To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent assessment his Department has made of the effect on educational standards of sub-standard school buildings.

Many factors may affect the educational standards achieved in schools and there is no reliable means of identifying the contribution made by any one in particular. Local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that school buildings are maintained at an appropriate standard.

Is it not a fact that the Department's own inspectors have said that sub-standard buildings often have an adverse effect on the working conditions and education of our children? Is it not a fact also that the Department's own survey showed that £2 billion is needed by 1991 to put our schools in accessible order? When will the Government tackle this problem and put it right?

I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that £319 million was allocated for capital works in schools in 1988–89—26 per cent. more than in 1987–88. Taking account of capital receipts and other flexibilities, authorities' total national spending power in 1988–89 was £3·6 billion, which should enable many to start getting to grips with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

My hon. Friend's interest in this matter is considerable, and it is understandable and genuine. Can he tell the flouse whether he has had any success in persuading his colleagues to make more funds available to voluntary-aided schools to improve their buildings? I remind my hon. Friend of a visit that he made to my constituency and to St. Austin's and St. Marie's schools, and he may recall the condition of those schools. Can he hold out any hope of improving their condition reasonably soon?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I remember with great clarity and affection the visit that I made to his constituency.

The Government recognise the implications of sub-standard buildings; hence the 1981 building regulations. However, unhappily they prevent local education authorities from doing anything about the situation by limiting their funds and loading other legal requirements on to them. I understand that if Somerset county council, for instance, were to fulfil its legal obligations for special needs, it would not be able to spend any more on decent school buildings. Does the Minister recognise that probably not one LEA in the country can meet the requirements of the 1981 building regulations by the time limits set? What will the Government do? Will they simply wash their hands and say, "It is nothing to do with us"?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the moderate way in which he phrased his question. I remind him that it is for local education authorities to ensure that schools are properly maintained. The Government have made additional resources available to local education authorities—a fact which I am sure the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will welcome.

On the subject of the fabric of schools, does my hon. Friend recall the concern that I expressed in Committee on the Education Reform Bill about the incompetence of the Leeds education authority? Has he had a chance to read the letter from Councillor John Illingworth that I gave him this week? Does that letter not confirm my fears, and will my hon. Friend ask the schools inspectorate to launch an efficiency audit into the running of the authority?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be noted by the schools inspectorate. I have received a copy of the letter sent by Councillor John Illingworth to his colleague, another Labour councillor, Councillor B. Walker. Councillor Illingworth had this to say:

"Faced with this situation"—

"the Group seems to have three stock responses:—

1. Blame Mrs. Thatcher.

2. Blame the Officers.

3. Blame George Mudie.

I am not sure in which order! I would like to suggest a fourth alternative: that the Group and the Party as a whole are collectively responsible for a situation which, even if it cannot be completely cured, could at least be made substantially better than it is at the moment."

"I do not believe"—[Interruption.]

Order. I appeal for brief questions and briefer answers today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish in full the details of his proposed national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's proposals are set out in the Education Reform Bill now before Parliament.

When the Secretary of State publishes his proposed national curriculum, will he take account of the views expressed yesterday in the other place by Lord Joseph, that the present proposals represent too tight a straitjacket and that teachers will be testing pupils on too many subjects, which will not allow time for other important subjects in the curriculum? If the Secretary of State cannot convince the Prime Minister of his view on the matter, is she likely to listen to the person whose protegôe she was?

I listened very carefully to the words of my right hon. and noble Friend in the other place yesterday afternoon, and I noted his concern about those children who fall into categories of lower attainment than the high fliers. I am certain, however, that as the debate proceeds in the other place and my right hon. and noble Friend learns the details proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he will find and respond to the breadth and balance proposed in the national curriculum, and note the differentiation proposed by my right hon. Friend in the testing and attainment targets.

