To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the part which education authorities are playing in the promotion of links between schools and commerce and industry.

The technical and vocational education initiative, which will be operating in all local education authorities in England and Wales from this September, makes the forging of links between education and local industry a requirement of its projects. In addition, education authorities are now supporting initiatives on many fronts, such as the development of compacts and the secondment of head teachers into industry. All these help to bring the worlds of education and industry closer together and foster mutual understanding.

As there will be 1 million fewer school leavers in 1995, will my hon. Friend continue to impress on go-ahead firms the importance of linking with schools? The important thing to note is that the firms involved are go-ahead, because laggards do not link, but enthusiasts do. Does she agree that there should not be endless meetings at town halls but direct links with schools, where good could be done?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Today we have published a booklet entitled "Education and Industry: Partners for the Future", which will encourage industry and commerce to get together closely with local education authorities and schools to ensure that the links are fostered. There is not much point in industry making links with local authorities unless the authorities are themselves clear about the way in which they wish to proceed with the partnerships. Therefore, it is important that local education authorities should have meetings and have their policies clearly defined before industry and commerce become involved.

What about the links between commerce and schools in East Sussex, where the local Conservative-controlled county council lost £237,000 of ratepayers' money in a squalid little company that was set up? It lost public money. What are the Government going to do about that? Do they intend to intervene and have some form of inquiry into what happened?

With respect to the hon. Member I suggest that he pursues the interests of his own constituency. The matter that he has raised has absolutely nothing to do with local education authorities and links with industry.

To return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), which is genuinely important, what action will be taken to increase the number of business men serving on school governing bodies? Has my hon. Friend had any contact with the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to persuade those organisations to get their members to serve on governing bodies?

My hon. Friend raises a most important matter, because at the beginning of the next school year we shall expect to see co-opted members from business and industry serving on our school governing bodies. We have contacted both the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and have been holding regional as well as national meetings with them to encourage them to put their members forward as governors of both primary and secondary schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the procedures to be used for appointments to bodies to be established under the terms of the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The Bill itself specifies the range of professional expertise and experience to be included in appointments to most of the new bodies, and appointments are made on that basis.

In the light of the article that appeared in The Observer on 3 July, what criteria are used by the Department for appointment to the bodies held, and is membership of those bodies politically vetted by 10 Downing street?

On the latter question, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is none whatsoever. I have made many public appointments to the bodies set up in the shadow of the Bill and to many other educational councils, including the National Curriculum Council, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, research councils and four curriculum working groups. As far as I am aware, there has been no criticism of partiality, lack of balance or lack of fairness in any of those appointments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is taking a positive step for the future because, in the past, any fool, crank or nanny could get on a board of governors and contribute absolutely nothing to the well-being and education of our children?

I do not appoint governors, but I am glad that more people are coming forward to become governors. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I very carefully go through the curriculum vitae of applicants for appointments to various bodies, and in some cases we also interview them.

Given that a Scottish sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council is to be established, does the Secretary of State agree that individuals appointed to that body should have the experience and expertise of having gone through a Scottish university and should have graduated from such a university, rather than from universities in other parts of the country?

I would not necessarily agree with that. Many good Scots have gone to English universities and many good English people have gone to Scottish universities. Last night the House agreed that there would be a Scottish and a Welsh sub-committee of the UFC. I also intend to appoint people with Scottish experience to the main body of the UFC.

Is it not now clear that, in relation to testing and appointments, the Prime Minister's Office and, in particular, the unelected and unaccountable Professor Griffiths, are in charge of education policy? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed appointments of John Harvey-Jones and Peter Mortimore were vetoed by the Prime Minister and Professor Griffiths? Is it not now also clear that the criteria used for appointments are not educational, but political? Does he agree that the whole approach is political rather than educational?

Professor Griffiths is an adviser to the Prime Minister, and I am grateful for the support that he gives to the policies that I bring forward. All my appointments are announced publicly. As regards the names that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I refer him to the written reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when she said:

"It is not the practice to comment further on public appointments of this kind.—[Official Report, 29 June 1988; Vol. 136, c. 234.]

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the value in real terms of the maximum student grant, expressed as a percentage of the 1978–79 maximum grant.

The basic rate of grant payable to students studying outside London is worth 86 per cent. of the corresponding rate in 1978–79.

Does the Minister accept that the cut in students' living standards is even greater than his figures suggest if we take into account the cuts in students' social security benefits, housing benefit and of course the dreaded poll tax, which is just around the corner? Therefore, will the Minister take immediate steps to restore the student grant to at least the purchasing power that it had in 1978–79, when the Labour party was in power, instead of toying with the idea of either partially or completely scrapping the grant system and replacing it with a student loan scheme? That would prohibit many students from lower-income families from going on to higher education.

