To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the optimum rate of earnings of university academics from sources outside universities.

The Department does not collect information about the levels of non-pay earnings among academics.

Would 20 per cent. of earnings and 20 per cent. of time be a reasonable guess?

The answer probably varies very widely between different institutions and different individuals. We know from anecdotal evidence that in some cases earnings are substantial and in others not. The basic point is that if a pay claim is based on comparisons, like must be compared with like.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are retention and recruitment problems in certain subjects at certain universities? Does he agree that those difficulties are an argument for more flexibility in the academic pay structure, and that a shortage of engineers and scientists is no argument for paying exceptionally higher salaries to lecturers in Latin?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no point in people in universities, particularly the ablest, lecturing the Government about the brain drain if they are not prepared to take steps that are within their power to secure their continued employment in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on capital investment in higher education.

Tile Supply Estimates provide for allocations totalling £272 million in 1989–90 for capital purposes in higher education. This provision reflects the Government's commitment to a high-quality, cost-effective higher education system.

Can the Minister confirm that according to the Government's own figures capital expenditure on universities in 1988 was 16 per cent. less than in 1979, and that capital spending on polytechnics was 14 per cent. less? Is that not a deplorable record? What possible excuse has the Minister for such a decline in capital spending on something of such importance to the nation's economic future?

I must point out that, of the £272 million that we have allocated for capital purposes, £84 million is for polytechnics. We estimate that sum to he roughly double what would otherwise have been provided by the local education authorities. As for overall spending, I have said before and will say again that we in Britain spend a higher proportion of our gross national product on higher education than any other western European country except the Netherlands.

When contemplating capital expenditure, does my hon. Friend take into consideration what we already have? Is so, will he bear in mind that the dental college at Dundee has superb accommodation, and that there is no need to spend vast sums on accommodational equipment there?

I had the great pleasure of visiting Dundee and its dental school with my hon. Friend, and I was very impressed by what I found. That was reflected in subsequent decisions.

Why has the Department so far failed to respond to the request and recommendation by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the other place that £25 million extra capital spend be provided this year for medical research equipment throughout our higher education sector?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, public expenditure requirements for higher education are reviewed every year in the public expenditure survey, and that is the appropriate occasion on which to consider the suggestion to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Does my hon. Friend agree with Dr. Terence Kealey that the universities could do much more to attract capital from outside sources, and that the universities are far too wedded to collective bargaining, jobs for life and dependence on the state?

I agree with some of what my hon. Friend has said. Capital expenditure and investment in new plant, equipment and buildings is a prime area for which to raise funds from outside sources, which are often more prepared to give money for those purposes than others.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current age participation rate for higher education; and if he will make a statement.

The provisional age participation index for 18-year-olds for 1988–89 stands at a record 15·1 per cent. The trend since 1979 has been strongly upward. We expect this autumn to see more than 1 million students in higher education for the first time in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show a towering record of achievement in the past decade, and of providing opportunities for the young people of this country? Does he further agree that such opportunity will be even more enhanced, come the greater emphasis on fees in the funding of higher education?

In this celebratory week, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Over the past 10 years there has been an increase of over 200,000 students in higher education, one of the biggest increases in our history. I agree with my hon. Friend that the announcement that I made last week on increasing the public element of fees will stimulate universities, colleges and polytechnics to enrol more students. I am glad to see that that announcement has been so widely welcomed throughout higher education.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a strong feeling in west Cumberland that the further education college should be able to provide a three-year degree course, if only linked to Preston, whereas at present it can provide only the first year, with students having to travel to Preston for the subsequent years? Will the Secretary of State take a personal interest in the matter and see whether the rules can be changed so that this right is available in west Cumberland.

I will look into what the hon. Gentleman has said. Only 10 days ago I was in his part of the world and visited the further education college in Barrow-in-Furness, which is being expanded and rebuilt at a cost of between £4 million and £5 million. I was impressed with the provision of that college.

That is not the same.