When my hon. Friend publishes the national curriculum, will she draw the attention of school authorities to the desire of many people that schools should start the day in assembly or class, with a short Christian service—such as we have in the House of Commons, perhaps—featuring a prayer, a Bible reading, the Lord's Prayer and, if possible, the singing of a hymn?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and note his views. There has been considerable consultation and discussion with the Churches and with all the local authorities and others involved on the whole issue of school assembly. As far as possible, the Churches and the schools were agreed that some form of assembly should take place in schools. It is not always possible for such an assembly to start at the beginning of the day, however desirable that might be, but I am sure that those schools that can do so will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Does the Minister recognise that attainment testing of children of seven, eight, 11, 14 and 16 will place an increasing burden on classroom teachers? Will she endeavour to reduce the class contact hours worked by those teachers, to ensure that there is proper time not only for marking attainment tests but for preparing adequate pupil profile records? Finally, is it not time that more emphasis was placed on diagnostic testing throughout a pupil's school career, with the necessary remedial teaching?

I would commend to the hon. Gentleman Professor Paul Black's initial and interim report on testing and attainment targets. If and when he reads it, he will see that the report speaks extensively about the importance of testing. He will also note that much of what is being suggested is practice that is already being carried out with children in the classroom. The work being done on attainment targets will satisfy many people's queries and concerns about it.

Bearing in mind the admirable interest of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in English history, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that if there is a move in another place to promote history to join the three core subjects in the curriculum, the Government will respond sympathetically to it?

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has also read Lord Joseph's speech, in which he made a special plea for British history, but I must leave these matters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that we shall expect the working group on history to look at British history and give due weight and attention to it when it comes to setting up attainment targets.

Is the Minister aware that her arrogant dismissal of Lord Joseph's view, coming from one who lacks understanding, will do no more for the reputation of Ministers than yesterday's performance on the poll tax? How will Ministers meet Lord Joseph's view that the national curriculum is a straitjacket and too prescriptive?

The hon. Gentleman is much mistaken. Far from being arrogant about my noble Friend's remarks in another place yesterday, I listened to them with care and attention and got no impression that he was anything but highly supportive of the Government's proposals in all their measures. He voiced one or two concerns and we shall certainly take note of them.

Will my hon. Friend reassure Lord Joseph that children are stressed by tests only if they are excessively formally conducted and unrelated to work that they have been doing? Will she also assure the House and Lord Joseph that tests for children will be closely related to their curriculum and conducted in an informal atmosphere?

Yes, I am confident of that, and I assure my hon. Friend that it will be so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on Her Majesty's inspectors' report on the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. The report provides reassuring evidence that the GCSE is being successfully introduced and is already leading to better teaching and learning in many schools.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the great anxiety of many parents who, like me, have children who are guinea pigs in this examination this year, over the level of resourcing for the introduction of the GCSE? If he could not get the money from the Treasury this year that he needed to finance it properly, would it not have been better to phase it in over two or three years with the same resources?

I got quite a lot of money out of the Treasury for the GCSE. The amount that was specifically provided in the year that has just ended was £115 million—the estimated amount spent on introducing the examination—and in the current year it amounts to £102 million. That is being spent on teacher training, textbooks and resources of that sort.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the change was made years ago from school certificate and matriculation it was done smoothly and without rancour? Is there any reason why the current change should not go through just as smoothly, allowing for political prejudice?

I remember the change. I was one of the last of the cohort who took the old school certificate examinations. I thought that it was a good examination. As I did well in it I was rather attached to it. I understand that a change in an examination system is important. The planning for the GCSE started more than 10 years ago and the decision to go ahead with it was taken four years ago. A great deal of planning has gone into it, and I am glad that the inspectors think that it is settling in smoothly.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that examining boards are making adequate provision for children who suffer from dyslexia, in particular by permitting them to have teachers to read papers to them, without which facility they are placed under a severe handicap?

I think that every examining board makes allowance for that. I am specifically asking the working groups on the national curriculum to ensure that they take into account children with special needs.