The hon. Gentleman is obviously reflecting deeply on this subject and he might like to consider that since 1979, in spite of, or in line with, the fall in the value of the grant, participation in higher education has increased by 12·9 per cent. and that the number of students in higher education has increased by 18·9 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend give the House some information on how our grants compare with those of other countries? Are they more, or less, generous?

The proportion of the national product that is spent on higher education in Britain is the highest in the Western world. My information is that our grant system is almost certainly the most generous and certainly the most extensive in the Western world.

Many people are somewhat concerned at the Minister's logic when he says that the reason why not enough women and people from lower social classes—[Interruption.]

Order.

are getting into higher education is that we are paying them too much. Will he ensure in any review—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members are not listening——

Order. This is a serious matter.

Will the Minister ensure that any review that he carries out will make sure that people from low income families whom he has committed himself to getting into higher education will have a greater, not a lesser, opportunity?

We share the hon. Lady's concern with the widening of opportunity for access to higher education. That will continue to be an important theme for us in the review. The key determinant of access to and opportunity for higher education seems to be the numbers who come into the system. We have recently had the enrolments and the fact is that the Government have now achieved their target of 50,000 additional places by 1990—and we have done so by 1988.

As my hon. Friend knows well, this House decreed many years ago that the age of majority and independence for young people should be 18. It is therefore totally inappropriate, under those circumstances, that the grant given to individual students depends in any respect on the wealth or otherwise of their parents. Before someone else does it—I have asked my hon. Friend to do this before—will he test this thesis before the European Court of Human Rights?

We are considering the future of parental contribution to student maintenance in the context of our review. Every system that we have studied involves some element of family or parental obligation. I believe that the family is a vital institution. It is reasonable to expect parents to make some contribution to the support of their student children.

What is so good about student loans if the Cabinet is vetoing them? Will the Minister confirm that there are now storm warnings in the Department of Education and Science in case No. 10 leaks the student loan document? Why has he now abandoned his unattributable briefings to the press about the virtue of student loans? Will he admit that the real losers are not Ministers' reputations but students, the real value of whose student grants has dramatically fallen over the past 10 years? Will he also admit that there should now be an immediate increase in the level of student support, for the benefit of students and the country?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has a later question on that point we should not steal his thunder.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the financing of city technology colleges.

Total planned expenditure on the city technology colleges programme over the years 1987–88 to 1990–91 is £90 million, which includes both capital and recurrent costs. To date more than £25 million has been pledged by sponsors towards the capital costs of establishing CTCs. That is a quite unprecedented response to an education initiative.

If I were a Minister I would wait until I had the money in my hands—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman is not."] I shall be one day.

The hon. Gentleman starts with the improbability of ever being a Minister and moves to the implausibility of not knowing the facts of the case. Seven CTCs have already been announced. I understand that proposals might come forward for one in Docklands. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that so much of his career has been dedicated to failure and decline that he cannot be associated with anything like CTCs, which will succeed and expand.

Will not CTCs add greatly to the diversity of provision in our educational system? Has not such diversity of provision always been the strength of our education? Will my right hon. Friend seek to diversify provision within CTCs, and will he confirm that it is difficult to get them established in poor areas, where poor children would benefit from them, because Labour local authorities are so obstructive?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There will be a network of at least 20 CTCs—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Details of several more will be published later this year. I assure the House that they will be there. I have already said that over £25 million has been committed by private sponsors. One of the greatest problems is, as my hon. Friend said, the reluctance of Labour authorities, for political and dogmatic reasons, to provide sites.

As the Secretary of State has now announced a £4 million increase in the amont that is to be spent, to £90 million over three years, has he no sense of shame at the scale of the taxpayer-funded bail out for his lame duck CTC policy? What moral or political principle justifies his spending more next year on a few CTCs for a few hundred children than on the introduction of a national curriculum for 7 million of our children in the state sector?

That is an absurd statement, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. One has to add to the cost of the national curriculum not only the £65 million in the Education Reform Bill, but the ESG money of £75 million, the local training grants for teachers of £60 million or £70 million and also, on the basis that he uses, the cost of running primary and secondary schools. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is worried and scared that this will be a highly popular and successful programme.

Is this not good news, coupled with the recent news on the curriculum of the CTCs, positive compared to the continual whining and whingeing of the Opposition about these matters? We want more encouragement for CTCs, not only from the Government, but from industry, because this is an idea that all of us who believe in variety in education thoroughly support and want to see succeed.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and later today the House will be asked to approve a Lords amendment to the Education Reform Bill to extend the concept of CTCs to involve technology and the arts. That is a popular move. The Opposition do not like CTCs because they will end the monopoly of public free education, which the Labour party is pledged to support.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received to his circular concerning pen top safety sent to all local education authorities; and whether he will make a statement.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for his continued interest in this matter. The response to our circular has been good.

Is the Minister aware that the parents of 11-year old Billy Walker, the Leicester boy who died after swallowing a pen top, as too many other children have done, have prepared a petition with several thousand signatures which I shall present to the House on Friday? Therefore, when he says that there has been a good response to the circular, they will wish to know what that response has been and what chance there is of its resulting in no more unnecessary deaths from this cause.

