To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the assisted places scheme.

The assisted places scheme continues to benefit children from lower-income families. At present, more than 27,000 children have assisted places and 17 more schools will join the scheme this September.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department spends £3,400 per year on each assisted place compared with less than £2,000 on the education of each secondary school pupil in St. Helens? As St. Helens is about to be poll tax-capped and will have to adjust its expenditure on education, how can the Secretary of State justify spending so much money on the education of an elite at the expense of children in St. Helens and elsewhere?

The community charge capping in St. Helens is a judgment on the authority's budget by reference to criteria that apply to all authorities. What an authority decides to do as a result of charge capping is a matter for that authority in the light of its own spending priorities. Broadly speaking, the amount of money spent on assisted places nationally is roughly the same per pupil as is spent on a secondary school pupil. I am happy to elaborate on that. The assisted places scheme represents just under half of 1 per cent. of the estimated total expenditure on schools in 1989–90. It is money well spent because it is simply repaid by the excellent examination results that those pupils achieve and it considerably extends parental choice.

I have a school in Leicestershire that has reopened after having been closed by the local authority. It is a school of great excellence, with 471 pupils. It is opening a preparatory school with 120 pupils and the headmaster would dearly like to provide assisted places to pupils who want to share in the excellence of his school. Will my right hon. Friend consider easing the conditions for the number of sixth form pupils so that such schools can join in the assisted places scheme at an early stage?

We have a fixed sum for assisted places. I am always prepared to consider additional applications, as was demonstrated by my announcement a moment ago that 17 more schools are coming into the scheme in September. However, it is necessary to look at each school to see whether it fits the conditions before one takes a decision. I should be happy to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about students' grants.

My right hon. Friend periodically receives representations about a variety of aspects of the student grant system.

Given the Minister's growing reputation as a joker, can he explain to the House the irony of the student loans scheme? Had the Prime Minister's target of nought per cent. inflation been achieved, the loans scheme would never have been phased in, but with an inflation rate of 9 or 10 per cent., it will be phased in very quickly. Does the Minister accept that the entire scheme has been a giant hoax, proving to the House of Commons that any crazy scheme can get through it if has the support of the Prime Minister and the Whips?

I should like to find a witty response to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall simply tell him that with the addition of the loan to the grant, Britain now has the highest level of student support of the major European countries, and the proportion of students for whom student support is available is second only to that in the Netherlands, where the loan element is larger than ours. Not only have we won the votes, but we have won the argument.

Has my hon. Friend received representations, as I have, from students in high-rent cities such as Oxford and London who are finding it extremely difficult to know how to budget for the next academic year following the announcement of his scheme?

We have had many discussions. I had a discussion with two Members of the House of Lords on that point only this morning. There will be a 25 per cent. increase in resources available to students this year, when the loan comes in, which, together with the access funds, will meet students' needs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

The recruitment of teachers is the responsibility of local education authorities and the governors of schools. My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue guidelines to local authorities regarding the recruitment of overseas teachers.

Will the Minister assure the House that no one who applies from overseas for a teaching post in Britain will get it unless he or she has been vetted according to the national standards?

Yes. No teacher can teach in our schools until he or she meets the minimum criteria for qualified teacher status—a grade C GCSE or equivalent in maths and English, some two years in full-time higher education and at least a two-year probationary period in the school.

With respect, that is not what was asked. We are asking about the vetting procedures for those with criminal records who are teaching our children. Is the Minister aware that such vetting procedures can take up to 10 weeks and that, because of the Government-created chronic shortage of teachers, some of the applicants, even from the United Kingdom, are in post for a considerable period before the procedures are completed? Is she further aware that the situation is worse for overseas applicants? Why will not the Government issue guidelines to local education authorities informing them which overseas countries issue similar good conduct certificates or operate similar vetting procedures? Why must our children remain at risk because of the Government's lack of activity?

If there is a lack of activity, I shall certainly instruct the Department to consider it.

Teachers from overseas and in this country often find housing costs a deterrent to teaching in certain areas. Will my hon. Friend ask English county councils to publish a list of the unoccupied property that they own and ask them what they are prepared to do about renting it to teachers?