The Secretary of State will know that the Labour party has been fulsome in its support in principle for the GCSE examination and that it still holds that position. Will he deal with two matters that are worrying parents? First, they are worried that the additional assessment and case work will impose great strains upon children and lead to a squeeze in the number of subjects that children may wish to take. Secondly, they are worried that the extra work may impose additional burdens upon teachers. There are suggestions that there is a need for 5,000 additional teachers. Those are real worries. Will the Secretary of State try to put some of them to rest?

The hon. Gentleman spoke about extra teachers. This year there has been a continuing improvement in the pupil:teacher ratio, and it is planned to be 17:1 in 1989. That allows some flexibility.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern that has been expressed by history teachers about the examination syllabuses and the examinations in the history curriculum? Will he arrange at the end of the first year of the GCSE for Her Majesty's Inspectorate to report on how the examination has gone?

I am sure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate will do that. It is for the inspectorate to decide and it will almost certainly decide to do that. I assure my hon. Friend that I am also concerned about a particular aspect of history, and I shall be seeing the joint council of the GCSE examining groups in May to discuss progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has held with local authorities about the provision and resourcing of access courses to higher education; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has not discussed this issue with local authorities. It is for each authority and for the appropriate institutions to consider how to secure adequate provision of access courses in its area. In this connection I note that the number of access courses has more than trebled over the last three years.

Does the Minister agree that there will be genuine concern about the future of access courses once the new funding arrangements for polytechnics and colleges of higher education come into being? To encourage people to break the cycle of educational deprivation, particularly among women, older people and ethnic minorities, will he give a categorical assurance that access quotas will continue and that funding will be guaranteed by local authorities and by the Government?

The Government share the hon. Gentleman's desire for the widening of educational opportunity, and we have a good record of success in this sphere. The participation of mature students has increased by 32 per cent. since 1979, and the participation of part-time students in higher education has increased by 31 per cent. since 1979. The proportion of women in higher education has risen from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 42 per cent. in 1986.

Does the Minister agree that his White Paper of 12 months ago set out the Government's commitment to more access for mature students? What initiatives have the Government taken in the past 12 months to encourage access by mature students? Does he agree that all the talk about loans to students does a great deal to put off mature students from the thought of going into higher education? Many of them are already worried about debts for housing and other things, and they would be completely put off if loans were on the agenda.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussion about access quotas and the provision of access is a rising theme in the university and higher education world. The Government are encouraging that in discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom and with the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. The hon. Gentleman spoke about loans. The basic fact that we must recognise is that our very expensive system of grants—the most expensive in the Western world—has not delivered very substantial access. Only 6 per cent. of university entrants came from social classes 4 and 5 in 1979, and it rose to only 8·1 per cent. in 1986. That is an increase over the period of office of the Government, but the figure is still low and it suggests that the grants system is not delivering access.

When considering the question of people going forward to higher education, has my hon. Friend considered the A-level syllabuses? The GCSE is taking students very much towards university and the type of study that they would do there. A-levels are now rather out of line with that. Have any studies been made on that?

As my hon. Friend knows, a committee under the chairmanship of the vice chancellor of Southampton university is considering the future of A-levels. Meanwhile, I should draw my hon. Friend's attention to the introduction by the Government of the AS-level, which we hope will be more widely used and will have the beneficial effects for which my hon. Friend hopes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on teacher recruitment in national curriculum core and foundation subjects.

Recruits to initial teacher training in all subjects, including the national curriculum core and foundation subjects, were well up last year. Allocations to initial teacher training from 1990 and our energetic campaign of recruitment will both focus on the teachers' needs of the national curriculum.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Black report that proper assessment and testing in line with its recommendations, as against the crude snapshot tests preferred and favoured by the Prime Minister, will require more time for training and assessment and, therefore, less contact time with pupils? Does he accept that that will have an inevitable consequence for the pupil:teacher ratios required to deliver the national curriculum? Will he undertake to consider that matter fully when producing the figures on the number of teachers required to deliver the national curriculum, which was promised to me by the Minister of State three months ago?