I was not aware of the petition, but I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I can tell him that 32 local education authorities have sent to the Department copies of guidance material that they have issued. A number of authorities have issued to their schools pens with ventilated tops, which carry less risk of asphyxiation if swallowed. I undertake to keep the problem under review.

What is the position in regard to the British standard, and when will it be available?

I understand from the British Standards Institution that the standard will be published in December this year. It is my intention to write again to local education authorities when the new British standard becomes available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by British universities with the targeted programme of restructuring, following his announcement in November 1987 of additional funds for this purpose.

The £250 million allocated for the three-year restructuring programme is being administered by the UGC. It has already announced an improved scheme for reimbursing premature retirement costs. Other aspects will be firmed up in the light of the committee's analysis of universities' latest academic plans and financial forecasts.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, as a result of the programme, universities will be able to bring their expenditure and income into balance by the end of the public expenditure survey in 1990–91?

It is the intention of the restructuring programme that that should be achieved.

Has the Minister seen the statement by the chairman of the vice-chancellors' committee that 10 universities are likely to lose their science facility because of a shortage of funds and escalating costs? One of the universities will be Salford. Is he aware that the loss will be greeted with dismay throughout the north-west? Will he ensure that sufficient funds are made available for the 10 universities, and especially Salford, to retain their science facility?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the statement of the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The chairman said that he believed that there was a good case on scientific grounds for a concentration of the resources available for research in the universities, which might reduce the number of science departments in universities. That is his personal view, and it is one that should command respect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional grants to Scottish universities in the current year to enable them to meet the requirement being placed upon them to provide details on their students to community charge registration officers.

No, Sir. It is not expected that the community charge will place a significant additional administrative burden on universities.

The real cost will be the damage that is done to the relationship between Scottish universities and their students. Does the Minister agree with the protest by Edinburgh university court, and its expression of grave concern at being forced to abandon its long-term commitment to treat students' addresses and other personal information in confidence? Will he support the university's offer to the Scottish Office merely to verify student status to poll tax registration officers, thereby removing the requirement on universities in Scotland seriously to infringe the civil liberties of their students?

I am sure that universities will wish to co-operate in enforcing the law. If students are to be able to claim the 80 per cent. rebate that they are being offered, it will be necessary for them to have a certificate to make that claim.

Does my hon. Friend agree that money would be available for this and other purposes if funds from the taxpayer were not being handed over to the National Union of Students, without the consent of the students concerned?

My hon. Friend knows that the issue of students' unions is under review by the Government. I do not want to anticipate the conclusions of that review.

Is the Minister aware that universities are keen on obeying the law, but are not keen on becoming part of the police system that has been adopted by the Government, with the invasion of privacy that that involves? The relationship between students and universities will be destroyed, and the universities are saying that they want no part of that. Will he listen to them?

There is no invasion of privacy involved. We are talking of information that is necessary to enable a tax for local services to be collected. I am sure that the universities will wish to co-operate in that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish universities are already funded generously, and that they gain more money than the proportion of the Scottish population would justify?

We have a national system of higher education, and by that I mean British national. I am not aware of the statistics that my hon. Friend brings forward in respect of one part of the country.

Does the Minister agree that some record might wisely be kept, especially if Northern Ireland students and their parents are subject to double taxation? The parents will be paying rates according to the decision of the Government, and when their children come to England or Scotland they will have to pay the community charge.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is an important one and we shall be taking it up in the context of the student support review.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responses he has received to the consultative document, "Strategy for the Science Base".

We have received some 260 responses to the Advisory Board for the Research Council's consultative document, "A Strategy for the Science Base". There seems to be widespread support for most of the board's recommendations.

Does the Minister realise that because he hides behind the vice-chancellors while he cuts the science budget, because he dithers while the research councils are cut and because he has surrendered key areas of research to other departments, the scientific community is losing faith in him and the Government? Or is it that he does not have the guts to meet scientists after such a long time because he has nothing to offer?

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and I have many meetings with scientists—indeed, I spend about a day a week visiting institutions up and down the country, where I meet scientists and have amicable discussions with them. The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong. There has been no cut. There has been an increase of 6·2 per cent. this year in the funds that are provided for basic science in this country, and since 1979 there has been an increase in real terms of 15 per cent.

Among the recommendations for which there is not support, is there a recommendation for premature retirement, and what are the costs of premature retirement that the Minister has in his brief?

I am not sure about the category to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall have to discuss that with him to give him the information that he wants.

I am sorry that there seems to be no interest in science strategy from Conservative Members. Is it the Government's policy both to withdraw support from near market research in the Department of Trade and Industry, and for the Department of Education and Science to encourage industrially relevant research? If so, when will the Government sort out their strategy and reply to the ABRC document?

