To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of undergraduates are currently taking degrees or other qualifications in management or management-related subjects; what was the figure 10 years ago; and what is the figure for other major west European countries.

In 1987, 18 per cent. of undergraduates were studying management or management-related subjects. The equivalent figure for 1980, the earliest year for which comparable figures are available, was 16 per cent. These figures relate to universities in Great Britain and polytechnics and colleges in England.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the fault of higher education in this country that, according to the Handy report, only 24 per cent. of British managers have a first degree or equivalent qualification, whereas the equivalent figures for the United States and West Germany are 84 per cent. and 64 per cent. respectively? Will my hon. Friend therefore use his best endeavours to get British industry to recognise where its self-interest lies, especially against a background in which the CBI and the British Institute of Management recognise that there is a close correlation between an educated work force and management and higher productivity?

I am not sure whether I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that any sort of degree is what a manager needs. Managers need adequate training in relevant skills. That is what lies behind the management charter initiative, which the Government strongly support —both directly and as an employer. We urge industry and other employers to become members of that initiative so that even more employees will have a chance to develop essential management skills.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, important though academic qualifications are—we all realise that—the essentials for a manager are personal qualities such as inventiveness, leadership, courage and decision, which are not always to be learnt at university?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I draw his attention to the interesting enterprise and higher education initiative sponsored by the Department of Employment and designed to foster precisely those qualities among university students.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the case for a full science programme in the national curriculum.

The National Curriculum Council has recommended that the majority of science pupils in years four and five in secondary school should work to a double GCSE award taking up about 20 per cent. of curriculum time, but that a choice of taking one GCSE award should be available to some taking up about 12·5 per cent. of time. I have accepted that recommendation, and this is reflected in the draft orders which I published yesterday.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's failure to insist on a 20 per cent. science element in the national curriculum mean that the original idea for a broad national curriculum is now dead and that the curriculum will do nothing to increase the number of girls studying science at A-level, nothing to increase the number of graduates studying science at university and nothing to diminish the ignorance in society about science, which does such great harm to our economy?

The double award science will cover 17 attainment targets and the single award, which is very demanding, will cover 10. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the system will be broad and balanced. I was a little puzzled that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question, coming as he does from Scotland—[MON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because the Scottish system is the kind that the national curriculum is about to recommend.

Try learning science in Gaelic.

Even those pupils in Scotland who try to learn in Gaelic, or whatever language, can spend varying amounts of time on science—from 10 per cent. up to 30 per cent.—and I shall introduce that flexibility into the English education system.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initial reply, but will he take account of the fact that many Conservative Members would like to see the fullest possible contribution of science to the national curriculum? If the potential shortage of teachers could be a difficulty in that regard, will he consider carefully the possibility of bringing people of mature years from the private sector later in their careers?

I assure my hon. Friend that I, too, want to see much more science studied at school and this proposal represents a big improvement. About one third of our young people at school give up science at the age of 14, but under the national curriculum every boy and girl, particularly girls, will have to take it up to the age of 16, along with technology. That is an enormous step forward.

The Secretary of State must be aware that by rejecting the recommendations of his own science working party he has produced a downgraded two-tier science curriculum that virtually no one in education wants and which will hit the education of a great many people, especially that of girls. Why does he not accept and admit that he has taken this step because of the alarming, and increasing, shortage of science teachers reflected in a 15 per cent. drop in entrants to chemistry teaching? Does he not realise that people outside are also deeply concerned about his proposals, and that Mr. Denis Filer, director general of the Engineering Council has said that his council believes that the narrower syllabus will be insufficient to deliver an adequate balanced science programme to all young people?