A review is being carried out on secondary staffing, but we are broadly satisfied that there are sufficient teachers within the system to deliver the national curriculum, bearing in mind that there will be a drop in secondary pupils of 280,000 over the next three years and that the school population at secondary level will not be up to this year's level again until the year 2000. We believe, therefore, that, with proper retraining and in-service training, we will be able to meet the needs of the national curriculum.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that teacher recruitment involves meeting a shortage of teachers in some subjects and a surplus in others? Does he also agree with Sir George Porter, president of the Royal Society, who last week said that the way to solve that problem was through a regional form of bargaining, even down to local authority level, for teachers' salaries, rather than through a nationally-based union?

That raises very wide questions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a shortage in certain key subjects—mathematics, physics and craft, design and technology. There was a substantial increase last year in the number of teachers training in those shortage subjects. For example, in CDT and business studies there was an increase of 21 and 19 per cent., and there has been an increase in the number of teachers training in mathematics and physics. That is part of our thrust, because they are key subjects.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the persisting fears, as revealed during the last few days, of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales that his Bill threatens the Catholic schools system? The bishops are especially anxious that the national curriculum should make provision to enable teachers and the governors of voluntary schools to preserve and develop the distinctive ethos and character of their schools.

I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance on that. We want to ensure that the particular ethos of Church schools, whether Catholic, Anglican, Jewish or of other faiths, is preserved. We also want to ensure that religious education is taught in the non-Church schools, and we shall bring forward amendments in the other place to ensure that religious education is part of the basic curriculum, standing alongside the foundation and core subjects, primus inter pares.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to publish the report of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay?

I received the interim advisory committee's report on 31 March. I shall publish it later today, together with my proposals, as a basis for consultation. It is a long, detailed report, and I know that hon. Members will find it very interesting. The next step is to ensure that we enter into the consultations required under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 with the teacher unions, local authority associations and the Churches.

The Secretary of State is being particularly complacent in glossing over the serious difficulties facing schools in the shortage subjects. Why, according to the latest figures obtained yesterday from the central register and clearing house, are there significant shortfalls in applicants for the postgraduate certificate of education course, which starts in the autumn, compared with last year? In mathematics the number of applicants is down by 17 per cent., in physics by 20 per cent., in biology by 18 per cent, and in modern languages by 12 to 13 per cent. Surely that is a very serious situation.

We are not in the least complacent. We have not finished computing the cycle of recruiting. We had a large advertising programme in March to encourage people to apply for teaching training, and overall there is an increase of about 3 per cent. in applications over last year—and last year was an exceptionally good year.

In view of my right hon. Friend's statement about the shortage of mathematics and some science subject teachers, will he redouble his efforts to draw into the teaching fraternity people who have had a career either in the services or in industry, so that we can add their tremendous experience to the pool of wealth?

I support what my hon. Friend has said. We have a scheme to encourage people who have experience in industry, commerce or the services and who wish to change their careers, because they have a great deal to offer. If they have an aptitude for teaching they can draw upon their experience and also upon their maturity, which are valuable assets in a teacher.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the Task Group on Assessment and Testing to publish its final report; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the Task Group on Assessment and Testing to publish its final report; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has just received the further advice I requested from the task group, and expect to publish it in due course, when I have completed my consideration of it.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to clear up a confusion? Is it the Government's view that testing is formative and diagnostic, as the Black report recommends, or is it the Government's view that it is summative, as the Prime Minister suggests?

If the hon. Lady reads the Black report, she will note that in some of its paragraphs it is quite scathing about the misuse of diagnostic testing. The very fact that the Black report also recognises that the results of assessment and testing, particularly testing, should be published means that that is a summative use of the results of testing and assessment.

Is not the report of the task force at variance with the crude form of measurement favoured by the Prime Minister? Does the Secretary of State agree with the comments made by Lord Joseph in the other place, and will he reassure us that he will not create a testing industry, which would divert resources from the important task of education?