The Government are considering their response to the ABRC document, which addresses a large, complex and important subject. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government are actively reviewing near market research by Government Departments, and he is also right to think that the Government are anxious that the considerations of exploitability and economic return on basic and strategic science should be taken into account—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to pay attention to the question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the number of city technology colleges which could be established if redundant school premises were made available by local education authorities.

We plan to set up 20 city technology colleges and so far £25 million has been raised by private sponsors. But some local education authorities, for dogmatic political reasons, refuse to co-operate. That is their loss.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that CTCs do much good for the children of our country and are welcomed by Conservative Members? We want even more CTCs to be created. Will my right hon. Frend tell the House what action he will take to put pressure on local authorities that obstruct Government legislation on this issue?

Many Conservative-controlled authorities realise the advantages of CTCs and are co-operating in the programme. No Labour authority has done so yet, but they will come round to it, in two or three years' time.

The Minister described the reason for refusing to co-operate over CTCs as political. Would he include the Tory-controlled borough of Trafford, which has just withdrawn its proposal to have a CTC on the site of the former Stretford boys' grammar school? Does he accept that the reason for that is that it was realised how the provision of education in north Trafford would be damaged? Will he guarantee that neither a CTC nor an arts tech will be imposed on north Trafford?

I understand that proposals are being prepared for me that apply to the reorganisation of the whole of secondary education in Trafford and that any consideration of a CTC has been put on one side until all secondary education there has been reorganised. I am sure that the Greater Manchester area will benefit from at least one CTC, if not two.

If the Inner London education authority continues its dog in the manger attitude to the use of surplus premises for CTCs, will my right hon. Friend enable the London Residuary Body to take that into account in its terms of reference for the disposal of such properties after it succeeds the ILEA?

I do not expect ILEA to come forward with any of its surplus property for a CTC; that would be wishful thinking. However, when responsibility is transferred to the London boroughs in April 1990, some may come forward with proposals because they, too, will see the advantages.

Is it not a fact that the chairman of the CTC Trust, Cyril Taylor, has criticised the Department of Education and Science and said that it has "woefully underestimated" the cost of building and refurbishing redundant schools? Did the Department not similarly underestimate the funds that would be forthcoming from private employers, nearly all of them refused to give money, and is not the whole thing now a complete mess?

If the hon. Gentleman is present for the debate on CTCs in about an hour's time, I shall point out to him the large number of companies—national names—that have supported the CTCs because they recognise the enormous success of the programme. I can confirm that no other education initiative has raised as much money as the CTC initiative has raised over the past 18 months. The sum is £25 million and it will increase to £30 million in the next few months.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is perfectly open to local education authorities to use surplus school places for adult or further education rather than going for clumsy closure plans?

I understand what lies behind my hon. Friend's question and I can only reply to him as I replied to him in the debate last night.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the consultation document "Qualified Teacher Status"; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has asked that responses to this consultation document be sent to the Department by 14 October. Some 24 responses have so far been received, mainly from individuals.

The 1984 Department of Education and Science circular dealing with the accreditation of teachers stated that teachers should have two years of quality training. In the new document we find the suggestion of a qualification only to a standard above A-level. Given that it was agreed in 1984 that specialised training was needed for teachers, why, in 1988, do we no longer need specialised teacher training? Is it because the licensed teachers will not be qualified and will fail to raise—indeed, will lower—the standard of education?

No, Sir. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the present position as regards teacher qualification, let alone our proposals. The standard route in teacher training is for there to be graduate entry and a year's initial teacher-training. For the non-standard courses there are already five routes for people who are not graduates. Under our proposals, those entering by two of those routes will have to undergo at least two years of teacher training before they can be qualified as teachers—a much more rigorous requirement. Otherwise, they will simply remain as licensed teachers.

Did not at least one qualified teacher prove that the status of teachers does not need enhancing? Did she not maintain her level-headedness while those around her, particularly her husband, were losing their heads in Zimbabwe?

Perhaps some qualified teachers need in-service training in geography and in field trips before visiting the river basins of Africa, such as those of the Limpopo and the Zamebezi. I am glad that a certain lady did not need those qualifications.

Is it not the case that, thanks to the Government's neglect and demoralisation of the teaching profession, there will be the most severe shortage, worse even that at present, in science, mathematics, craft, design and technology and modern foreign language teaching? How can the imposition of unqualified teachers off the streets do anything but lower education standards even further?

Clearly, the hon. Lady has not been listening. We are talking not about the imposition of unqualified teachers but about a qualified teacher force of 90 per cent. of people who have been through our universities and polytechnics, plus having had a year's good initial teacher training. Those who come in through the other routes will be subjected to a much more rigorous test. Those who are currently in the system and who have not been through initial teacher training or any sort of training are already in our schools and cannot be subjected to the training that we are planning for the new group.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements exist for monitoring the efficiency of local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

The Audit Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate, through their detailed work in auditing and inspection respectively, play a central part in monitoring the efficiency of local education authorities. In addition, the Government set efficiency targets in critical areas such as staffing ratios and the removal of surplus school accommodation and monitor local authority performance in relation to those targets.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing practice in some Labour-controlled education authorities of allowing councillors to usurp the day-to-day functions of full-time officials? Does that not cause great damage to the efficient running of education in many parts of the country, such as in Leeds at this time? Will my hon. Friend ask for an efficiency audit of the performance of Leeds education authority?

