, but could he also consider further the testing of 11 and 14-year-olds? Does he not realise how divisive this is, and that for seven-year-olds particularly it will lead to cramming and competition in schools, quite unnecessarily?

I shall send the hon. Lady a copy of the report, because it simply does not bear out what she says about assessment and testing at the ages between 11 and 14 being divisive. It recommends a system of assessment and testing at ages seven, 11, 14 and 16 and that at 11, 14 and 16 the results should be published so that parents and the whole of the local community may know how the schools are doing. I do not believe that that is divisive. I think that it will improve standards.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protests against assessment and testing are rather bogus, as teachers have been doing this at every age ever since teaching started, and that it is vitally necessary if we are to have a correct diagnosis of children's problems?

My hon. Friend, who I believe was a teacher, is absolutely right. There is a great deal of testing and assessment going on in schools, because one has to assess and test the ability of children at certain ages to know what should be their next course of studies. This has been well established and practised. We intend in the future to regularise it and make it a much more open process.

Does the Minister not realise that the mentality of "Friday morning is test morning" has long since disappeared, because it was useless, and that in our primary schools, especially with young children, a continuous assessment programme goes on all the time? The children are thoroughly assessed, and this is a crude intrusion coming from the most backward of the Right wing of the Tory Government.

The hon. Gentleman could not have been in a school recently. If he had, he would know that already about 75 per cent. of primary schoolchildren are tested in English. There are five or six well-established tests. In mathematics, there are about nine established tests. The hon. Gentleman really ought to find out what is happening in the schools.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is considerable anxiety in the schools as to how rigid this process is going to be? Can he say that there will be a distinction between the assessment that will be required in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science and what I hope will be the broader approach to the rest of the national curriculum?

I cannot quite give that undertaking to my hon. Friend, because the whole purpose of the national curriculum is to establish attainment targets for the whole range of academic subjects, beyond English, mathematics and science—foreign languages, history, geography and technology. Technology is particularly important. One of the important changes that we are making is that in future every boy and girl will have to take science and technology up to the age of 16. That must be right.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the public have a right to know how the schools are doing. I agree with him. In order to achieve that, his junior Minister promised in Committee that the Government would consider the proposal that when tests were published social and economic factors would be taken into account. Will he now give an undertaking that the Government, in putting forward their proposals for publishing tests, will require social and economic factors to be taken into account?

The task group recommended that the assessments and tests should be published as they appear, undoctored, but that at the same time there should be for each school a statement about its socio-economic background so that those who studied the results could take into account the social mix of the children. It did not recommend that the assessments and results should be doctored in some way. Various universities try to do that, but it does not work at all well.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the tests at age seven are diagnostic they will be widely welcomed by parents, particularly if he undertakes to provide the additional resources to make certain that the results of the diagnosis are applied to the children in their subsequent education, so that those with disabilities get more attention and those with great gifts get the right attention?

I would say yes to my hon. Friend. One of the purposes of assessments and tests is to diagnose how a child is doing, to determine whether a child of seven can decipher a page of writing. If a child of seven cannot decipher a page of writing, he will be in some trouble. By determining that, one can determine the next course of study. As I have already said, we are making substantial resources available in the education system to ensure that this can take place. The increase in expenditure this year is 8·2 per cent.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the view of Professor Black and other authorities is that publishing results of seven-year-olds' assessments is highly undesirable? Why does he refuse to support that view? Does he agree with the punitive approach recommended by his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that failures, even at the age of seven, should spend their summer holidays at school?

It is no purpose of the system of assessment and testing to stigmatise failure at an early age—none whatsoever. I can assure the hon. Lady of what I have said. We shall consider the recommendation very carefully. Professor Black said, "Do not publish, but schools can be allowed to publish." That might be a suitable way of dealing with it.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, in response to an intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), he made it clear that schools would not be forced to publish the results of assessments of seven-year-olds? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should read Hansard before putting questions on the Order Paper?

I hope that all hon. Members avidly read Hansard all the time. I think that it is an excellent thing to do. It is very clear that we find some favour in Professor Black's proposal. Perhaps I should emphasise that we have been talking about the publication of results, which does not involve the individual results of children. In no way will it be possible to find out how a particular child is doing. That information will be restricted to the teacher, the parents and the child.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of people training to teach children with special education needs; and if he will make a statement.

Our policy is to maintain the supply of specialist teachers of children with special education needs.

Why does special education merit only one clause of three lines in the Education Reform Bill? Is that an indication of how seriously the Government take children with special education needs? If the Minister cares about special education, what additional resources and staff will he provide to address the important special education needs of children?