The proposals before the House in the draft orders represent a tremendous and significant improvement in science in schools. It did not meet with all that much support when we debated the matter in the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill, but I leave that aside. In addition to science, all children up to the age of 16 will now have to take technology. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not rejected the proposals of the National Curriculum Council—a body which, by statute, advises me. The council advised me to do this and I have accepted its advice. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that one third of the schools which made representations said that they wanted that flexibility—the very flexibility that I was pressed to introduce into the curriculum by the Opposition in Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in finding sites for city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Kinghurst CTC opened in September, Nottingham and Teesside CTCs will open next year, and there are plans for other CTCs in 1990, including one in Bradford.

Is it not sadly true that my right hon. Friend's task of finding suitable sites for CTCs has been made immeasurably more difficult by the refusal of Labour-controlled councils in deprived inner-city areas to co-operate in finding and making available such sites? Is it not also true that it is precisely the parents and children who live in those deprived inner-city areas, controlled by such councils, who stand to gain most from the introduction of CTCs?

My hon. Friend is completely correct. Some authorities are willing to co-operate in providing sites but the great majority—virtually all of them Labour-controlled —are not. We now have sponsors for more than the 20 CTCs that I want to set up. We can go above 20 and we are now searching for sites. Those schools are designed to help children from the deprived inner cities. Where they have been set up they are doing so and will continue to do so.

The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the sites that he has in mind is in Gateshead in my constituency, but is he aware that the amount of money that he intends to spend on that school is more than the total that he has allowed the local authority for all its schools? Is not that a disgrace? Since it was recently revealed that only 7 per cent. of his hon. Friends support priority expenditure in this area, is it not time that he abandoned the idea?

On the contrary, the CTCs are popular schools. They have been by far the most popular schools wherever they have been set up. The applications for Kingshurst already show that, as do the applications for those in Middlesbrough and Nottingham which are not even open yet. There have been substantial contributions from the private sector. More than £31 million has been pledged by the private sector for this initiative. No other education effort has brought forth such support from the private business world.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that surplus land and buildings held by local education authorities are held in trust? Should they not make that surplus available to possible CTCs rather than forcing very expensive new-build on fresh land—as was necessary in Nottingham, although I warmly welcome the college being built in that city?

I was happy to lay the foundation stone about three weeks ago. That college will be very successful —a beacon in technological education. It was only when the Conservatives had control of Nottingham city council that planning permission was given, because the Conservatives had the wisdom to give it. I am sure that control of Nottingham city council will return to us in the future. Far too many councils have a dog-in-the-manger attitude, sitting on underutilised land and empty schools when it would be much better to make those buildings available for CTCs.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to announce his decision about the suggestion that I put to him in writing immediately after the announcement of the Bradford CTC—that parents in Bradford should be balloted to decide whether available taxpayers' money amounting to £8 million should be spent on a CTC in Bradford or on improving existing schools there, many of which are in a deplorable condition?

This year's capital programme for Bradford was substantially expanded when I approved the figures only a year ago. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bradford school will go ahead. The land has now been bought and the school will be a tremendous success in Bradford, which needs new schools. I look forward to laying that foundation stone as well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether it is measured by the degree of parental interest or by the surge in support from industry—or even by the large number of teachers applying to teach in these schools —the CTC experiment will turn out to be an unqualified success? The Opposition must be careful lest they again find themselves saddled with opposing something that is both politically and educationally popular.

I am sure that in the months ahead we shall see a movement of opinion on the Opposition Benches towards favouring CTCs. Their conversion will be welcome, for CTCs will be very popular and very successful.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement concerning financial provision for extra-curricular activities.

The Education Reform Act responded to pressure to clarify the law on charging for school activities. Schools may not charge for provision offered during school hours, with the exception of individual music tuition. They may charge for extra-curricular activities provided outside school hours, as long as these are not an essential part of the curriculum. Local authorities and schools can still invite parents to make voluntary contributions towards the cost of any school activity, but the child's participation in the activity must not be dependent on the parents' willingness to contribute.