It is deplorable that locally elected members should usurp the position of the professional officers and not take their advice when they are dealing with matters as serious as education. I hope that my hon. Friend will make that clear to the electorate at the local elections so that they ensure that the right sort of people are elected as councillors, who will take professional advice when it comes to such matters as education.

When the Department of Education and Science examines the efficiency of a city such as Bradford, will it be taken into account that because of the parsimony of the Government Bradford has at least 500 temporary classrooms, which causes enormous difficulties for teachers in maintaining reasonable standards? If the DES is concerned about standards of teaching, why does it not give more money to allow proper, permanent extensions to schools in Bradford, to get rid of the shanty-town classrooms that disfigure too many schools?

In 1985–86 local education authorities spent £280 million on the repair and maintenance of primary and secondary school buildings. In 1986–87 the sum had risen to £320 million, an increase in cash terms of 14 per cent. Those amounts represent average expenditure per school of £11,750 in 1985–86 and £13,500 in 1986–87. I am sure that in Bradford those amounts will have been spent according to the priorities of the local education authority.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now intends to publish his report on student finance; and if he will make a statement.

The Government will publish their proposals for the future of student support in a White Paper before the end of the year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that both economic principles and international experience point overwhelmingly to the advantages of a combined loan and grant system? Will that be the basis of the Government's response?

We have looked at the possibility of a top-up loan system, as exists in many other parts of the world. That will be covered in the White Paper that we shall publish before the end of the year.

It has been two years since the review was established, and repeatedly, in leaks and answers to parliamentary questions, the Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the review would be published this month. Why the delay?

It is a complex subject. When one grasps the nettle, it is advisable to grasp it firmly. It is this Government's intention to grasp that nettle firmly in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average secondary pupil-teacher ratio in 1987–88; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79.

The average pupil-teacher ratio for maintained secondary schools in England for 1987–88 is not yet available. The average pupil-teacher ratio in 1986–87 was 15·6:1. That was an improvement on 1978–79, when the average pupil-teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools was 16·7:1.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent figures give the lie to Labour claims that education has been cut? Will he confirm that the Government's expenditure plans will lead to a further reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio?

Yes. I go a stage further and say that the Government have captured the high ground in the education debate. We shall continue to dictate the terms for that debate for the remainder of this century and well into the 21st. The last time that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made an original statement was when the midwife thumped him at birth. The only trouble is that she did not thump him hard enough.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary 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 £1,035 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,340 per secondary pupil in 1986–87 at 1986–87 prices. The comparable figures for Staffordshire are £1,040 and £1,255.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a satisfactory improvement in funding in Staffordshire and in the country at large since the Government have been in power?

Yes. The Government's strong record is supported by other objective measures. In January 1987 the pupil-teacher ratio was 17·3:1, compared with 18·9:1 in January 1979. Average class sizes in primary and secondary schools have been improving, and there are many fewer classes today with more than 30 pupils.

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

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.

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to reflect on the recent misery inflicted on holidaymakers at our airports? Bearing in mind the fact that many holidaymakers have saved for and looked forward to their holidays for the entire year, will my right hon. Friend try to end this chaos, meet the Civil Aviation Authority and ensure that incompetent heads roll?

I am indeed aware and concerned about the delays to holidaymakers, which, in large measure, have been due to actions in other countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is meeting the chairman of the CAA today to discuss progress in improving the flow control system, and he has already amended the air traffic distribution rules to allow some limited use of Heathrow by chartered flights. I assure my hon. Friend that finance has not been a constraint on past investment. About £250 million worth of investment is planned for the next five years.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations calculates that since 1981 in the front-line states nearly 700,000 children have died, nearly 200,000 children have been orphaned and millions more suffer hunger directly because of the war being conducted by South Africa against those front-line states? Against that background, will the Prime Minister increase support to the front-line states and ensure that that is reinforced by using strong sanctions against the source of the suffering and the slaughter—the apartheid regime of South Africa?

The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps agree that if there were ever to be comprehensive sanctions against South Africa the number of people who would suffer, including children, would be infinitely greater. Calculations have been made about the number of children who would be affected. We give considerable help to the front-line states, especially £50 million to Mozambique, which, perhaps, suffers most of all, and we have given special additional help to build pathways and roadways so that people need not take their goods through South Africa, but have other routes to the ports.