If we have a national curriculum and attainment targets at seven, 11, 14 and 16, which is the system which we shall have, and which has received support from both sides of the House, we shall have to assess and test the children. This is what teachers need to do, what pupils want, and what parents want to know. They want to know the answer to the question, "How is my child doing at a particular age against national criteria?" That is what we shall provide.

I warmly welcome the practical, commonsense approach of the Black report, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains his view and that of his Ministers that the results of any testing at seven should be known only to the parents, the head and the class teacher?

The Black report made it clear that there should be assessment and testing at seven, but that it would be unfair to the school and the child to publish those results. I have already expressed my considerable sympathy with that approach. Seven is too early an age at which to make judgments, because children come in at different ages and have had different levels of experience of teaching.

Are not some of those teachers who criticise assessment on the grounds that it will expose children of ethnic backgrounds to unfair competition failing to help those children, and even possibly damaging their future prospects?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been impressed by the number of parents of ethnic children who are insistent that their children are taught the basics and should know exactly where they stand. I look upon that as a reinforcement of basic standards in our schools.

The Secretary of State will recall that in the private letter which the Prime Minister's private secretary sent his private secretary in January, the Prime Minister expressed great concern about the "very large cost" of implementing the Black report. Has the Secretary of State yet reached any views about the total costs of testing? If so, what are they? Do the answers on testing that he has given this afternoon have the support of the Prime Minister?

I am quite sure that they do—[Interruption.] I might confirm it by letter. The hon. Gentleman knows well that I, too, expressed anxiety in Committee about the complexity of an assessment and testing scheme. It must not be so complex that it bears down on the administration of the school. I am also concerned about the cost. As I have told the hon. Gentleman, we have received further documents from Professor Black's group. We asked him particularly to address these points. I shall publish those documents in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the progress to date of the teaching as a second career campaign.

The Department's campaign to improve teacher recruitment, including the most recent initiatives of the teaching as a career unit and the London exhibition, have proved successful. In May we are holding a conference in London between top industrialists and educationalists to see how we can reduce teacher shortages with the help of industry.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and congratulate the Government on their efforts to get more teachers into schools. However, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough candidates coming forward from industry to go into teaching, particularly those with science or technology talents and skills? Is there anything further that can be done to encourage more people with those backgrounds and interests to go into teaching?

We share my hon. Friend's anxiety to get more mature people into the teaching profession, especially those with the skills of science and technology. As a result of the advertising campaign to which my right hon. Friend referred just now we have had a most encouraging response from about 14,500 people, about half of whom are mature people. We hope that a number of mature entrants with that sort of experience will come into the teaching profession.

Like the Minister, we appreciate the need for this campaign to be successful, but can the hon. Lady assure us that the national curriculum will not be introduced until local authorities have confirmed with the Government that there are sufficient qualified teachers to teach all subjects in the national curriculum?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is very important for us to begin to introduce the national curriculum as soon as possible. It is therefore our intention, once the working groups on mathematics and science have reported, that those reports should be consulted upon and that the process of putting an order before the House should begin. Thereafter, we intend that children in primary schools will start to study mathematics and science under the national curriculum. The same will be true of English and technology, as the working groups are set up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority he attaches to the role of universities and polytechnics in regional development.

As national institutions, our universities, polytechnics and colleges have an important part to play in regional development by providing high quality education and training, by undertaking research and developing close links with industry.

In the light of that answer, does my hon. Friend agree that it is indeed a strange decision by the University Grants Committee to recommend the closure of the geology department at the University of Hull, precisely because of the amount of help it gives to industry, attested to by the fact that Yorkshire and Humberside CBI has written to say exactly that? Can my hon. Friend find some inventive way of giving a signal to the UGC that it has taken a wrong decision?