I accept that it is not the same, but it is quite close. I will have a look at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, of the large rise in student numbers in higher education over the last 10 years, the increase in those attending polytechnics, of about 30 per cent. to 300,000, is the most impressive? Does he further agree that, given the fact that polytechnics are particularly well placed to offer flexible entry and modular courses, particularly for older people who seek retraining, they will be in the forefront of higher education over the next 10 years?

I am sure that polytechnics will follow their success of the last 10 years, because most of the expansion has been in the polytechnic area. This has been achieved because the polytechnics have been flexible. They will grow even faster now that they are not under the control of education authorities. As my hon. Friend has indicated, by being resourceful, entrepreneurial and devising new courses related specifically to the needs of students, they have achieved this growth. I am sure that they will represent one of the major elements of expansion in the next 10 years.

Perhaps I may be permitted to interrupt the orgy of unjustified self-congratulation taking place amongst the Conservatives. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as per the answer to me of 10 February from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the percentage of 18 to 24-year-olds in higher education has gone down, not up, under this Government? Will he further confirm that the public expenditure White Paper projects a fall in the real value of expenditure on higher education between now and 1992? In view of the claims that he is making about fees and increased numbers and the comments last week about what a great victory this represented over the Treasury, will he tell the House by how much the budget for higher education will be increased above the White Paper figures, or is this yet another example of how far the reality of the Government's resourcing of education falls short of its rhetoric?

The participation rate for 18-year-olds has increased from 12·4 per cent. to 15·1 per cent. over the last 10 years. What was being said a few moments ago was not at all an orgy of self-congratulation. It was a simple and modest statement of the continuing success of this Government over the last 10 years, projecting even greater success over the next 10 years.

Could my right hon. Friend look at the mental age as well as the physical age for acceptability to higher education, so that in future we can prevent such futile and disgraceful gestures, as the award of office by a students union to a convicted murderer?

I have already said—and I say again—that the decision by a very small minority of students at the London School of Economics is both despicable and shameful. It is deeply offensive to the family of PC Blakelock. It has been condemned by the London School of Economics, and by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and by many people across the country. I very much hope that that decision will be changed. The reputation of the London School of Economics should not depend on a small minority of the loony Left.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what addition has been made to the science budget to meet the cost of salary increases of technicians employed by research councils, following the recent award to technicians employed by universities.

The technicians' union has not yet agreed the pay offer made to it last month by the employers on the universities committee for non-teaching staffs in universities. I understand, however, that the negotiating parties are meeting again today.

By how much has the cost of research councils risen since the Secretary of State's announcement of this year's science budget?

I do not have that information immediately to hand, but I remind the House that in last year's public expenditure survey there was a substantial increase in the research council's vote of about 10 per cent. in real terms. That ought to be enough to cope with the current rises, including the rise in technicians' salaries. However, we shall have to examine in later years the consequences of this year's public expenditure survey.

It was clear, however, that a substantial proportion of the 10 per cent. increase would not be directed to both the new and the expanded research programmes, about which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister made such a song and dance, particularly in relation to the global environment. A substantial part of that increase has had to be earmarked for salary increases for technicians and scientists. Have the Government been successful in obtaining an increase in the science budget comparable with that which they have obtained for the universities?

The hon. Gentleman is always trying to look a gift horse in the mouth. There was a very substantial improvement in the amount of money made available last year. The hon. Gentleman speaks as though salaries and staff are not part of the cost of the science vote, but they are a major part of the cost of that vote. That cost is reflected in the increase.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

In actual cash, Staffordshire spent £535 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,420 per secondary pupil in 1987–88. At 1987–88 prices, those figures are £1,100 and £1,420 respectively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show a satisfactory increase in expenditure per secondary school pupil in Staffordshire since the Government came to power, despite the Opposition's remarks? Does he think that that increase has been accompanied by an improvement in standards?

A considerable amount of information and research shows that there is not a direct and quantifiable correlation between the level of spend and the level of academic results achieved. That is an issue that we may address in a later question. The real growth in Staffordshire has been made possible because the Government have been very generous. The Staffordshire figures, and those that have been repeated in local education authorities across the country, show that it is a misnomer to use the word "cuts" when one refers to expenditure on education.