The aid given is welcomed, even though over six years it was cut by the Government by 40 per cent. Is the Prime Minister aware that every community, church, trade union, and township organisation in South Africa that is representative of the majority of people continually ask for sanctions—[Interruption.]—that the Commonwealth asks for sanctions and that the leadership of the front-line states calls for sanctions? Does the Prime Minister really think that she knows more about what needs to be done than those who live daily with apartheid and its aggression?

Although the right hon. Gentleman goes on about sanctions here in Westminster, by virtue of his recent visit he will know that the front-line states do not themselves apply sanctions, because they are aware of the devastating effect that they would have on their own economies and on their own peoples, as well as on the black people of South Africa. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see the calculations made by Operation Hunger in South Africa, supported by the private sector—but which we do a great deal to help—he will know that the effect of comprehensive sanctions would vastly increase the number of starving children to such an extent that it is doubtful whether they could be looked after.

The vulnerability of the front-line states is no excuse for inaction by the Government. Is it not clear that, while giving support to the front-line states is right, without it being supported by sanctions against apartheid the Prime Minister earns the reputation of being the appeaser of the apartheid regime that makes war on the front-line states and kills their children?

On the contrary, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we completely and utterly condemn apartheid. A special sum of some £20 million is allocated to black South Africans to provide them with more education than they would otherwise have. I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about sanctions, as did the previous Labour Government. Unlike him, I am not prepared to stand here comfortably in the House and impose starvation and poverty on millions and millions of black South Africans and black children. He is prepared to do that.

Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), will she consider again the possibility of night movements of aircraft from airports in the south-east—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—especially for aircraft in the NNC category, which are the new, quieter, wide-bodied jets, for a test period of 12 months? Will she use her power in Europe to press for a pan-European air traffic control system, backed by strictly enforced no-strike agreements with air traffic controllers?

Night restrictions at Gatwick allow some flexibility to help charter flights. When my right hon. Friend saw representatives of the airlines this morning he noted that they did not raise the question of night restrictions, because the flexibility already allowed there does not alter the commitment to improving the noise climate around airports. As my hon. Friend knows, internationally the responsibility for the co-ordination of air traffic control services in Europe rests with the European air navigation planning group within the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and everything possible is being done to step up that co-ordination. I agree with him that it would be a very good thing, especially for people in Europe, if there were no-strike agreements with air traffic controllers.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister believe that she knows better than the African people what is good for them? Does she not realise that this is not only a question of sense, but a question of morality? Has she read the report of the international conference at Harare about the treatment, imprisonment and killing of children in South Africa? Has the time not come for her to associate herself with some of the finest leaders in the world and to say, "Enough is enough. We shall not tolerate a country that declares war on its own people. We want sanctions now."?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a great difference between what the black South African states say and what they do. They urge comprehensive sanctions, but they do not themselves impose—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister.

They do not themselves impose sanctions from their own countries because of the poverty that that would cause their own people, as well as those in South Africa. I see nothing moral in sitting comfortably in the House of Commons and pronouncing poverty and starvation on many black children and black people in South Africa. That would only make the position worse. I am amazed that poverty and starvation have become Labour party policy on South Africa.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time out of her busy day to confirm that her consular services are properly staffed, particularly in the southern Africa area, in view of the increase in the number of distressed subjects in that part of the world? Will she also take time to ask the Zimbabwe Government whether they would commend the lance-corporal who refused to be bullied—[Interruption.]

Order. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Our consular services and embassies are well staffed and able to deal with almost any situation. The aid that we give to the front-line states is greatly appreciated, as is the training that we give in Zimbabwe to the armed forces of that country.

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

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

Why was the Prime Minister the only Head of Government of the major European countries who did not send birthday greetings to Nelson Mandela yesterday? Can she answer this question: if she is genuinely against apartheid, which many of us doubt, why is it that on every conceivable occasion she carries out a policy of appeasement towards South Africa in the same way as Neville Chamberlain did with Nazi Germany?

The Government have made it clear on very many occasions, starting at the Commonwealth conference in the Bahamas, that we believe that Mr. Mandela and other political prisoners should be released and that there should be a suspension of violence on all sides. I do not think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman carries on about the matter is likely to achieve the release for which so many of us earnestly wish. I repeat that the front-line states and many black South Africans warmly appreciate the practical help in money terms that we give from this country to help them. That is very much better than the ranting and raving that we hear from Opposition Members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that any increase in night flights at Heathrow would be most deeply resented by hundreds of thousands of local residents, who do not see why they should lose one minute of their beauty sleep to enable other people to obtain marginally cheaper holidays—[Interruption.]

Order. That was difficult for me to hear, let alone anyone else in the Chamber.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the emergency at Gatwick could be resolved by sending charter planes to Stansted, which is under-used, instead of Heathrow, where people living nearby already suffer from noise and congestion of over 700 flights per day?

