To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect he calculated the standard spending assessment for 1991–92 will have on the education service.

Education's share of the 1991–92 grant settlement is 16 per cent. higher than this year's settlement. That will allow any well-managed local education authority to make good progress in implementing the reforms and providing a better quality of education for our children.

Is not it the case that the so-called 16 per cent. increase is a 16 per cent. increase on the reduced budget of the previous year? Local authorities are forced to make cuts because of the standard spending assessment. Will the Secretary of State assure local authorities that there will be no need to sack teachers because of local authority expenditure cuts? Will he come to my constituency and see the effect of local authority expenditure cuts brought about by his Department's policies?

The answer is no, on all points. Education spending is now 40 per cent. per pupil higher than it was 10 years ago, over and above inflation. The increase in the standard spending assessment is a very real increase compared with last year's, which itself was an increase on the previous year. Authorities such as Wigan borough council had a 19 per cent. increase in their total standard spending assessment, but Wigan is a consistently wasteful and overspending authority. I very much hope that when it gets within reach of setting a serious budget it will not cut its education provision, which is so essential.

Does my right hon. arid learned Friend agree that even the 16 per cent. increase in the money allocated to authorities such as Lancashire county council will not improve the education of children in Lancashire? The authority employs administrators and teachers according to a 50:50 ratio. The people of Lancashire demonstrated clearly what they think of the chairman of the education service by giving her only just over 4,000 votes at the recent by-election.

I agree with my hon. Friend, but Lancashire does not top the league in terms of the relationship between administration and classroom spending. At least one local education authority employs more people in its central services than in all its classrooms put together. There is a huge discrepancy. If councils such as Lancashire have to make economies in certain areas, that is one which they should consider.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the funding of research in universities.

Public spending on university research through the Universities Funding Council and the research councils is expected to be some £1·1 billion next year. The Government will continue to pursue their policy of greater selectivity in the use of these substantial sums, with a clearer definition of the responsibilities of the institutions and the research councils.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the recently published evidence of the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information which came to the conclusion that British science has been in serious decline for the past 10 years, and particularly since 1986? Does he agree that it is essential for our future competitiveness that adequate resources should be devoted to scientific research and development? Will he have urgent talks with the Universities Funding Council to ensure that in the 1990s we do not experience a decline similar to that in the 1980s?

There is no decline in British science, the quality of which is superb. World-class, leading-edge science is being carried out in our research institutions. The achievements and quality of British scientists are second to none. If the hon. Gentleman were to visit, for example, the animal genome research project in Edinburgh, surface sciences in Manchester or molecular sciences in Oxford, he would find science of outstanding world-class quality being carried out. I have seen the reports to which he refers, but that is a flimsy arid precarious base from which to generalise about the condition of British science. The number of citations is an arbitrary index, and some pretty cranky science is cited in it. That does not mean that it is a worthwhile measure of the quality of British science.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the basic difference between research and development in Britain and in Japan and Germany is the higher contribution from private industry in those countries? Should not we work harder to bring universities and local industries closer together so that the treasure trove of knowledge in our higher education institutions can be exploited to the benefit of their local communities?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, but there were dramatic increases in industry's spending on research throughout the 1980s. The development of science parks promises an improved closer relationship between industry and science. The Government were right to withdraw from public funding of near-market research. It is extremely important that industry has a strong research and development base, but so long as industrialists thought that they could leave it to the taxpayer and the Government to buy the research that they should have been carrying out, they underinvested. That is the basis for a stronger research performance by industry to complement the research that is properly publicly funded.

Is not it a disgrace that the Government are increasing the Science and Engineering Research Council budget by under 3 per cent., which is less than half of even their own estimate of inflation for next year? What estimate has the Minister made of the effects of that on university research, especially in view of the research council's statement that, in supporting projects, it cannot afford to take full account of the costs of nationally agreed pay settlements for academic and support staff? Will not that deliberate Government underfunding mean devastating cuts in work that is vital to the future of British science?

The Government have increased the science budget by 23 per cent. over and above general inflation since 1979. Two years ago, there was an 8 per cent. real-terms increase. In a difficult economic context, we have managed to hold steady the underlying level of the science budget. It is for scientists, the scientific communities, the research councils and those whom they fund to determine their proper priorities within the substantial sums made available to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the impact of the Greenwich judgment on local education authorities' school allocation policies; what plans he has to introduce legislation to reverse the judgment; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State received representations from hon. Members, local authorities and from the London Boroughs Association following the court ruling last spring. The judgment's full effects will bear on admissions in September this year. In the light of evidence at that stage, we shall consider whether any action is necessary.

How much more evidence does my hon. Friend need of the problems that the judgment is causing local education authorities and the concern that it is causing parents? Does he accept that what is needed is not a great change in the law but simply to restore it to what everybody thought it was before the Greenwich judgment? If he is having difficulty in drafting the legislation or finding Government time, will he facilitate the passage of my private Member's Bill, the Second Reading of which will be considered on Friday week?

I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am aware of the Bill that he is promoting. This summer's admissions will be the first to which the Greenwich judgment will apply. It would not be right to reach a conclusive view until those decisions are taken this summer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of local education authorities to discuss the funding of education.