Does the Minister accept that the figures have been achieved despite the Government's support, which led to a cut in the rate support grant? The figures are a tribute to Labour control in Staffordshire. Will the Minister confirm that, during the last five years of Labour control in Staffordshire, the examination results of secondary school pupils have risen, whereas the national figures have remained fairly static? Staffordshire's figures have advanced considerably, thanks to the Labour council's excellent control.

As I said earlier, the academic results of local education authorities vary considerably. I know that the Opposition do not like league tables, but there are some fairly clear figures that show that the high-spending education authorities often achieve the least favourable academic results, while those that spend the least per head often achieve very favourable results. I shall not comment on Staffordshire's exact performance, but it is the Government's generosity that has made the general improvement possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to improve the quality of accommodation provided in primary secondary schools.

Local education authorities and governors are responsible for school buildings for which my right hon. Friend makes capital allocations and grant available. For 1989–90 my right hon. Friend has announced capital allocations to LEAs of £352 million. LEAs will also have substantial spending power from capital receipts which they are able to use on improving the quality of school and college buildings.

Given that last year 25 schools in England and Wales had fire damage costing over £250,000 each, and that the fire officer in Tory-controlled Norfolk has just advised his county council that there are 11 schools with no adequate means of escape and which are a high fire risk and 56 other Norfolk schools which do not comply with the codes of practice, is it not about time that schools were brought within the remit of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 so that the fire service inspects them and sees what a lamentable state many of them are in? Is it not time that, earlier rather than later, we brought our schools up to a decent standard to protect children from the risk of death or injury and that we had the capital investment from the Government to do the job?

Of course, this is a question which the whole House takes very seriously but compared with other types of buildings, the fire safety record of schools is excellent. Of course, we should never be complacent and local education authorities have to set their own priorities on repairs and maintenance budgets. In terms of the cost of arson, which normally takes place outside school hours, we have a serious problem, and it is for that reason that I appointed a group of experts to look into the whole question of the cost of arson and vandalism, which has been variously estimated as being between £49 million and £100 million a year. That is intolerable, but of course, the safety question is very much to the fore and I shall look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for a relatively small outlay, for example on fire alarms and the like, schools could be made much safer places? Will he further confirm that he continues to chair a working group inquiring into arson and vandalism and give the House some idea of how that group is progressing and when it might be reporting to the Department and the House?

I shall be glad to so report to the House in due course. I have now chaired this special group twice. We have an action plan of 10 points. We are targeting savings in a number of areas and, for the sake of comparatively small expenditures, I believe that we can make major savings in the £49 million to£100 million that I mentioned earlier, which of course can be used to much better effect in resourcing schools in basic things like books and other forms of support for teachers.

Has the Minister forgotten that the Government's own figures show a £3 billion backlog in repairs and maintenance of our schools? Will he confirm that one million children are still being educated in very inadequate conditions? What will he do about that?

The figures that the hon. Gentleman has just used should be examined very carefully. He knows that it is the practice of most local education authorities to submit a bid to my Department. In the main an average of approximately 34 per cent. of that bid goes to LEAs as a cash allocation. I appreciate that repairs and maintenance, for example, is a heading that we could look at. I cannot anticipate at this stage the outcome of the public expenditure survey but I am aware that there are improvements to be made in quite a large number of schools. In the first instance it must be for LEAs to set their priorities when they put their bids to us.

Is my hon. Friend happy with the way in which local education authorities allocate this capital expenditure? In Derbyshire there has been an increase in the capital available to the county council over the past two years, from about £5 million to £11 million. Is he aware that there is great concern, particularly in my constituency, that schools are not being treated fairly, perhaps because of their political complexion? I have to say to my hon. Friend and to the Secretary of State that there is growing concern about the way in which local authorities are, as we believe, abusing their position. Is my hon. Friend further aware that All Saints primary school in Matlock has been waiting now since 1983–84 for the continuation of very important work to bring it on to one site? Does he agree that it is not acceptable that there should be huge increases in the capital given to county councils and for them then to use it in wholly political exercises in various constituencies in the county?