That is a helpful suggestion. Many of the home counties and London are finding it more difficult to accommodate teachers, and teachers are finding it more difficult to find accommodation because of the high price of housing. Local authorities are closely considering the problem, but my hon. Friend's suggestion is worth investigating.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any recent representations regarding the implementation of the student loan scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Constructive discussions are taking place with the higher education institutions about their role in confirming their students' eligibility for a loan. Following Parliament's approval of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, the Government's objective remains to have the scheme in place for autumn 1990.

Why do not the regulations allow additional time for Scottish students to repay their loan, given that many undertake a four-year degree course? Is that a misunderstanding of the Scottish system, similar to that demonstrated on the law on the repayment of loans by minors, or is it deliberate?

We thought long and hard about that. We provided special terms for those on five-year courses or longer. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide them for students on four-year courses. The expected repayment, which will be made only by graduates on incomes higher than £11,500 a year, will not be more than £400 a year, whether they are on a three, four or five-year course. That is a reasonable sum to expect graduates to repay.

Will the Minister confirm what I understand him to have said last night—that the Scottish Law Officers were not consulted on the student loan regulations? Does not that show extraordinary incompetence, equalled only by the evident contempt for Scotland and for Scottish law? Will the Minister explain simply to the House what the last-minute, hasty additions to the regulations in relation to Scotland mean?

We discussed all this last night. I confirm that the Scottish Law Officers were not consulted because there was not a specific matter on which they could advise. Different legal opinions have been expressed, but the Government's firm view is that the loan is enforceable. The regulations bear on the issue of ratification at 18 and do not necessarily determine the question of enforceability. The hon. Gentleman is on to a loser on this point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.

The governing bodies of 66 schools have published proposals for grant-maintained status so far. I have approved 44 and rejected 12 of the proposals that have reached me for decision.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that grant-maintained status is an excellent way of improving choice and diversity in education? Does he share my surprise that, despite its honeyed words about freedom and choice for parents, the Labour party is pledged to abolish grant-maintained status if it is ever elected to government?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is more, our new policy for grant-maintained status is proving popular. The number of grant-maintained schools in operation this coming September will be double that of last September. It is clear that parents are opting for grant-maintained schools as applications for places are up by 40 per cent., so it is also clear that parents, governors, head teachers and teachers like grant-maintained schools. Only the Opposition reject that extended opportunity for parental choice. I suspect that, as with so many of their other policies, they will think again in due course.

Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong when, in an interview in 1987, she said. "I think that most schools will opt out"? Can he also confirm that she was wrong when she said subsequently that by schools opting out, the poll tax would be reduced?

It is quite clear that from an early—[Interruption.] It is quite clear that it takes some time to go through the process of becoming a grant-maintained school because there is an extended ballot procedure. The fact that the number of grant-maintained schools has doubled within a year, that there are more and more applications and that there is wider and greater interest shows that grant-maintained status is a popular approach. I should be delighted to see more schools adopting that approach.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members widely welcome the concept of grant-maintained schools? Is he further aware that if we dropped the wholly artificial threshold of 300 pupils necessary for admission to grant-maintained status, we should achieve a far greater number of schools, especially village schools, applying for such status? I urge my right hon. Friend to take note of that suggestion.

We are already seeing an increasing number of schools applying for grant-maintained status and the reason is the success of the scheme for the schools that have applied so far. I shall keep the issue of the minimum figure, to which my hon. Friend referred, under review.

Was the Secretary of State consulted by the Prime Minister when she said, at the Conservative women's conference, that the poll tax could be reduced by schools opting out, and that there could be repeated and regular ballots for opting out?

I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on many occasions the grant-maintained schools and the success of the scheme.

When?

I have just told the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed it on many occasions. He never wants to listen to the answers to his questions. We have also said that we shall monitor carefully the attitude of the local education authorities, which is one of the points that my right hon. Friend made at that conference. If there were evidence of a general problem, I should consider further legislation if necessary. On the wider question, if many schools obtained grant-maintained status, it might be necessary to review the funding methodology.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he is using to designate polytechnic status for colleges of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

I have accepted the advice of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on such criteria. The criteria specify minimum student numbers in an institution, both overall and within a range of academic programmes; the minimum proportion of students at degree level; and a requirement that the institution be accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards. I have recently accepted the PCFC's advice on institutions that fulfil the criteria and Humberside college of higher education and Dorset institute are to be designated for the coming academic year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the high quality of further education in Bolton? Does he agree that there is far too much academic snobbery in this country, and surely, if Japan has more than 340 universities, we could have a few more polys?