The basic purpose of the subject rationalisation exercises that are being undertaken by the UGC is to strengthen provision nationally for teaching and research. We wish to strengthen it academically by concentrating on centres of excellence, and financially by deploying our resources in the most clearly targeted way. In such a process there will always be gainers and losers, and the losers will always dispute the criteria. Under the constitutional arrangements in this area the criteria are for the UGC to determine. With regard to regional interests, one of the half dozen major earth sciences centres projected by UGC will be in Leeds, which is not far away.

Will the Minister explain why the gainers tend to be in the south-east of England for higher education research as well as for other areas of public policy? Will he ensure that our new university research centres are geographically spread throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?

I am sure that the UGC will rightly wish to continue to pursue a United Kingdom national policy in the allocation of its resources and that it will look for the areas of best advantage in terms of academic quality for the development of its research centres and for the deployment of its research resources.

My hon. Friend will know that Nottingham is central to the east midlands region and that the city proudly possesses two distinguished places of higher education, Nottingham university and Trent polytechnic, the latter, of course, looking forward with great eagerness to independence under the coming legislation. Given Trent polytechnic's strong commercial and industrial links and the rapid growth of the science park at Nottingham university, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the role of the Queen of the Midlands in any discussions that his Department has on a regional technology centre?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the good work done by Trent polytechnic and Nottingham university and I shall certainly take note of his suggestion.

Will the Minister confirm that Bradford and Ilkley college is making a major contribution to the local and regional economy and enjoys widespread support, including that of local business, and will he find time to visit it before late September or early October? Will he also arrange to make an early statement to remove entirely the college's uncertainty about its long-term funding?

I am undertaking an extensive tour of visits to universities and colleges up and down the land, and only last week I was in that area. I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and look into the possibility of visiting the college.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his Department's provision for those children assessed as having special needs.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last November that the Government would be providing for local education authorities to spend nearly £13·9 billion on education in 1988–89. Within this figure a sum is being provided for special schools. It is for local education authorities to determine whether children have special educational needs and to secure appropriate provision for them within the terms of the Education Act 1981.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the anxiety felt by some parents, who believe that their children are not making the sort of progress at school that they would have hoped and that local education authorities also take some time to recognise that fact? Does he agree that provisions in the Education Reform Bill requiring testing will mean that assessment of and assistance for children with special educational needs will be given more quickly?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. Useful pointers may be derived from the way in which a child performs as a result of the application of the national curriculum. Thus, the national curriculum may provide a long stop in the identification of specific learning difficulties.

Does the Minister accept that the Department of Education and Science and local education authorities do not have the power to provide children with the special need which many of them require most, which is physiotherapy, and that the Department of Health and Social Security has to be brought in for schools such as the Western Park school in my constituency, where some 50 children need physiotherapy and have the use of one physiotherapist for one hour each week? Is that not a disgrace?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that all local education authorities are now operating the procedures introduced by the Education Act 1981. He rightly draws attention to a specific concern, but he knows that the employment of physiotherapists is not a matter directly for my Department.

Will my hon. Friend allay the fears of the parents of deaf children and give an assurance that the special needs of their children will be fully met by the proposals in the Education Reform Bill?

We shall be asking for and taking advice from a variety of working groups on children with special needs. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the needs of children who suffer from deafness in one form or another.

Is the Minister aware of the excellent work carried out by the Inner London education authority for children with special educational needs? Is he also aware that last week parents in ILEA expressed overwhelmingly their satisfaction with the authority and their desire that it should continue? Is it the Government's policy to listen to parents only when they say what the Government want? Will they just ignore the strong wishes of Inner London parents?

The hon. Member is incorrect when he says that the ballot last week was of all Inner London education authority parents. It was not. I have every confidence that the London boroughs will continue to provide for children with special educational needs in the future when they become education authorities in their own right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is yet in a position to make a statement on student loans.

No Sir. The Government will determine their policy in the light of the conclusions of the review of student support. They will publish their proposals for the future of student support in due course.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Will he look into the possibility of introducing a pilot scheme whereby loans could be made to students whose application for a grant had been turned down by the local education authority?