Does the Minister not recognise that the new rules will effectively kill off the vast majority of school visits overseas, almost all of which take place in term time? Some 40,000 Leicestershire children have benefited from those important educational opportunities in the past few years, but they will no longer be able to do so. Will the Minister reconsider this wicked invasion of the rights of schools to provide extra-curricular activities which in their own way, as the Minister himself has said, are as valuable as much that goes on in the school term?

I can only assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman has deliberately misunderstood the import of what is proposed. As he knows, it was in response to representations from local education authorities and under pressure from certain judicial decisions that we had to recodify this part of the law. Those who wish to enjoy trips abroad, for language purposes and so on, will still be able to do so—

If they can afford it.

Parents will be asked for a contribution. Most parents who were willing to pay charges before are unlikely to refuse a voluntary contribution if they regard an activity as educationally worthwhile.

Is my hon. Friend aware that trips which are more localised than those referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) are in great danger? In my education authority of Berkshire all school trips have been cancelled, which is causing great concern to parents and teachers. It seems that the code and regulations are the exact opposite of what the House and the Government wanted.

The full circular will be issued in January. In response to representations from hon. Members, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), I have asked officials to ensure that it eliminates any ambiguities in the draft circular which may have caused concern to some local authorities. Some local authorities have been better than others at interpreting the draft circular to allow current practices to continue.

Can the Minister assure the House that the circular will not mark the beginning of a two-tier state education system—one for students with no parental support, whose parents cannot afford an increasing number of activities after school and during the holidays, and another in which an increasing range of activities will be paid for by parents with money, thus giving their children all the advantages that until now have been free and available for all?

That is simply not correct. The kind of trips about which hon. Members are concerned have not necessarily been free in the past. We have been anxious to find a way to retain and codify the principle of free school education while still permitting flexibility for voluntary contributions to be made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will include education about the dangers of smoking in the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

Health education has been identified by the Government as an important cross-curricular theme to be covered by different foundation subjects within the national curriculum. As a result, different foundation subject working groups are being asked to cover appropriate aspects of health education within their recommendations. For example, the science working group recommends that all pupils should receive education within the science curriculum about the harmful effects of smoking. My right hon. Friend is now considering this, along with all the recommendations made by the council on science.

I am grateful for that positive reply. As 19 per cent. of fifth form boys and 30 per cent. of fifth form girls are regular smokers, will my hon. Friend have discussions to ensure that all staff set an example by not being allowed to smoke in public areas of their schools?

As always, that will be a matter for the schools themselves. Most of them will observe the sort of practices that my hon. Friend wants. There have been improvements and reductions in the proportion of our youngsters who smoke, but we should not see that as the end of the story. Health education and personal and social education should make young people aware of the dangers of smoking.

In view of the Minister's concern about the problem of smoking, will he ensure that the CTC in Teesside, which is sponsored by British American Tobacco, carries a Government health warning?

I shall be charitable and interpret the hon. Gentleman's question as a serious one. I am sure that the parts of the curriculum which relate to health education in the maintained sector will still be relevant in that school.

Will my hon. Friend also take a serious look at the problem of smoking on school buses? Can he confirm that it is illegal for drivers of school buses and other public service vehicles to smoke on duty?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall draw the attention of the appropriate officials at the Department to that point to see whether the inspectorate should focus on it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to publish the quantity and type of teachers required to teach the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

My Department's memorandum to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee on teacher supply includes some tentative estimates of teacher demand in national curriculum subjects. I have placed a copy in the Library.

We have already discussed the problem of science teachers, but there are also considerable teacher shortages in mathematics and mechanical subjects. Can the Minister assure the House that those shortages will be dealt with before the national curriculum comes into effect? Can he speculate whether denying teachers their civil right of pay negotiation and imposing on them pay settlements that are less than inflation do much for teacher recruitment?