Two more polytechnics are coming in this September. I am well aware of the excellent quality of many of our colleges of further education. I have said that I see the designation of new polytechnics as a continuing process and I shall be happy to receive the advice of the PCFC at any time that another institution has met the criteria.

Will my right hon. Friend explain why he prevents polytechnics calling themselves "universities" when there is already such diversity in the university system that some polytechnics are certainly equivalent to some universities?

That matter has been debated in the House on many occasions. I believe that there are distinctive characteristics to universities and polytechnics. The most important task for the polytechnics is to continue to market their excellent advantages as well as they are currently doing. I see the polytechnics as one of the great success stories—among many—of recent years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of pre-school education places.

Total local authority expenditure on education, as allowed for in the most recent grant settlement, will permit continued increases in the numbers and proportion of under-fives in school. However, it is for authorities themselves to determine the scale of their provision in that discretionary area.

Does the Minister accept that that answer is absolute nonsense? Does she recognise that the financial controls that will result from poll tax capping and from further poll tax restrictions next year on local authorities, such as Lancashire, will mean a further reduction in the provision of education services for the under-fives? Does she agree that this country has an appalling record in the provision of services for the under-fives? Does she accept that the best 22 providers of those services are at present Labour authorities?

No, I cannot accept any of those propositions. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in provision for the under-fives since 1980. Like many previous Administrations, this Administration has sensibly targeted resources towards the cities where there is a greater requirement for the provision of nursery education.

Does my hon. Friend accept, as many of her hon. Friends accept, and as the Prime Minister accepted when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, that the single most potent contribution that the Government could make to raise the standards of education throughout an educational lifetime, and to maintain the standards of the family, would be to make greater provision of nursery education? During the present review, will my hon. Friend bear that in mind and plan accordingly for the future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I know of his great interest in this subject and read his recent paper on nursery provision for the under-fives with great interest. He will be glad to know that this country has a good record in providing pre-school education, not simply by nursery education, but through the voluntary sector, with the provision of pre-school playgroups. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's views on the value of pre-school education, and those of my other hon. Friends.

Given the impact of pre-school education on the future education of the individual child—of which we are all aware—is not it time for the Minister to reconsider the discretion of local authorities and to make pre-school education part of the basic provision, for all parents and children who desire that opportunity?

At present we have the earliest starting age for full-time education of any of our European colleagues, other than the Netherlands. All our children start compulsory education at five. At present we do not see any reason for reducing the starting age for compulsory education to below five.

In seeking additional resources for pre-school provision, will my hon. Friend ask the Government to reconsider the school-leaving age with a view to bringing it far more into line with Europe, to enable us to be more flexible; to improve training throughout our country and to bring us into line with Europe on that issue also; to reduce the incidence of crime and truancy among youngsters and to give us a greater impetus after 1992?

I share my hon. Friend's interest and concern about the school-leaving age and about the importance of encouraging young people to stay on in sensible training and education—I believe that that is what my hon. Friend wants—because that will lead us to a more disciplined and better trained society in the future. As I said, I believe that it is important that children should have pre-school education, but of a nature and type that accords with their parents' wishes.

If the Government are concerned to offer choice to parents, why have not they fulfilled their commitment to enable every parent to have the opportunity to choose nursery education if they so wish? If, as we have read, the Minister's committee on education for the under-fives is to recommend a major expansion of nursery education, will she today guarantee that the Government will fund such an expansion?

The hon. Lady must give up her obsession with wanting every parent to have to send every child into some kind of nursery education within the state system. We have always believed in the principle of choice for parents, and it is that choice which we have supported. About 86 per cent. of our three and four-year-olds are currently in some form of pre-school education of the parents' choice. As for funding, the hon. Lady should know that we are at present looking at my right hon. Friend's announcement of last week that there is to be an education support grant of £2.5 million. That will go towards the improvement of planning pre-school education, and of caring by nursery nurses and by others involved in nursery education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are being made available by his Department to help implement recommendations directed to central Government contained in the Elton report on school discipline.