This is certainly one of the subjects that we shall be looking at in the student support review, and I have considerable personal sympathy with my hon. Friend's suggestion.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the resolution passed in the Danish Parliament on 14 April on ships visits is not compatible with our long-standing policy of neither confirming nor denying that our ships are carrying nuclear weapons? Will she further confirm that this has major implications for our commitment to Denmark if we are requested to give assistance in the future?

Yes. That resolution, which is very similar to a New Zealand one, has very far-reaching implications for the whole of NATO policy. The Danish Folketing passed a resolution that nuclear weapons were not welcome, even on ships going into harbours in Denmark. That, in view of our policy neither to confirm nor to deny the presence of nuclear weapons on ships, means that ships cannot visit and cannot practise reinforcement exercises. It has very grave implications, which we must consider in NATO, for the whole of NATO policy.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there has been any progress with what Ministers recognize to be an important investigation into the serious matter of the leak of the minutes of her meeting on 11 April with the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers on the poll tax and housing benefit?

No. I have nothing further to report to the House on that matter.

Does the Prime Minister regard that leak as serious because it jeopardises national security or because it exposes the organised mendacity of the Government?

No. So long as people are prepared to receive such documents there will be some people who will pass them on.

So much is understood, but as it is now clear that on 11 April the Prime Minister agreed that the poll tax concessions announced last week should be paid for by poll tax increases not announced last week and that those concessions should then be reduced by further housing benefit cuts, is it not obvious that since last Monday the Prime Minister arid other Ministers have been seeking to double-cross their Back Benchers, and that for some it has worked?

The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, has only very partial information, from a received, stolen document. There were a series of meetings last week, which led to a wide discussion about the community charge and to the announced decision to reduce the rate at which benefit should be withdrawn in 1990–91 for the purposes of the community charge. The right hon. Gentleman knows that decision. Consistent with it, the rate at which housing benefit for rent payments will be withdrawn in 1989–90 will not be increased. The whole community charge rebate arrangements will, of course, be treated as one. Further meetings last week concluded that decisions on the related Exchequer grant for 1990–91 cannot be taken until the summer of 1989, in accordance with the normal procedures. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to contact the British Amateur Athletic Board and urge it to reject the recommendation of the International Amateur Athletics Federation that Miss Zola Budd be banned for 12 months? Does she agree that this form of blackmail in international sport is totally unacceptable, particularly when the victim is completely innocent of the offence?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we subscribe to the Gleneagles agreement. The particular matter to which he refers is for the British Amateur Athletic Board and the International Amateur Athletics Federation, but a number of us find it rather repugnant that so much effort is now concerned with stopping a young woman from competing in international athletics.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Will the right hon. Lady follow the advice given by the DHSS of putting cooking foil under her bottom sheet and of not going shopping when she is hungry, or is that cynical advice to be reserved for middle-aged widows living on social security?

I saw the reports of the advice to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. I understand that those who advise people on social security have been giving advice for a very considerable time. If one looks at the leaflet, which obviously I did after I had seen the report, because, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I found some of it very distasteful, one finds that a great deal of the advice is very sensible. I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's views about two or three particular things, but I am informed, after inquiry, that there are people who will give advice, if asked, and that the advice has been given on the same basis, although perhaps not in the same detail, for a very long time.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, following her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), she will consider the fact that, devoted as this country is to the nuclear deterrent within NATO, she should make it clear to the Soviet delegation to this country when she meets it later this afternoon that we are interested in making sure that there are nuclear reductions on both sides and that we are looking for substantial reductions in conventional arms in order to further the cause of peace?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the agreement on nuclear reductions, but we are very well aware of the fact that, beyond the agreement that we hope will be reached on strategic weapons, we need to embark upon reductions in conventional weapons and chemical weapons. Proposals are being prepared for that very purpose.

Does the Prime Minister recall the circumstances in which her folk hero, Sir Winston Churchill, came to power? It was because that the then Conservative Prime Minister had resigned because his majority had fallen to 81, with 33 Tory Members of Parliament voting against him?