On the latter point, we must await the report of the interim advisory committee. On the first point, on the estimates that I have made, we expect overall teacher supply and demand to be in balance in the 1990s. That, of course, reflects certain shortages in science, mathematics and technology, which I have acknowledged, and we must take steps to improve recruitment. We have a bursary scheme for students who wish to take teacher training in those subjects. As I said earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), we want to attract people from other careers into teaching and to encourage teachers who have stopped teaching for some time to come back into teaching.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of the teaching force is just as important as the quantity? Is he, therefore, satisfied that the teacher training colleges are producing graduates of the relevant quality and that the syllabuses that they are following have particular relevance to today's schools? Also, are the teachers capable of keeping control in the classroom?

We have improved the quality of teacher training considerably over the past three or four years, but I am the first to recognise that more needs to be done. It is clear that those going through teacher training need more experience in the classroom and less study of subjects such as the history of education. Certainly, trainee teachers should be trained in the techniques of controlling a class.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that something is seriously wrong when, on his own figures, three in 10 newly qualified teachers fail to go into teaching straight away and nearly four in 10 new teachers leave the profession within five years?

"trading short term political advantage for the longer term interests of the education system"?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reads the Spectator. That is a great improvement on what is usually read by Labour Members. We are now promoting the career of teaching very strongly as part of a departmental campaign. This year, 1,000 more people want to become teachers than last year and 3,000 more than two years ago. We have stopped the decline and we have recovered from the bad time of the teachers' strikes. We want to encourage more people who have been trained as teachers to come back into the teaching profession. About 50 per cent. of entrants into teaching each year are those who are returning. We must make it more attractive for people to return to the profession.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is strong support for the reform of the national curriculum and for the other measures in the Education Reform Act? Will he bear in mind the continuing shortage of highly qualified teachers of physics and mathematics, and will he do all that he can to ensure a better supply of well qualified pupils for university science and engineering departments?

I agree. There are bursaries of £1,300 per year for those who want to train as physics, mathematics or technology teachers. We want to attract people, perhaps in their 30s, to undertake a career switch from other careers to teaching, especially if they have a science or engineering background. Such people have much to bring to teaching, not only in knowledge but in maturity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the time available for the education of the age group eight to 11 years will be needed to meet the requirements of the national curriculum.

Decisions on timetabling the national curriculum will be for individual schools.

Is the Minister aware that many eminent and expert educationists fear that the requirements of the national curriculum will occupy virtually the whole time available in primary schools? As British primary education is frequently effective and very often excellent, will the Minister reconsider the requirements to ensure that flexibility is not prohibited?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report of the speech made recently by an HMI, who said that in primary schools, in particular, the core subjects would obviously take up the majority of the time—.

All the time.

No, he suggested that primary schools would need to examine closely the timetabling of mathematics and English and of the science parts of the core curriculum. That is perfectly true, but he went on to say that it would be possible, and most desirable, for primary schools to manage their affairs to include such matters as environmental and health education.

Given what the Secretary of State said about engineering and technology, is it not ironic that a group of primary school teachers whom I met yesterday in Liverpool had received yet another booklet from the DES, this time urging the teaching of classics to five to 11-year-olds? Does not the Minister have some sympathy with their complaint that the teaching of basic subjects such as arithmetic and reading to children—many of whom will otherwise leave school unable to read and write —must come first? Does she not agree that what we really need is more resources, particularly for remedial teaching?

It is important that all children should leave school with the basics—the three Rs; every one of us would agree with that. Nevertheless, it is also important for other subjects, such as classics, to be highlighted by the HMI, as they were in an excellent publication, which I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read.

When considering the primary phase of the national curriculum, will my hon. Friend confirm that despite recent study groups and newspaper reports, the national curriculum will reflect the manifest needs of primary school children to learn grammatical and structured English and arithmetical ability, as well as to use pocket computers? Will my hon. Friend also ensure that the assessment test at seven reflects that interest?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already denounced as absolute rubbish the articles that appeared in the newspapers yesterday and over the weekend. The questions that were printed were examples taken from the existing work by the working group on mathematics, whose report was then submitted to the National Curriculum Council, which has done considerably more work since then. The School Examination and Assessment Council has just let the contract for the new assessment tests for the core subjects for the three different organisations to work on. I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers are expecting simple comprehensible tests in the core subjects to be used in the classroom in the future.