Derbyshire county council seems to devote the bulk of its efforts to blaming the Government for everything. The school that my hon. Friend mentioned had the first phase of its development approved under the Conservative Administration but is still waiting for the second phase. Derbyshire has rarely been out of the top five for capital allocations to the shire counties. It receives 52 per cent. of its claims for expenditure compared with a national average of 34 per cent. In my view, Derbyshire should stop playing politics and get on with the job.

Have not capital allocations for school maintenance decreased by nearly 30 per cent. in the past 10 years? Is that not because we have a £3 billion backlog in repairs to our schools and 1 million children are condemned every day to take their lessons in substandard accommodation? That accommodation would not be acceptable in private sector schools to which Cabinet members send their children. Why can we not have the same standards in the public sector and the money to carry out repairs so that our children can have decent schools and decent opportunities?

It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman makes comparisons with the private sector, because the private sector often operates under conditions which can be described as spartan. However, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. He does not take into account the fact that capital receipts have boosted expenditure considerably. Capital receipts boosted the £352 million that I mentioned earlier to about £670 million. Of course we should like to provide more for repairs and maintenance, but the House must await the outcome of the public expenditure survey as far as future plans are concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what allowance is made for the in-service training of teachers in (a) school-time and (b) school holidays for heads, deputies and all other teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Participation in in-service training is part of the professional duties of a teacher under the pay and conditions document. The amount of time devoted to in-service training in school hours and outside school hours varies according to need and circumstances. In the Government's view the five non-contact days should be used mainly for in-service training.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that there will continue to be an expansion of in-service training for heads, deputies and all teachers? Can she also confirm that such training is much more expensive if it is undertaken in school time because replacements have to be arranged for the absent teacher, head or deputy? Could not incentives be provided for such teachers to undertake more in-service training in school holidays which, after all, are not short?

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that some £50 million has been set aside this year in training grants for teachers undertaking in-service training, and an additional £50 million in education support grants to help in training to prepare for the national curriculum. My hon. Friend asked about in-service training during school holidays or outside school hours. Many good local education authorities already arrange much of their in-service training outside school hours and many very professional teachers prefer to do it then.

Is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that about a fortnight ago the Secretary of State answered a question in the Select Committee, and that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is pursuing the same subject? The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the number of supply teachers is totally insufficient. Large numbers of teachers who wish to take part in in-service training cannot because there are not enough supply teachers to replace them.

The hon. Gentleman should know that many local education authorities are working hard to sustain and increase the number of supply teachers. They have some good schemes, and well-organised local education authorities have a considerable number of supply teachers to cover for other teachers who are doing in-service training. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have reaffirmed what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), in reply to his question about in-service training out of school hours, insofar as it is important that professional teachers should, as much as possible, increase their professionalism by undertaking training both in and out of school time.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the present system for the appraisal of teachers? Three or four years ago, we heard a great deal about it. The medical profession has now accepted the need for the medical audit, which is appraisal by one's colleagues. Would it not be sensible to consider a similar scheme for teachers?

My hon. Friend will know that there are provisions in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 for the introduction of appraisal schemes. Six pilot schemes were undertaken in local authorities and those are currently being assessed by the Department of Education and Science, with the intention of introducing appraisal schemes in other schools in the not too distant future.

Does the Minister accept the view of Her Majesty's inspectorate that primary education is critically short of teachers with expertise in science, technology and mathematics? As primary schools will embark on teaching the national curriculum core subjects next term, what is the Minister doing to ensure that every primary school teacher has the in-service training necessary to embark on the project?

As the hon. Lady will know, we are embarking on a substantial in-service training scheme for primary school teachers, as well as secondary school teachers. With the introduction in September this year of the core subjects of the national curriculum, primary teachers will need to undertake some in-service training in science and mathematics in particular, although many primary school teachers, having seen the syllabuses and the curricula for mathematics and science, are happy with them and believe that they are well prepared already to undertake most of the work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to solve the problems of teacher shortages in Barnet.

The Department's action programme on teacher shortages is aimed, in particular, at tackling the problem of teacher recruitment in London and the south-east.