I remember that one of Sir Winston Churchill's sayings was that in this House of Commons one is enough. It most certainly was for the Labour party, because it nationalised aircraft and shipbuilding by a majority of one vote, and a very questionable one, too.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen a report that a 28-bed ward at St. Thomas' hospital will now remain open following an £85,000 reduction in its rates bill as a result of this Government capping Lambeth council's rates? Does it not suggest that excessive rate increases damage jobs and businesses and also damage the Health Service and health care?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The high rates of profligate Labour authorities drive out jobs and divert resources that ought to go to health care. If the news that he has given is true, there must be many people in Lambeth who are delighted with this Government's rate-capping policies, which have had such a good result.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House her views on the behaviour of the Israeli Government following the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories? Will she use the influence that she has with America to arrange an international conference so that a settlement can be achieved, whereby a Palestinian state will stand side by side with an Israeli state? That is the only answer.

We are doing everything that we possibly can to try to get negotiations going in the middle east. A vacuum is the worst thing for that part of the world. As the hon. Lady knows, we have used our influence with the United States. We also support Mr. Shultz in continuing his initiative. We support an international conference as a framework for negotiations between Israel, King Hussein of Jordan and a Palestinian delegation. It is important that efforts to that end should continue.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the report of the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales, which states that patients who do not receive their treatment within a reasonable period of time should, at no cost to themselves, be able to turn to the private sector? The bill will then be picked up by the National Health Service.

I know that new evidence has arrived recently, which is going to the Department of Health and Social Security. The report contains a number of valuable proposals for reform of the National Health Service. The report is particularly concerned with the waiting time for operations and contains the proposal that my hon. Friend stated. It will be considered carefully. We are most anxious that waiting time should be reduced and that the money that goes to the National Health Service should be used to maximum efficiency.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the loss of 28,000 electors in Scotland? That is equivalent to the disappearance of the whole of the Caithness and Sutherland constituency and is against all demographic trends. How can she explain such a massive failure to register, except in terms of the poll tax, which no one but her Government wants?

There is a duty to register and it is up to citizens to exercise that duty. If they accept the freedom of citizenship, they should not opt out of their responsibility.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single European market, which will be introduced in 1992, offers immense opportunities to British industry? Does she also agree that if British industry is to take advantage of that agreement, it must act now?

We have been working towards a single market in Europe for a long time. It is a market of some 320 million people. It is far larger than the market in Japan or the market in the United States. It offers great opportunities for business and commerce in this country. I agree with my hon. Friend that British industry should prepare for it now in order to get the right goods and services to meet consumer demand in that market. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is setting up conferences. There will be 20 regional conferences. Areas such as my hon. Friend's should he in a very good position to take advantage of that single common market.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, and in other parts of the midlands, house prices have risen substantially in recent months? The sale of houses is now comparatively easy. Does she agree that that is a reflection of the increasing prosperity in the midlands, which has been achieved through the economic policies of the Government?

Yes, I have seen the reports about house prices. There is an excellent demand for houses in the west midlands. There are also some very good estates of new private houses being built. Unemployment is falling faster in the west midlands than in any other part of the United Kingdom and prosperity is increasing. It is good news for all.

May we take it that the Prime Minister is now in favour of persons who blow up oil rigs?

I am in favour of action against those who lay mines against shipping in the Gulf—action under article 51 of the United Nations—and of not letting people get away with constantly causing extra trouble on what should be a free international seaway. I fully support the action taken by the United States.

To ask the Prime Minister if she wil1l list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend continue to do all that she can to protect the British Merchant and Royal Navy seamen in the Gulf and to serve Britain's interests in furthering world peace in that area?

Yes, the Armilla patrol has been there for nearly eight years and will continue to be there, together with the minesweepers. We co-operate closely with the other fleets in the Gulf to ensure that that seaway is kept free and open for shipping of all nations.

rose—

Order. I have notice of a personal statement first. Mr. Ron Brown.