Does the Minister not realise that he or she is completely underestimating the difficulties that will arise while the national curriculum is taking root? Are not large numbers of primary school teachers feeling the pressures at this moment? Teachers who are not properly equipped to teach science, for instance, are trying their best to teach it with inadequate resources. That is causing them deep worry, because they honestly want to do their best and they do not have the resources to carry out the preparation for the national curriculum.

First, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I am a she. The resources expected to be spent in the year 1989–90 include £130 million on the development of in-service training and other work associated with the national curriculum. I do not think that it is legitimate to suggest that teachers will not have sufficient resources. I fully understand that they will have to undertake in-service training and two extra days have been allocated especially for that work to take place this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to advise parents not to do the homework of children aged between eight and 11, or the GCSE coursework of older children, in the interests of their children's learning and of sound results?

My hon. Friend is right to say that parents should not do their children's homework, but it is important that parents encourage their children to do homework and are ready to answer any questions that their children may ask.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has any plans to increase the number or nursery teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Target places for primary initial teacher training will have increased by more than 60 per cent. between 1983 and 1989. Within their allocations, institutions have been asked to give greater emphasis to training for the early years, which includes nursery teaching.

Will the Minister assure the House that the training that will be offered to those additional teachers will qualify them fully in specific teaching for three to five-year-olds and will not be just general training? We wish to be sure that the specific needs of three to five-year-olds are taken into account in such training.

Training for the early years, which is being undertaken by many teachers, will include the matters that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the voluntary nursery sector? Will she ensure that, when promoting nursery education, local authorities do not undermine the voluntary sector, as the dogmatic Hertfordshire county council is doing at Wigginton and Grove Hill in my constituency?

Uniquely in Britain we have a wide choice of pre-school education, which is extremely important and valuable to children and their parents. I agree with my hon. Friend that that choice should be maintained.

Does the Minister recognise that there are grave shortages of nursery teachers in many areas? As the Secretary of State supported the Prime Minister when she pledged that 50 per cent. of three-year-olds and 90 per cent. of four-year-olds would have nursery places, will the Minister spell out the action that the Government will take to achieve that target?

The hon. Lady may be interested in the following figures. In 1980, shortly after this Government took office, 404,000 three to four-year-olds received pre-school education. That was 37·1 per cent. of the age group. In 1988, the figure rose to 505,000. More than 100,000 more three to four-year-olds are now in school.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the person best equipped to teach a three to five-year-old is the mother?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the mother is one of the most important people in the child's early development. Children who do not have the benefit of mothers talking to and caring for them are unfortunate. It is most desirable that children also have the opportunity to attend play groups or nursery school.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students"; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding his proposals for top-up loans for students.

Since the publication on 9 November of the Government's White Paper on top-up loans for students, about 3,600 representations have been received expressing a variety of views.

Have any of those representations drawn to the Secretary of State's attention surveys which tend to show that the top-up loans scheme would deter from entering university people who are already under-represented—those in low-income brackets, disabled students, mature students and women? Has he also received representations from Scotland about the lack of reference in the White Paper to the special circumstances in Scotland, which has a four-year honours degree course? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that his proposals will not undermine that cornerstone of Scottish education?

Our proposals on top-up loans will not deter children from the lower, disadvantaged socio-economic groups from going into higher education. Where there are loan schemes in the rest of the world, and in Europe, in particular, not only do those countries spend less than we do on student support, but a much higher proportion of youngsters from lower socio-economic groups go into higher education. We have managed to combine the highest expenditure on higher education in Europe—compared with our gross national product—with the lowest uptake by youngsters. The loan scheme is an attempt to increase access, and I am sure that it will succeed.