If the hon. Member bothered to read the proceedings of the Committee, he would notice that the Committee has spent a great deal of time dealing with the problems of children with special education needs. The Government have accepted a number of changes that will improve the position of such children under the Education Reform Bill.

Will the Minister consult his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that there is adequate provision for children with special education needs, because our teachers are trained in England?

I thank the hon. Member for that helpful point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from rural areas about open enrolment; and if he will make a statement.

A number of the responses to the Department's consultation document, "Admission of Pupils to Maintained Schools", and some of the letters received from groups and individuals, have raised issues relating to education in rural areas.

Can my hon. Friend offer an assurance to parents living in a village which has a popular school that their child will be able to go to that school, even though it may attract pupils from other parts of the district?

The criteria for admission to schools will remain very much as they are at present. That is to say, they will relate to where the children live, whether there are brothers and sisters in that school, and the distances to be travelled, so I think I can offer my hon. Friend the assurance he requires.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement of his policy towards state schools in rural areas.

It is the responsibility of local education authorities to provide a proper service to rural as well as to other areas. My right hon. Friend is currently supporting a number of projects, including some in Norfolk, designed to identify ways of enriching the curriculum of rural primary schools. Any proposal for the closure of a rural school which comes before my right hon. Friend is considered very carefully in the light of the criteria set out in the Department's circular 3/87, which makes it clear that size alone is not a criterion for closure.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend reiterate her support for small rural schools and, above all, for the crucial role that they play in conserving the fabric of many rural communities? Is she also aware that some rural schools would like to opt out under the Secretary of State's proposals and that it would be unfortunate if they were precluded from doing so by too high a limit being set?

I thank my hon. Friend for those words. Of course, the Government are anxious to preserve those schools which are excellent, particularly those in small rural areas. We are well aware of the role that they play. However, we have to consider other criteria besides the fondness of parents for small schools, and these include education criteria.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect the Education Reform Bill will have on units concerned with special education attached to county and voluntary schools; and if he will make a statement.

There is no specific provision in the Bill relating to such units.

Does the Minister agree that, due to the opting-out possibility included in the Education Reform Bill, special units will suffer because education authorities will not take the risk of those schools opting out and will not put resources into those particular units?

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to consider any applications for schools to become grant-maintained schools and to have grant-maintained status he will consider all the arguments for and against such opting out.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

In the light of the Brussels agreement, will my right hon. Friend undertake to seek the elimination of MCAs on pigs and poultry? In doing so, will she consider the enormous potential in that sector for converting surplus cereals into pigmeat and poultrymeat, of which the United Kingdom is a net importer?

I believe that British farmers will welcome the agreement that we reached in Brussels. With regard to the two matters raised by my hon. Friend, I am aware that pig farmers are in acute difficulty at present, although I understand that poultry farmers are not in quite such difficulty. I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be seeking at Brussels the elimination, or at any rate the reduction, of MCAs in order to help our pig farmers.

As there have been very substantial changes in the education policy on which the Government fought the general election, may we be told whether the basic principles still stand? Does the Prime Minister still insist, as she did at the last Tory party conference, that in education the wishes of parents must be paramount?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in our last manifesto and in the legislation before the House, we are giving parents a greatly increased say in education and greatly increased opportunity for children. Those are the principles on which we fought the election. That is what is happening.

May I first of all welcome that emphasis on the importance of parental choice —[Interruption.] Does that mean that, if the ballot of inner London parents demonstrates that a majority of them want to continue with ILEA, the policy will be changed and ILEA will be kept in operation?

No. Our policy on ILEA has been generally welcomed—[Interruption.] At the election we made it clear that each local authority could opt out if it wished. Therefore, the future of the ILEA was always in doubt. We went further than that in our wish to help parents and said that if parents chose to opt a school out of ILEA or of a local authority they could do so. They could, therefore, have stopped ILEA on their own. We were faced with views which suggested that there should be an orderly rundown of ILEA and I believe that that is the right policy.

Does the Prime Minister realise that if her last answer means anything it means that parent power is to be respected so long as it agrees with Conservative prejudice?

Nonsense. The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with our policy. That is why he lost.

Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the evidence that Lord Cockfield gave yesterday to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service? As the EEC Commission is evidently prepared to consider only formal representations, will she today write to the Commission, making it clear that the commitments that she has given on zero rating for VAT are absolute and that the Commission should not waste its time putting forward proposals that involve the abolition of the principle of zero rating for VAT?