In the current financial year, central Government grant is supporting expenditure of some £6.1 million on projects arising from the recommendations of Lord Elton and his colleagues. We owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Elton and his colleagues for a thoughtful and thorough report.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the Elton report does not go far enough—[Interruption.]—

:Order.

—in that corporal punishment should be reintroduced into schools? Does he further agree that Lord Elton should write another report that deals with the disgraceful behaviour of the Opposition, in particular of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who perhaps should receive corporal—

Order. This place is often likened to a school, but I do not think that the hon. Member's last remark is relevant.

rose—

As always, my hon. Friend makes his points in highly effective style. He speaks with great force on an issue about which strong views and conflicting feelings are widely held. It was the Government's intention that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 should give parents a right of choice on whether their children should be liable to corporal punishment in schools. But the House decided, on a free vote on these Benches, not to accept that policy. The Government accepted the will of the House and, in consequence, it is not legal to administer corporal punishment to pupils in maintained schools or to publicly funded pupils in independent schools.

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours.

rose—

Order. I call Mr. Campbell-Savours first.

On the question of disciplining people in schools, may we have an assurance that Mr. Martin Turner of Croydon and all his colleagues who worked with him on the interesting document that was produced will be protected from any pressure that might be exerted by any education authority anywhere in the United Kingdom?

It is no part of the values of the Conservative party to impose any sort of ideological tyranny. Mr. Turner is an employee of Croydon local education authority and I am sure that Mr. Turner's rights, and his freedom of thought and expression in that authority, will be guaranteed, as they should be.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the tragedy of the abolition of corporal punishment is that children are brought before the courts for small offences for which a stroke of the cane would have been more effective and immediate and would be of lasting value throughout their lives? Will he persuade his right hon. Friends in the Government to think again about that simple, important measure and to reintroduce modern, reasonable corporal punishment in schools for gross indiscipline?

My hon. Friend speaks with all the authority of his background as a headmaster and the House listens to him with respect when he speaks on these issues. If we debated the matter further, I have no doubt that he would make an important contribution. It is perhaps worth stressing that the Elton report emphasised in its recommendations to schools the importance of establishing a clear set of rules backed up by a system of rewards and punishments which are clearly understood and accepted by teachers, parents and pupils. Where that applies, as it does in many schools, and where there is the right partnership between parents and teachers, to help children to understand and respect the difference between right and wrong, the orderly atmosphere which is a precondition of effective teaching and learning is created.

rose—

I call Mr. Fatchett.

rose—[Interruption.]

rose—

Order. I ask the House to settle down. This is a serious matter.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The only point of order that the hon. Gentleman can have is his distress at not being called. What is the point of order?

Is it not a fact that in your capacity as Speaker you have said several times from the Chair that if an hon. Member is named by another hon. Member it is normal practice to call the hon. Member who was named? Have you not said that in the past? If so, why—

Order. I did not hear the hon. Member being named. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was."] All right. I will call Mr. Nellist. [Interruption.] Order. It takes up the time of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Come along.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I have called Mr. Nellist.

rose—

Sit down.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Lady knows better than that.

If the Minister can tell his hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) that extra resources can be diverted to maintaining good order in schools, why will he not put resources into areas such as those that I mentioned last week so as to stop councils breaking health and safety regulations by teaching kids in toilets? Why will he not put extra resources into Tower Hamlets to stop the council breaking the terms of the Education Act 1944 by sending hundreds of children home every day because there are no teachers to teach them? Why—

Order. I gave the hon. Member the chance to raise a question about corporal punishment in schools and nothing else.

Why does the education team not take the beam out of its own eye before talking about motes in anyone else's?

The hon. Gentleman tells the House that he is keen on good discipline and the observation of regulations and warns against hypocrisy, but what puzzles me is that he also encourages the citizens of Coventry not to pay their community charge. If they do not pay their community charge, how can Coventry education authority have the resources that it needs to equip and staff its schools properly?

My hon. Friend says that the matter of corporal punishment was decided by a free vote in this House, but is that the whole story? Did not a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which sought to impinge upon the sovereignty of this Parliament, direct us that corporal punishment could not be used in schools? And did not the Government, without any debate in the House, reaffirm the European convention on human rights?

My hon. Friend raises much wider constitutional issues, but the House has debated and freely took its decision.

Now, Mr. Fatchett.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you now understand and appreciate some of the problems of school discipline.