Mr. Colin Shepherd.

What about my question No. 17?

Mr. Yeo, then.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since graduates generally enjoy above-average incomes it is entirely fair that they should contribute directly to part of the cost of their higher education, especially as there will be protection for graduates on below-average incomes?

In annex D of the White Paper we calculate that the benefit to students from investing in higher education brings a return of about 25 per cent. Most graduates earn well above average earnings and virtually no new graduates are unemployed. If a new graduate is unemployed, it is by choice.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most worrying aspects of the scheme is the effect that it will have on medical students? Will the Minister tell us whether there have been any representations from the banks or building societies about their willingness to run the scheme?

Since the publication of the White Paper, we have had constructive meetings with the banks, building societies and other financial institutions to consider the details of the scheme and to find out how best it can be administered. I hope that those meetings will lead to a fruitful conclusion.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the White Paper is only a consultation paper on which comments are invited by 1 February? Will he suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House might be involved in that process and have a debate next month in Government time? With all Christmas benevolence, will my right hon. Friend follow the sage advice of Sir Winston Churchill on a similar occasion and take the paper upstairs and cut its dirty throat?

I said earlier that we had received 3,600 representations; we have now had 3,601. I am aware of my hon. Friend's views. I should be happy to have a debate, but I do not determine the timetable of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend's recommendation will have been heard. We have had support from many parts of the education world, including the university town that my hon. Friend represents. Many people feel that it is right that students, who benefit enormously from higher education, should make some contribution towards their maintenance while at college.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed loan scheme will cost the taxpayer more than £600 million by the end of the century without opening up access to higher education? Will he also confirm that to increase grants by the rate of inflation over the same period would cost less than one third of the cost of introducing the proposed top-up loan scheme? Why do the Government intend to introduce a scheme which will push students further into debt, while not adding one extra student to higher education?

The hon. Gentleman confirms the point that I have always made. The proposal is not meant to cut the amount of money spent on higher education but to increase it. I do not believe that it will reduce access because it will provide many students with a certainty of income that they do not have now. Also, it will provide at least 50,000 students who do not qualify for grants access to top-up loans.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals he has for the assessment and appraisal of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Appraisal of teachers is currently being piloted in six local education authorities, with special funding through education support grant. We plan to make regulations in autumn next year requiring all LEAs to introduce appraisal for all their teachers over three or four years.

Does the Minister agree that, contrary to what is being put out by some of the teachers' unions, the key to the proposals is not to get rid of bad teachers but to help them? Is she aware that the overwhelming majority of Norfolk teachers to whom I have spoken broadly welcome the proposals because they see them as a crucial ingredient in raising education standards?

My hon. Friend is right. The local authorities already have proper dismissal procedures should they wish to follow them. Appraisal is a different animal. It is designed to assist teachers and to allow them to appraise their own activities within the classroom and rethink them if necessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has regarding the establishment of a city technology college on the site of the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham boys and girl schools in Deptford.

None, but the governors have sought technical advice from my officials on matters relating to various options for the schools' future. I understand that they are currently consulting parents about these options.

Does the Minister not agree, however, that the consultation process that was concluded last week was unfair, in that it promoted the CTC option at the expense of all others at a time when Lewisham council is still in the process of working out its own education policies, as required by the Department? Will he support the parents who are asking for an extension of the consultation period?

The consultation process is a matter for the Government and the parents. We are prepared to trust parents to exercise their democratic rights. It is entirely a matter for the parents as a whole to come to a decision, which we will then consider.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have served as a member of this governing body for more than 30 years and that at a meeting of the inner London education authority this very afternoon it is threatening to remove me and the only other Conservative governor simply because we had the temerity to support the CTC proposal? Will my hon. Friend please condemn this attempt at intimidation and recognise that it is an attempt to brainwash and gerrymander the governing body?