I heard the word Heathrow and I heard the word Stansted. My right hon. Friend has allowed extra flights into Heathrow to help the charter flights over the temporary difficulties. Of course, that does not alter the noise restrictions at night. With regard to Stansted, the Government traffic distribution rules do not prevent charter flights to Stansted, so operators are already free to use Stansted.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the level of borrowing in this country at present is reaching frightening proportions, even worse than the Barber boom? Does she understand, that the proportion of family debt has increased since 1979 from 45 per cent. to more than 80 per cent. in 1988—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of what?"]—of residual income after tax? Does she understand that while she is going round the country talking about thrift and prudence, nobody is listening as she continues to operate her pawn-shop economy?

I have two points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. First, the rise in personal debt is matched by increased holdings of financial assets willingly held. Secondly, the whole tone of the hon. Gentleman's question must mean that he is absolutely delighted with the increase in interest rates.

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 232.

I beg to move, That this House doth. agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

rose——

rose——

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) because he is only dropping in between rounds in the election.

The Secretary of State will recall that he set himself the target of 20 CTCs by the end of the decade. In the light of the manifest failure to launch any more than two, and those on somewhat dubious grounds, does he still believe that he will achieve his target? Will he confirm it now?

The hon. Gentleman could not have been present at Question Time earlier. Seven CTCs have already been announced. The first, in Solihull, will be in operation in about six weeks. Nottingham CTC will be in operation next year, as, we hope, will Middlesbrough. There has also been a commitment for a college in Dartford, Kent, and by Dixons for one in Yorkshire, the site of which will, I hope, be announced shortly. The Philip and Pauline Harris trust has also made a commitment and there are others.

Speaking of excellence, given the experience of the past 18 months, where will teachers of maths and physics come from? Is it not a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul?

The hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, will know that we have a scheme to promote greater recruitment of teachers of physics, maths and craft, design and technology. We had good recruitment levels last year and I hope that they will be better this year. We have also launched a big advertising programme. I am encouraging, through changes in the regulations affecting teacher qualifications, the more mature person or the person with an overseas qualification. In all those ways we are seeking to improve the number of teachers joining the teaching profession with maths, physics and CTC qualifications.

If there is such a great supply of teachers for maths and physics, why has Nottingham CTC found it necessary to pay maths and science teachers 5 per cent. above the national pay scale and offer inducements of up to £7,000 per teacher?

One of the things that the hon. Gentleman cannot stand is that the colleges are independent and make up their own minds about salary levels——

Answer the question.

The colleges know perfectly well that they will be getting the same or equivalent amount of grant per capita or per child as the state-maintained schools in the area. If they wish to pay their teachers more and to make more offers, for heaven's sake what is wrong with that? They will have to make their savings from the rest of their grant and they are prepared to do so. They make their own arrangements. The hon. Member for Blackburn wants a degree of standardisation and formality in such matters which most people find totally unacceptable.

rose——

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment when I have advanced a little further with my speech. I shall give way to him eventually because I always like giving way to him.

Give way now.

In a moment.

rose——

rose——

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo).

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that I am not misjudging the figures, but my recollection of Marks and Spencer's contrioution is that it is for a quarter of a million pounds.

I am not prepared to comment on any figure or any sponsor. That is the line that I have taken. It is up to sponsors to decide how much they wish to give.

rose——

Hang on; I am dealing with the hon. Member for Blackburn. Is he going to attack the largest company in the country, apart from the oil and utility companies——

Smoking is a filthy and disgusting habit.

Does the Secretary of State approve of what Mr. Gerald Denis of British American Tobacco stated in The Times Educational Supplement and which he did not deny in terms when he wrote to that paper two weeks later:

"I do not think anti-smoking campaigns should be brought into the school."?

Health education will be determined by the principal. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that British American Tobacco does not sell any tobacco products in this country and that 60 per cent. of the company's activities relate to organisations such as Eagle Star or financial services of one sort or another, and large paperworks?

rose——

The hon. Lady should contain her natural impatience for a moment.

rose——

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West must contain his natural impatience, but I am happy to give way to him.

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. Instead of making it up as he goes along, the right hon. Gentleman would convince us more if he answered a simple question: how many sponsors? What we want to know is the number of sponsors. We do not want the Secretary of State simply to say, "A few have promised here, a few will come forward there". How many sponsors, and how much money?

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that £25 million has been pledged. I have given him the names of several sponsors and when the other sponsors wish to announce their names they will do so. I am sure that he will be the first to congratulate them and to move motions at the Labour party conference to thank them for the public-spirited way in which they are planning to provide money from their funds to help to educate children in our towns and cities.

rose——

—and here is another.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State recognises that many people are seriously concerned that a sponsor wishes to influence the nature of the curriculum. If the sponsor of the Middlesbrough CTC, British American Tobacco, wishes to ensure that there is no no-smoking campaign, will he reject its money?

I assure the hon. Lady that the trustees of the CTC of Middlesbrough will not agree to that. The funding agreement must have my approval, and I assure her that I shall want to know the CTC's health education policy.