Is the Minister aware that one reason why there are shortages of teachers in the Prime Minister's constituency, parts of Derbyshire and elsewhere is the ever-changing job description that the Government are organising on behalf of teachers in relation to the national curriculum and the GCSE examination, but that almost certainly the main reason is pay? It is high time that the Government were prepared to pay teachers the same 26 per cent. increase that the top company directors received last year.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should attack both the GCSE and the national curriculum, as I understand that his Front Bench has adopted both of those as part of its own programme. My right hon. Friend has received the report from the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions and has announced that he is prepared to accept the report in full.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever the teachers' position in Barnet, in Labour Brent, parents are queuing up to get their children into schools in Conservative Barnet rather than in Labour Brent? Is my hon. Friend aware that the excellent fifth year and seventh year results in Barnet and Harrow are some of the best in the country?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is hardly surprising that parents in areas where the schools are not producing the results are opting to send their children to schools in authorities such as Conservative-controlled Barnet, where the results are obviously good. Barnet is the top authority in the country for good academic results.

Is that why parents in Barnet are queuing up to send their children to schools in Labour-controlled ILEA and is that why the net flow there is towards ILEA and not away from it? If the Minister is, as she claims, winning the battle on teacher shortages, why has the education officer in Barnet, Mr. Gill, had to write a desperate letter to every teacher and parent in Barnet, asking if they know anyone, "friends, relatives or neighbours" who would like to be a teacher in Barnet?

No, it is not. The 10 years of Thatcherism have been successful, not only in Barnet, but right across the country and are proving to be most successful in education which, in previous years was so deplorable that it had to undergo a substantial change and the substantial reform that was introduced last year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Education Reform Act 1988.

Is my hon. Friend aware that until 1974 graduates could be employed by local education authorities in shortage subjects without a postgraduate certificate of education? Will she look at the system used in the United States where graduates are trained part-time in the evenings and in the holidays while they are teaching? Will she also consider a system of paying extra money to teachers in shortage subjects and in shortage areas?

We shall most certainly look at both those suggestions. My hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is about to introduce schemes for licensed and for articled teachers which will allow graduates to be articled or licensed and to teach in the classroom while gaining their professional qualifications.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many licensed teachers he estimates will be recruited in the next two academic years.

The number of licensed teachers will depend on the suitability of candidates presenting themselves for licensed teacher status and the extent to which local education authorities and school governing bodies wish to appoint them.

Does the Minister agree that the most suitable people to help in teaching are those who are already there, but that they are being forced out of education because of the lack of morale under the Government and the difficulties with pay and conditions and with operating under the various changes that the Government have introduced? Would it not be better to tackle those things and to start talking to teachers once again through some proper machinery instead of trying to introduce failed and under-qualified ex-executives into teaching?

Teachers' pay has increased by 40 per cent. in the past three years. In looking for signs about whether morale is improving or otherwise, the House will recognise that the response of the teaching profession to the major reform of GCSE and the extent to which teachers are opting for training, with enthusiasm, on the national curriculum are not signs of a profession that is demoralised. We have a great deal of hope for the future but, of course, we want to continue to address the difficulties of geographical and subject teacher shortages.

In connection with the recruitment of teachers and other related issues, and bearing in mind that the voice of teachers is divided between at least four unions, will my hon. Friend and his colleagues look again at the idea of a professional teachers council to represent and to raise the professional standards of teachers in every way?

That idea has been mooted fairly often in the past few years. Some teachers in the profession would like an organisation that would speak for them as a professional body and not as a politicised, unionised body. That issue is still open. Either through ignorance or otherwise some of the teachers' unions have made assertions on the subject of licensed teachers which are quite untrue. At the moment, graduates without initial teacher training represent about 7 per cent. of qualified teachers in secondary schools and 39 per cent. of teachers in secondary schools are not graduates. What we propose will do nothing to dilute the professionalism of the profession.

Will it be possible for applicants who have completed two years of higher education but who have failed their teaching practice on either a BEd or a PGCE course to be eligible for licensed teacher status?