I hope that Opposition Members will also condemn some of the things that have been happening at ILEA's behest, apart from the proposed sacking of my hon. Friend from the governing body. As I said earlier, we trust the democratically arrived at views of the parents. They can come to their own conclusion about the treatment meted out to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

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.

Is it not entirely unacceptable to public opinion that a convicted criminal—a known associate of criminals—should have had his shotgun licence given back to him by the judicial authorities? Bearing in mind the tragic events that took place yesterday in Coventry—I pay full tribute to the bravery of the police officers involved —is it not absolutely essential that the controls on shotguns should be far tighter than is provided for in the pending legislation?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that that is a decision of the courts, taken under the Firearms Act 1968. The new Act, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, contains much tougher controls, but it does not come into force until next year.

What advice would my right hon. Friend offer to those who will be under pressure tonight to vote against increases in pensions and social security payments?

I would offer them this advice: during the lifetime of this Government, expenditure on social security has gone up from £17 billion to £50 billion. That is a remarkable record. We have also tried to target help on those who need it most. If that remarkable record of economic growth and increased help to social security claimants is to continue, I hope that we shall get as much support as possible this evening.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

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

As private nursing homes and private homes for the aged are rate-free at the discretion of the local authority, as 95 per cent. of the people who live in those homes receive social security payments and as the homes are inspected twice a year, should not the books also be inspected by the Department of Social Security, since it provides the largest share of the money?

That would be taking on a very considerable obligation which I do not think is necessary. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has very much faith in the integrity of those homes. If he has any complaint against any particular home, perhaps he will let the appropriate authority know the facts instead of condemning them all.

Further to her earlier answer, will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the need to introduce legislation to prohibit entirely the issuing of firearms licences to convicted criminals?

It would be best to get the Act that we passed in the previous Session fully into operation first, as it tightens the criteria for the issue of a shotgun certificate. The police will be able to refuse the licence if the applicant does not have a good reason to have a shotgun and they will have to be satisfied that the applicant will not be a danger to public safety. Shotgun owners will be required to keep their shotguns securely to minimise the risk of theft, and all shotguns will have to be registered separately on the certificate. That is a very considerable advance on the present legislation and we should bring it into operation first.

Following that reply, I am bound to ask: why not let the police be the total decision-makers? [Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Why does the Prime Minister think that in the six months after April this year, rent arrears in Tory Sutton increased by 40 per cent., in Tory Barnet by 43 per cent. and in Tory Enfield by 63 per cent.?

The increases in rent arrears are a matter for concern, but the Department of the Environment and the Audit Commission have stressed the need for better control by local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some local authorities, but nearly 50 per cent. of the increased rent arrears are concentrated in just 20 Labour authorities.

The reports of very great increases in rent arrears come from authorities under every form of political control—Labour, Tory and hung. Is not the huge increase in arrears a direct consequence of the £650 million cut in housing benefits which took place this year? Does the Prime Minister understand that it will get even worse next year when transitional protection runs out and when rents inevitably increase as a consequence of interest rate rises? Will the Prime Minister now reverse the housing benefit cuts or does she want mass evictions in Britain?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that housing benefit still applies to one in three households. That means that every two households contribute towards keeping a third household. I assume that he is well aware that the total cost of housing benefit in 1988–89 is only 2 per cent. lower than in the previous year. That cannot explain a 40 per cent. increase in rent arrears. Local authorities must get round and collect the rent arrears. Those who cannot afford to pay rent still have their rent paid through housing benefit.

The Prime Minister is deliberately evading the fact that she has withdrawn resources from local authorities and she has robbed some of the poorest families in the country by taking away housing benefit. She, who lives in rent-free accommodation, should not lecture others on the subject.