The Secretary of State has spoken of sponsors choosing.It may be old-fashioned, but millions of people are happy to have education provided by the state and believe that it should be first rate and delivered by his Department, not handed out in a great big cauldron-like begging bowl into which people are expected to throw their pennies. Rather than supporting the idea of sponsors, many people would like the right hon. Gentleman to get on and tackle the problems in our schools that they want to be resolved.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has followed the Bill's provisions closely. To begin with, I do not dole out education. The local education authorities provide education around the country. The whole thrust of the Bill is to create greater choice in our education system. The CTCs are one way of doing that; grant-maintained schools are another. I do not believe in the principle that local education authorities should have the complete monopoly on free education in our country. There should be greater choice and variety—that is what we stand for. But the Opposition do not want that; the hon. Gentleman has encapsulated their attitude perfectly.

The figures that the right hon. Gentleman claims are absurd, which are for the preparations for the national curriculum and obviously do not include the day-to-day running of existing schools, came from his Department in answers from him. But if that analogy is unfair, will the Secretary of State explain how he justifies the fact that £16 million of taxpayers' money is being used to support the capital building of three schools while the local authorities in the three areas concerned—Middlesbrough, Cleveland and Solihull—have been allocated less than half that figure, £6·8 million, to spend on the capital and improvement works of 845 schools?

We have in no way taken money away from local education authorities to provide the money that we have allocated to the CTCs. There is a separate amount of expenditure in the White Paper under the heading of CTCs. So this has not been at the expense of local education authorities' capital programmes. It comes from the money for the education system as a whole, and it will be money well spent. Opposition Members will see how successful the CTCs will be as the years go by.

Am I not right in thinking that one of the last local education authorities to come round to TVEI was Lancashire county council, which is Labour-run and encompasses the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)?

That is right. I have yet to turn up what the hon. Member for Blackburn was saying about TVEI in 1983. No doubt he could send me the odd press cutting to prove how strongly he supported it and how, with his visionary approach to education, he urged Lancashire county council to grasp the opportunity. If he wants to quote to me the speeches he made in 1983 supporting TVEI, I shall give way to him. He is condemned by his silence. He has gone deaf again.

A short time ago the right hon. Gentleman said that many of the teachers in the CTCs would be earning much above the odds. He has destroyed the negotiating rights of teachers and has been condemned by the International Labour Office for that. The ILO made a point of that, as I mentioned to the Secretary of State in the Select Committee the other day when all the journalists were present. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to impose his will on the teaching force? Does he not realise that they will fight back at some time if he does so?

That is the last intervention that I shall take. If salaries higher than the main teachers' grade or incentive allowances are offered, they will be offered only on savings that can be made within the recurrent costs of the CTC, and that is up to the CTC.

I profoundly disagree with no-strike agreements. To withhold one's labour in the face of tyranny and of not giving proper negotiating rights is a basic right, and the International Labour Organisation of the United Nations has condemned the Government for removing that right. The Secretary of State is violating international law, and if he expects teachers to go along with that he is dreaming. Therefore, the trade union movement, except for the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, will not agree with it.

Many other unions agree with no-strike agreements—for instance, the union that is growing fastest in the teaching world, the Professional Association of Teachers. It is putting on as many members as the NUT is losing. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is related to the attitude that he has expressed, that he will willingly look at the prospect of more disruption in our schools?

The Secretary of State argues that, under section 12, he will be in a position to deal with proposals put to him on their merits. How, after this afternoon's performance, in which he has clearly, with some embarrassment but also with some enthusiasm, put the case for CTCs, can he make a judgment on merit? Is it not clearly the case that the Secretary of State is partial and is using the resources of his Department to support a policy? He cannot make a judgment on the merits of a case.

I have today defended Government policy, as Labour Ministers defended Government policy on comprehensive schools for nearly 20 years. In many cases——

Order. I doubt whether they did so on some narrow amendment from the other place. I hope that the House will now return to the amendment.

You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was drawing a parallel and defending Government policy—it is legitimate for Ministers to do so—I hope vigorously, and on as many occasions as I can. I am surprised that the Opposition have chosen to attack this policy. I am staggered that they have decided to attack this type of school. The first one is to open within six weeks. There is no doubt that it will be highly popular and successful. When parents in the area were canvassed, more than 350 children applied and 180 were selected.

I inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.

It is now 21 months since the Conservative party conference in October 1986, when the Secretary of State rashly announced his policy for city technology colleges. He said a moment ago that it was absurd for us to claim that this policy was for new schools. So short is his memory that he has forgotten what he said in October 1986. I will remind him. He does not want to hear those words because now he is twisting the policy that had been abandoned as a failure. He said that it was his intention to launch a pilot network of

"new schools in urban areas, including the disadvantaged inner cities."

The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were discussing the arrangements for the guillotine, I said time and time again that I was willing to accommodate his arrangements. He will know that, and it has been done time and again.