Let us assume that such an individual has an HND, which is not a graduation in the strict sense of the word. That person would be eligible to do two years' teacher training in a school. Only if he satisfies those who must assess him for that can he enter into the profession. I am not aswering an unequivocal "yes" to the hon. Gentleman's question. I would like to look at it in a little further detail and write to him. But everyone has to have two years' higher education, O-level GCSE in English and maths and two years' training in the schools. I would have thought that those were all excellent proposals.

Considering the difficulty of recruiting suitably qualified people in the teaching profession, can my hon. Friend confirm the reports that the city technology college in Nottingham, which had advertised 13 teacher posts, has had over 900 teachers expressing interest in them and 250 firm applications?

I say to anyone who has any doubts about the ethos and efficacy of CTCs that they should go to Nottingham and talk to that excellent head and director. He is going to build and staff an inner-city school which will change the life chances of inner-city children. That is what CTCs are all about. He is making those children fit for the world of work and they will be whole men and women into the bargain.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the provision of non-Christian religious teaching as part of the national core curriculum.

All maintained schools must provide religious education but it is not part of the national curriculum. The content of religious education is for local determination.

Is the Minister aware that parents who belong to minority faiths are increasingly concerned at what they feel to be inadequate provision for worship and education in their faiths where there is a substantial number of children of a particular faith in a school? Does she recognise that this anxiety has increased since the Education Reform Act 1968 and is shared by parents of the Hindu, Moslem, Jewish and other religions? Is she proposing to do anything as a result of the representations that she has received to meet these concerns?

Certainly. We have taken careful note of the various representations that have been made to us. In terms of the act of worship, of course, the provision for parents to he allowed to withdraw their children remains as it was under the Education Act 1944. It may help the hon. and learned Gentleman if I say that not every act of worship in a county school will have to be either wholly or mainly broadly Christian in character, provided that the majority of acts of worship are. The head will have to take into account the family background of the pupils concerned when deciding on the precise nature of worship to be provided. As I have said, parents still have the option to withdraw their children if they so wish.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that teaching Christianity properly within the core curriculum provides a foundation for the teaching of comparative religion and indeed the degree subject of theology taught in many universities uses Christianity as the foundation and brings in other religions in the comparative framework? In that context, does she not agree that it is proper that Her Majesty's inspectors should monitor the teaching of religious education in the core curriculum?

It is certainly right that, as my hon. Friend says, religious education should be monitored by Her Majesty's inspectors when they are looking at what is happening in the basic teaching of religious education. It is also right that religious education should refleect the central place of Christianity in our religious traditions. But the Act requires that local syllabuses should take account of the teaching and practices of all the principal religions in Great Britain. I hope that that will go some way towards answering my hon. Friend's question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what performance indicators are available to him in measuring the effectiveness of Her Majesty's inspectorate.

The performance of Her Majesty's inspectors may be judged by the timely and effective advice they provide to me and my Department on policy matters; by the number, range and quality of their reports and publications, and their inspections; and by the extent to which I am kept appropriately informed about educational standards and trends.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that the retention of the core of Her Majesty's inspectors will be necessary once the full effects of the Education Reform Act 1988 translate themselves into the beneficial results which will derive from society's greater involvement and interest in education, particularly in the light of the answer given earlier this afternoon affecting the teacher appraisal schemes?

I am sure that parents will be taking a much greater interest in the performance of schools and their children as a cumulative effect of the result of our reforms. I am certain that there will be a continuing and important need for Her Majesty's inspectors to visit schools. They have increased their number of inspections. During the past 10 years, since we have been in office, the number of inspectors has risen from 430 to 490.

Will the Secretary of State arrange for inspectors to consider safety in schools? Will he despatch an inspector immediately to a first school in my constituency where all the electric switches are made of metal and where the electric plugs are sparking? That presents a real danger to the nursery and primary school children and the staff at the school. Will the Secretary of State also send an inspector to the Bradford Conservative-controlled education authority and ask why it is refusing to do anything about those dangers at a time when it has put £5 million into balances and has cut the education budget by millions?