As I said, the poorest have their housing paid for—[Interruption.] The poorest have their rents met 100 per cent. and their rates met to 80 per cent. together with an average payment to meet the rest of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that nearly half the rent arrears are concentrated in 20 Labour authorities, that the Audit Commission stressed the need for better control by local authorities and that most of the rent arrears arise because there are insufficient regular collections of rent.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

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

It is reported in today's newspapers that 77 countries have come to the aid of the Armenian earthquake victims. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest cash contributions have come from individual citizens of this country? Does not that underline what a generous and warm-hearted society we have, and will she refute Opposition Members' allegations that we have become selfish and greedy?

Yes, the response of this country has been extremely generous, both publicly and privately. There have been 10 flights to the Soviet Union specifically for relief in Armenia, and some of the people who went there, whom we congratulate on their valiant efforts, have returned and told us of the true extent of the devastation. The rescue phase is nearly over and reconstruction will follow, with which obviously we will be willing to help. We thank all those volunteers who offered their good services and raised money. I should like to say that we also thank very much the Soviet ambassador to this country, who has made every effort to see that our help gets to where it is most needed. I should have thought that Opposition Members would also want us to do that.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that none of Britain's 3,500 hostels, many of which are specifically for homeless people, will be closed as a result of benefit changes? Or will she tell 50,000 homeless young people who will sleep out in the streets of Britain this Christmas that there will be no room at the hostel?

No. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is still room in London, for example not only at Centrepoint but at hostels which are specially run for those people. There are special arrangements for paying amounts from social security at Centrepoint, but not at others because there never have been. There are still places available at those hostels.

In contemplating another year of gratifying economic expansion, will my right hon. Friend agree that a most important feature of the encouraging confidence that exists is the unprecedented rate of new business start-ups?

Yes, it has been an economically very successful year; unemployment has fallen and the number of jobs has increased. New businesses are starting at the rate of 1,000 a week. Thank goodness we do not have a Socialist Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Commission for Racial Equality is unable to prosecute all bona fide cases of racial discrimination because of a lack of funding from her Government? As a result, black and ethnic minority people are denied their legal rights of protection from racial discrimination. Does she agree that this is disgraceful, and will she confirm that her Government support the prosecution of racists under the Race Relations Act 1976? Will she confirm that she will provide enough funds for the commission to do its job?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that prosecution is a matter not for me but the Crown prosecuting authorities. Spending on legal aid has risen more rapidly than most other expenditure in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a constitutional conference on electoral reform, or does she share my view that those who are now advocating proportional representation merely illustrate their perceived inability to be elected?

I will not set up such a conference. Governments who are elected by that means tend to be weak and cannot take decisions, and there are too many of those already.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

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

Does the Prime Minister realise that cuts in housing benefit have sent large numbers of old people to citizens advice bureaux? Due to the operation of the community programme, the activities of such bureaux, especially in my area, have been cut. They do not have enough people to service the needs of old people, many of whom are breaking down in front of the staff of citizens advice bureaux. Will she kindly do something, or will she be seen to be Scrooge, without the last redeeming chapter?

No. In 1979, housing benefit cost £1·5 billion. We now spend £5 billion. About 6 million households have housing benefit. [Interruption.] I never know whether Opposition Members will say that the country is so rich that it is spending too much on consumer goods or will complain that no one has any money.

In view of the difficulties that appear to have arisen between the West German Government and British forces in Germany, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our forces are in. Germany to defend our NATO allies, the West, and, of course, Germany? We look to the German Government to behave in a more friendly fashion as an old ally.

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Our presence in Germany is to defend the Federal Republic, our allies and ourselves. He is aware that several people were killed in the Remscheid accident. The Federal German Government asked all armed forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany not to hold any social events or to play music until after the funerals of those killed in the accident. When the host country asked for that for a short period, it seemed reasonable to try to conform with its wishes. We did so.

The Americans did not.

Never mind. We did so. That was right. Instructions to comply with that request until after the memorial service on Thursday 15 December were issued to British forces. We accorded the highest sensitivity to those who suffered as a result of that grievous accident.