The Government make no apology for having encouraged individualism and enterprise. The hon. Gentleman's inability to recognise that those qualities assort perfectly well with self-discipline shows the narrowness of his conceptions. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman suggests that there is widespread disorderliness in our schools, as that is a gross disparagement of teachers and it is not the case. Beyond that, the House would be interested to know how much more money the Labour party would propose to spend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the development of advanced-level examinations.

I have asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to recommend general principles for advanced-level syllabuses and examinations, with a view to having an improved system in place by 1994. I have also asked the council for advice on the scope for embodying a range of core skills in the programme of all advanced-level students, and on the scope for credit transfer between A and AS-levels and vocational qualifications. I shall consider in due course the implications of what the council proposes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to increase the proportion of our pupils who stay on at school for A-levels and other qualifications beyond GCSE so that that proportion compares with our continental counterparts? Does he feel that he can reconcile that requirement with the equally important one of maintaining academic rigour?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that the number staying on after 16 is increasing. The reforms that the Government have introduced over the years have a good deal to do with that. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to maintain the academic rigour, excellence and standards of A-levels. A number of other issues also need to be addressed in relation to the 16 to 19-year-old group.

While it is certainly important that the examination at 18 years should be rigorous and of a high standard, does the Secretary of State recognise the widespread concern of university vice-chancellors, head teachers and many others about the narrowness of A-levels and the fact that that restricts the proportion of youngsters who study science at 18? Will the assessment of the 18-plus school examinations by the School Examinations and Assessment Council include the recommendations of the Higginson report? If it so chose, could the SEAC recommend the Higginson report recommendations?

Obviously there are debates about those matters, but the Government have made their position clear on the Higginson recommendations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have broader educational activities in sixth forms. That is the purpose of the AS courses which are increasingly being taken up by universities as a method of entry in conjunction with A-levels, and that is an important way to proceed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made with the establishment of grant-maintained schools.

I am pleased to say that considerable progress is being made. As I said earlier, the first 18 grant-maintained schools started last September, and 44 grant-maintained schools will be operating this September. There will then be more grant-maintained schools in total than there are secondary schools in two thirds of English local education authorities.

I welcome the excellent progress being made in this area, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the more schools there are that have experience of local management, the more there are that want to go the step further to grant-maintained status? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that nothing more clearly illustrates the Labour party's obsession with levelling down and its antipathy towards high standards than its vindictive opposition to this excellent idea?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. It is likely that, as more and more schools see the advantages of local management, they will also see the additional advantages which grant-maintained status gives them, taking them further in the direction of complete control over their budgets, with additional budgets at their disposal as a result of the expenditure from central funds and the further advantages that grant-maintained status brings. I entirely agree with the charges that my hon. Friend makes against the Opposition's policy. On assisted places, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, the Opposition deny choice and greater variety in the system. Their policy on assisted places denies opportunities to those parents who are prepared to make a contribution to their children's education which many Opposition Members have themselves had.

The Minister must be easily pleased, as that number of 40-odd so-called grant-maintained schools, which we would describe as having opted out, is well below what the Government planned. Is he aware that in cities such as my own—Sheffield—there has not been one application for grant-maintained status, and I believe the same is true of Leeds, Wakefield and other great cities because people are completely opposed to the centralisation of education and believe that education should be the responsibility of local education authorities?

Given that grant-maintained status has only recently been introduced, there has been excellent progress so far. The hon. Gentleman should talk to head teachers and teachers in the grant-maintained schools, not to mention parents and governors. He will then see how popular they are and what a difference grant-maintained status makes to schools. I have described the policy as the jewel in the crown for parent power and I believe that its success will grow and grow.

Like many of my colleagues in Nottinghamshire, I have received correspondence from boards of governors in our schools complaining bitterly at their treatment by the county with regard to local management. Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Government's advice to those boards of governors is to apply immediately for grant-maintained status?

Certainly I think that that is an option which more and more schools will wish to consider, and I hope that it will be drawn to their attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding pre-school education; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives a good deal of correspondence on education for the under-fives. Most recently, more than 50 organisations and individuals have submitted evidence to my committee of inquiry on the quality of the educational experience of three and four-year-olds.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, you have reached No. 13, so I think that you are wonderful.