As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Commission and one of the commissioners representing this country are very well aware of our position on VAT. We shall insist on our right to determine zero rating. Any changes in taxation have to be by unanimous vote and we would not agree to that. If my right hon. Friend thinks that the commissioners do not know, I shall make arrangements to see that they do.

Will the Prime Minister clarify the reports to the effect that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is conveying to the Government of the Republic of Ireland the intention of another Department of Government before that Department comes to the House and has the consent of the House? Or is this just another attempt to make the House as useless as Members representing Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman's question was a little Irish; in fact such that I did not get the full meaning of its content. There is no change in our policy towards Northern Ireland.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her recent meeting with the bishops of the Church of England has caused widespread satisfaction? Is she aware that at a time of rising prosperity, this can best be accompanied by high moral standards? Is it not the duty of the Church, as well as of parents and teachers, to proclaim those standards?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Rising prosperity brings great benefits, but on its own it is not enough. It is how one uses that rising prosperity that counts. I certainly had a private meeting of the kind that my hon. Friend indicated. I think that he and I, and most people, believe that all societies need to have rules and standards by which to live, and that the Church has a great part to play in setting those rules and standards.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

When will the Prime Minister end the confidence trick that is being played on pensioners and other recipients of state benefit in relation to the back pay which they were supposed to receive recently? Is she aware that in my constituency a 79-year-old blind pensioner, who has a son claiming constant attendance allowance, was due to receive £16 on both books, and in that very week her branch of the DHSS sent one pension book and reduced the entitlement to £8? Is it not time the Government got rid of the sinister streak that enables them to rob blind pensioners of £8 when the Prime Minister is doling out money to the Common Market and not investigating the fraud in the City of London?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the extra sum of approximately £8 is being paid. The Government were not legally compelled to pay it —[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question.

The Government were not legally compelled to pay it, but took the decision to pay it as a moral duty. In the overwhelming majority of cases it is being paid perfectly normally. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case he should let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer.

If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case to raise he should let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know, or have the courtesy, if he is raising a case of one out of 10 million pensioners —[Interruption.] to let me know. If the hon. Gentleman is really the compassionate man that he is, I am sure he will see that that person does not lose.

In welcoming the positive news from Moscow, may I ask my right hon. Friend to organise a fresh mission for her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? As he has been able to persuade the Soviet Union of the logic and sense of our maintaining our independent nuclear deterrent, perhaps he could be sent on a mission to persuade the Front Benches of the Labour and Liberal parties—

Order. That is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.

I very much welcome —[Interruption.]

Order. It is perfectly in order for the Prime Minister to answer the first part of that question.

I very much welcome Mr. Shevardnadze's confirmation of Soviet policy, that our independent nuclear deterrent is not contained within these arms control negotiations and is entirely outside them. That is why we are modernising it with Trident, and that is why we on the Government side believe that it is fundamental to our defence, and we shall see that our defences are fully safeguarded in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister reflect on a letter in Saturday's Guardian from Dr. MacSweeney of Leytonstone House hospital which is within my constituency, saying that many mental health problems in this country are treatable, but with the cuts that the Government are imposing beds are often not available for psychiatric or mentally handicapped patients? As the Prime Minister is fond of reading out NHS statistics, will she read to the House the NHS statistics for bed losses and cutbacks in the mental health service? Or, in this matter is it mindless negligence that figures?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government have done a very great deal to see that patients who would otherwise be in mental hospitals are outside and looked after in community care. We have made great strides towards that. I stress once again that what the hon. Gentleman runs away from the entire time is the fact that expenditure on the Health Service is up from £8 billion in 1978 to £22·5 billion this year.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the leaflet that was recently circulated by the Labour party from Walworth road, which says that anyone who does not register—[Interruption.]

Order. The question must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House today that someone who does not register for the community charge will not be prohibited from voting in future elections?

Yes. There are two quite different registers. The register that entitles one to vote is registration on the electoral register. The community charge register is directly related to the community charge, and failure to register on the community charge register does not in any way affect one's right to vote. Anything said to the contrary is totally false.

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read John Stalker's book? Is she aware that, for the ordinary Member of Parliament or, indeed, for the ordinary citizen who is not always involved in Northern Ireland, and does not agree with terrorism — in fact, hates terrorism — but is supportive of security, it is a pretty shocking book?

I have not read the book. The findings of that person were directed to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in his prosecuting capacity, and not to anyone else. Neither I nor anyone else in Government, other than my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, would be entitled to read that report, because it is not a matter that affects the Government, but it does affect the prosecuting authorities.