There have been substantial increases in capital expenditure in Bradford over the past few years, and that is what that money should have been spent on.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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 the Prime Minister aware that one of the major policy blunders of the past 10 years has been her attempt to use Scotland as an experimental area for the immoral poll tax? Is she aware that, despite the chicken-hearted failure of the Labour leadership, hundreds of thousands of Scots will not pay and together that army will wreck the poll tax, sink her flagship and inflict a major political defeat upon her later this year?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that under Scottish law, Scotland had already undergone a rating revaluation, and the results were so horrific that we had to change the law. I understand that the official Opposition may want another rating revaluation on a capital basis, which would be even more catastrophic. We have changed to a community charge, which is very much better and fairer. I understand that 99 per cent. of people have already registered, which would indicate an intention to fulfil their duties under the law. They are not only interested in how much they can get, but what is their duty to pay.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

In welcoming my right hon. Friend's personal initiatives over matters of atmospheric pollution, the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect, may I ask her whether anything new has emerged from the much-publicised meeting that she had last week with Ministers in Downing street?

My hon. Friend will have seen some reports. The most obvious thing to come out of the meeting was the fact that we need a great deal more scientific evidence. Because there are so many variables to feed into the several climatic models, it is difficult to get scientists with a single opinion on how the climate in the several regions will be affected. Secondly, we noted the excellent progress being made in energy efficiency. We are now using less energy than we were in 1973, with an enormously increased gross domestic product. Thirdly, the most practical and immediate concern was the damaging effect of the destruction of tropical forests. That subject will be raised, I think, at the European summit and also at the economic summit, when we discuss how we can increasingly use aid to preserve those tropical forests.

Will the Prime Minister tell us why mortgage rates have been higher for longer under her Government than under any other British Government?

The right hon. Gentleman knows why they are high at the moment—[Interruption.] It is to ensure that inflation never rises to the 26 per cent. it did under the Labour Government.

Does the Prime Minister recall her pledge to achieve what she called "reasonable mortgage rates"? Why has she never ever managed to keep that pledge?

We have done extremely well in that 3 million people have chosen, under this Government, to own their own home who would never have had that opportunity under Labour. Maybe the proof comes in home ownership and in how very well those who have purchased their homes have done in increasing their value.

Is the Prime Minister trying to say that we have had higher mortgage rates for longer under her Government because more people, just as in every previous year, have ended up buying their own houses?

No. I am saying that 3 million more families own their homes than was the case under Labour and that mortgage rates and interest rates are high because we are determined not to go back to Labour's inflation rate of 26·9 per cent. per annum.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing efforts of the European Legislation Committee to involve the House in more effective scrutiny of European legislation? Is she aware that the French Parliament, following our example, has introduced similar measures? Does she also agree that the more democracy there is in the European Community the better?

I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are deeply concerned about the amount of legislation that is coming from Europe. It comes to the Scrutiny Committee of course only when it has got to the legislative stage. My right hon. Friends and I are deeply concerned about the number of proposals in the pipeline. It is extremely difficult to get the full facts about them and we must follow them up at that stage too. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need the scrutiny of national Parliaments and that the more we have the better. We also need to keep a very careful watch on the tendency of the Commission to acquire an increasing competence on many matters that are not necessary for the single market of 1992. That would result in an extremely large bureaucracy, which would be quite wrong.

Does the Prime Minister realise that when many millions in England and Wales go to the polls to vote on Thursday—the 10th anniversary of her election —they will hope—[Interruption.]—that their single vote counts twice; once for a good councillor, and once against the policies of her Government—against the privatisation of water, against the smashing up of the Health Service and against the poll tax? Does she realise that many millions in Britain, including those who voted for her Government, now ache for the removal of this damaging, disruptive and divisive Government?

Nonsense. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the privatisation of both of those industries was in the last election manifesto and that we won that election by a 100 majority, for which many people are and will remain profoundly grateful? We are going to win the next one too.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the Policy Studies Institute report "The School Effect", which shows that too many of our children in too many of our inner-city schools are being betrayed by too many Left-wing education authorities? Instead of pursuing a pretence of multicultural policies, it is time for those local educational authorities to start helping to fulfil the potential of all their children and to concentrate on traditional ways in which to improve educational standards.