The chairman of Nottinghamshire education committee, Councillor Fred Riddell, has assured me that he is proud of the education service that he provides. Apparently he provides it without much trouble.

Notwithstanding the educational importance of getting under-fives into some organised system as quickly as possible, should not we also give some priority to ensuring that reception classes in primary schools are of manageable size? If we do not do that, the earlier work may be to no avail.

My hon. Friend is right. The quality of the education received by three and four-year-olds is of paramount importance. That is why my committee of inquiry is looking at the quality of the people who teach the reception classes and the number of youngsters entering those classes. If those factors are not right, early education comes to nought.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of teacher vacancies throughout England; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science hopes to make available later this month the data for teacher vacancies as at January 1990.

Are not the worst and most serious teacher shortages in maths, science, technology and modern languages, which are an essential part of the national curriculum? What hope can the Minister offer that when schools reopen in September after the summer holidays there will be a great improvement in the situation so that children will find qualified teachers ready to teach them in all the necessary subjects?

As the hon. Lady knows, my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is looking urgently at this matter. There are bursaries to address teacher shortages in those subjects and to encourage postgraduate certificate of education students to go into teaching. In addition, we have mounted a good advertising campaign urging people to return to teaching, and especially to teach subjects for which there is a teacher shortage. The Government recognise that it is difficult to obtain enough teachers to teach certain subjects, but we are taking every opportunity to address the problem.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I have been asked to reply.

I am sure that the Leader of the House would like to join us all in congratulating the England football team on winning the fair play award in the World cup. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to congratulate and take the credit for our sportsmen and women when things are going well and after the event, but does he agree that perhaps a little more fair play should be shown to voluntary sports clubs which are being crippled by the unified business rate? Is he proud of the fact that sport is more highly taxed in Britain than in any other European country?

British sport is doing very well in a number of voluntary and professional respects. I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the England team on winning the fair play award. The House will be pleased that English clubs are to be readmitted to European football contests. Now that they have secured that place in Europe, we must be anxious to see that they stay there. If that is to be achieved, all hon. Members will join me in hoping that British fans will behave to the same standards as the England team in winning the award to which the hon. Lady referred.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer to the Law Officers for consideration by the fraud squad the findings of the Lightman inquiry into the accounts of the National Union of Mineworkers? Is he aware that that interminable inquiry, which did not receive evidence from key witnesses, found that 17 secret accounts were in operation and that £200,000 of Russian miners' money was used for personal reasons by Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Scargill? The report concluded that there had been a clear breach of the law with serious misapplications of funds and a breach of duty.

It would not be right for Ministers to comment directly on those gravely disquieting allegations. I am sure that the House hopes that all the appropriate authorities, and members of the National Union of Mineworkers, are studying the evidence most carefully.

Will the Lord President give a categorical assurance that the Government's community care proposals are to be implemented as planned next April?

Those proposals will be getting under way in accordance with the statute in due course.

I understand why the Lord President is not so definite as he was when he last answered a question from me a fortnight ago. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Health told the Select Committee last week, when asked if the plan would go ahead as scheduled, that the date of implementation was

"not as definite as it was."

I repeat that the proposals and plans will be getting under way at the appointed date.

If the Lord President even attempts to answer the question, he may tell us whether he does not know the answer or whether he simply chooses not to give it. Is it not a fact that the plans are not going ahead as scheduled because (a) the Government will not devote enough central funds to financing them and (b) they are afraid that local authorities will have to make up the deficit by increasing already heavy poll tax burdens? Are not the Government simply saying that they do not care about the old and sick, and those who look after them, as long as they can avoid another exposure of the poll tax?

The Government will be maintaining the community charge subject to the reviews still taking place, the outcome of which will be announced in due course. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the implementation, and its pace, of any plans passed by the House must depend on the scale of resources available. That is a message that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) seeks to proclaim on behalf of the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should pay attention to what his right hon. and learned Friend says.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that local authorities have put a good deal of work into preparations for the introduction of the community care proposals, which have been warmly welcomed in all parts of the House and the community? It will be a source of concern, confusion and disappointment, not only to local authorities but to potential beneficiaries, if the proposals are not implemented on the date that, for a long time, we have been given to understand that they would be.

I appreciate the natural interest and concern in the matter. The obligations are on the statute book. However, the pace at which such measures are introduced must inevitably depend on the feasibility of the scheme and the resources available.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I have been asked to reply.