I have read reports on that report in the newspapers. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is anxious that it be published in full because it shows enormous variations in educational standards between schools of similar pupils. That is not right. We must make every effort to see that every child has a good education whatever their background. That is why my right hon. Friend is introducing a national curriculum and is spending so much time on teacher training and extra teacher training so that every child can have a really good education whatever local authority he is in.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

Having attended the memorial service at Liverpool last Saturday and having witnessed at first hand the grief of that football-loving city, may I ask the right hon. Lady now to consider that the most fitting and lasting memorial to those who tragically died in Hillsborough last month would be for the Government to provide the funding for a multi-purpose sports facility at Merseyside, in the same spirit as she set aside £19 million for egg producers earlier this year?

No, Sir. Some football clubs have spent a great deal, and others—not all in this country—are spending an increasing amount on the standards of their stadiums. The hon. Gentleman will know to which I refer. There is a good deal of money, as he knows, in football. Much of it—perhaps too much—goes on transfer fees and perhaps too little goes on stadiums. We all know that a good deal of the income from football pools also goes on improving stadiums. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with all of those aspects. I went to the memorial service and of course I shared the grief of the people. I got very much the impression from them that, above all, they wanted all-seat stadiums in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that better street lighting can cut crime and cut the fear of crime? Will she endorse the findings of the urban programme and the estate action programme, as well as of the British parliamentary lighting group's surveys in Edmonton and Tower Hamlets, that money spent by local authorities on improving street lighting is money well worth spending in the fight against crime?

My hon. Friend draws my attention to the work done by the British parliamentary lighting group and to projects in Edmonton and Tower Hamlets, which seem to have shown that where more money is spent on lighting, the level of crime goes down. If that is so, we must look at those results carefully and see whether they can be furthered because we are anxious to reduce the level of crime as fast and as much as we can.

Has the Prime Minister read press statements about the attitude of general practitioners in the Vale of Glamorgan in relation to the Government's White Paper on the Health Service? Will she consider withdrawing that White Paper and funding the NHS in a proper manner and not put into effect the actions that are now proposed?

No, Sir, and we do not take any lectures on funding the Health Service from Labour Members—[Interruption.] I repeat what I have said in past weeks: for every pound that Labour spent on the NHS, Tories are spending £3. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell that to the people in the Vale of Glamorgan. So, if they want to go back to Labour, that will cut resources, cut hospitals, cut the doctors, cut the nurses, cut their pay and cut the service to patients. Tell that to them.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the question by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), although the precise terms of the contract with GPs may be open to negotiation, will she agree that it is imperative that the proposed reforms of the NHS should go ahead and that the welfare of patients demands that the NHS cannot just go on as it is?

I agree with my hon. Friend. When the reforms in the NHS are through, it will be a much better service for patients than it now is. I understand why Labour Members do not want the reforms to go through. They know that when they have gone through, their protests and citicisms will be rumbled for what they were —wholly hollow and wholly misrepresentative of the true facts.

Is the Prime Minister aware that at the end of her decade as Prime Minister, there are in this country 75,000 missing children? The Government inform me that they do not collect figures nationally. The Children's Society, however, does. What does she intend to do about this problem?

The hon. Lady is well aware of the authorities that have a concern to find missing children. She is also well aware that the standard of living, the standard of education and the standard of health introduced under this Government give children a far better chance than they ever had before.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

Would the right hon. Lady now care to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor)?

We have increased the number of police and their pay so that they can carry out all their duties, including that of finding missing children. We have increased the numbers way beyond what the Labour Government did.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread interest and admiration for the reforms affecting trade unions, doctors, dentists, lawyers, bankers and brokers, but that when it comes to proposals which may have the effect of closing half the village pubs, does she agree that she may have gone a step too far?

I confess that I am not an expert on the subject although it concerns other members of my family very much. Of course, I am concerned, because of the villages, about the future of the village pub. There is increasing debate about the report, I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take that into account when he considers what to do about the report.