While she is out of the country—

Who?

Order.

and the Leader of the House does not have much to lose anyway, why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not admit that the annual report of the community health councils shows only too well what is happening, with ward closures, cancelled operations, inadequate funding of the national health service and many people being discharged from hospital far too early? Does he agree that the Government's measures have made the national health service a poor relation of the private health sector? At the next election, who does he think will believe for one moment that the NHS has been safe in the hands of the Tory Government?

All those who take account of the fact that last year the increase proposed for this year was no less than £2.9 billion, that the total increase in resources to the national health service has been 42 per cent. since the Government came to power in 1979, that there are 14,000 more doctors and dentists, 67,000 more nurses and midwives and a vast increase in the total services provided in the face of a rising population.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned about the rapid rise in company liquidations in the past 12 months? Does he agree that it is time for the Government to consider ways of containing inflation other than the rather blunt instrument of interest rates? Is he aware that if there are company liquidations in all major sectors of our manufacturing economy, as there are, that will lead to unemployment, which will cost the Government a lot of money?

My hon. Friend would do well to take account of the fact that, notwitstanding what he has said, there continues to be a strong net growth in the number of new business formations. At the end of last year, they were running at about 1,500 per week. That is further testimony to the continuing strength of the economy.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House aware that as we head towards the summer recess, homelessness in Britain is becoming considerably worse? is he further aware that it is estimated that about 750,000 people in Britain are homeless, that 120,000 are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that 6,000 are living on the streets?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for the fact that we recently announced an increase of £2 million in the resources available for advice and help for the homeless, an additional £15 million in resources for shelters, and an additional £250 million in resources for London and the south-east over the next two years. The hon. Gentleman should also remember that 100,000 dwellings, under the control of Labour councils, are standing empty. Indeed, the worst authorities in that respect are all Labour controlled.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in the current community charge review there will be an absolute rejection of any idea of a return to the domestic rating system—something that was so often condemned, especially by the Opposition?

My hon. Friend has the assurance that we have given many times—that the current review, the results of which will be announced in due course, is a review of the operation and not a review of the structure of the community charge. There is a great deal more certainty about the position under this Government than there is about the position under the Opposition's plans.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Given that the leaders at the G7 summit have issued a communiqué suggesting that the 1990s should be known as the decade of democracy, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his definition of democracy? If he believes that people's aspirations are best expressed through the ballot box and through elected representatives, what message has he for the people of Scotland, who have made it abundantly clear that they do not want either the siting of a nuclear waste dump in, or the transportation of nuclear waste through, their country? Does he accept that Nirex and the Secretary of State can override those people's aspirations?

The Secretary of State's position was set out in the reasons that he gave for his modifications to the Highland regional council structure plan. His intention to modify it in that way has been advertised. Objections to his proposed modifications should be submitted in writing by 10 August.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to commend the setting up by the Lord Chancellor of 94 new children's courts, with special judges who will have special training? Can we hope that procedures that formerly intimidated children, such as the dress of judges and the procedure of the courts, will be changed and that there will be more women judges in that important area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that important step forward in the implementation of the Children Act 1989, which will promote and safeguard the welfare of children as all hon. Members would wish. My hon. Friend can take some comfort from the fact that judges with proper training in tha field will be well aware of the need that she identified for sympathetic treatment. She will also be glad to know that the Lord Chancellor is anxious to see more women on the bench. As there are a growing number of women with experience as advocates, the number of women on the bench is likely to grow and that would be a good thing.

Will the Lord President find time to ask the Prime Minister when she comes back from Texas to talk to the junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, who is supposedly involved in consumer affairs but seems to be hell bent on killing my Consumer Guarantees Bill which gives consumers the right to have shoddy goods replaced, and tell him that if he is to continue in his job as consumer affairs Minister he should represent consumers and not manufacturers?

As I understand the matter, the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Bill.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the rejection of socialism all over eastern Europe has one main feature—that people throughout eastern Europe recognise that free enterprise and the free market culture are the best guarantees of democracy and freedom? Does he agree that that should be the case throughout Europe and that the only people who do not recognise that fact are the members of the Labour party?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the people of eastern Europe are turning their backs on socialism, having seen its catastrophic failure. I wish that we could say the same of the Opposition.