Funding issues are discussed in many of the meetings that I and my ministerial colleagues have with representatives of local education authorities.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that if local authorities had restricted their spending on schools to the sums proposed by central Government in their standard spending assessments there would have had to be substantial cuts in spending on schools? Does he further agree that such local authority discretion is important because the government of education must involve a partnership between central and local government and that any moves to bypass the local education authorities simply to rescue the poll tax would be misguided in the extreme?

Some local education authorities spend less than the Government's standard spending assessment and, so far as I am aware, deliver a good quality service and do not achieve lower standards than education authorities in other parts of the country. The present position is that education is a local government responsibility. As the hon. Gentleman says, that undoubtedly means that authorities have their discretion to set their own priorities and to decide where to spend more money and where to spend less. I very much regret that some authorities take quixotic and occasionally damaging decisions when exercising that discretion, but that is not my responsibility. The SSA allows any local authority to deliver a good quality service.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in 1991–92 funding for education will increase by 16 per cent. to £17 billion? Will he further confirm that it would be of enormous benefit to children if local education authorities would direct some of the funds that they use for central administration to the classrooms and the schools?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the 16 per cent. of which he reminds us must be set against inflation, which is forecast to drop as low as 6 per cent. in the same year, so it represents a massive injection in terms of Government assessment of education spending. If, due to past expenditure, drawing on reserves, or past misjudgments, some local authorities are having to consider retrenching in some areas, I believe, like my hon. Friend, that such an authority should look first at its central administration costs and not start by making cuts in the classroom.

The Secretary of State will be aware that in many parts of the country, including my own, there are real difficulties in delivering the national curriculum in school buildings that are old and are now inadequate for the purpose for which they were designed. The Government have postponed the 1981 regulations on achieving new standards for school buildings, but when does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to complete the review that we are told is being conducted on that aspect? Will he pledge to the House that that review will not involve cuts in the standards that our children can expect?

We have increased the capital allocations for next year by 11 per cent. I agree that that is a justifiable increase because we still have many Victorian buildings, especially in rural areas such as the hon. Gentleman represents, and also many 1960s system-built buildings which are no longer adequate for their purpose. The regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred apply to all new buildings and have done so for many years. The part that is still postponed relates to comparatively small features of schools and will, of course, be part of the review that we are currently undertaking.

During my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions, did anything take place that might encourage local authorities to cut adult education or is adult education something which the Government believe should be pursued?

I believe that there is a continuing and important role for adult education, which should be part of the provision of any well-managed local authority. Where there are cuts in adult education, that can only be because the local education authority has got itself into a financial mess or is choosing to spend the money on some other part of the service.

We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment wants to transfer the funding of education to central Government, but a recent interview in The Guardian showed that the Secretary of State for Education and Science wished to keep education as a local service. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that is still his view and that he still wants education to be funded by a mixture of local and central funding, or will he be rolled over in the poll tax review so as to cut poll tax bills?

I have yet to read any newspaper account of the discussions that my colleagues and I are having that has been at all accurate. Day after day, I read with amazement of the stances that we are supposed to be taking. My own remarks in The Guardian and elsewhere have always been designed to be Delphic in their content and I shall continue to ensure that that is the case. From time to time, however, I suffer the fate of the Oracle in that my remarks are misunderstood.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on reporting by schools to parents of seven-year-olds.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on reporting by schools to parents of seven-year-olds.

Under regulations made last year, all parents of seven-year-olds will this summer receive a written report giving them the results of testing in mathematics, science and English, along with commentary on their child's performance in other subjects.

I welcome that announcement and ask the Minister for two pledges. First, will the time that teachers have to take in the preparation and administration of tests be dramatically reduced and, secondly, will schools be required to publish the results of tests for seven-year-olds?

My hon. Friend raises two important points. We have reduced significantly the amount of time that the application of the test will take this summer. We shall be monitoring carefully how well it goes in schools and we shall not hesitate to make further changes should they prove appropriate. As for publishing the results of the tests for seven-year-olds, it will not be compulsory this summer, but we hope that all schools will in practice publish the results.

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. Does he agree that parents are the primary educators of children and that such school reports are essential if they are to help at home with school work —building on the foundations that children get at school —during school holidays and in the evenings?

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. It is important that schools, as a matter of policy, involve parents in the education of their children. That is why we are advocating that annual reports should include a section making recommendations to parents about what they might wish to help their children with out of school. In addition, we hope that all schools for all children of all ages will have an active homework policy which involves parents.

I welcome the concept of assessment and the encouragement of the development of gifts, but what steps is the Department taking to make sure that children of seven will not be labelled failures by parents or others?

It is important to stress that the tests for seven-year-olds are designed to assess how well children have done, to identify their strengths and their weaknesses and to enable parents and schools to work out how they can assist the children and further improve their performance.

Is the Minister aware that some seven-year-olds will not be tested, because they will not be getting any education? I refer to those in hospital in London. Is he aware of the threat to the education service in hospitals because the large teaching hospitals draw children from many education authorities in London arid the surrounding areas but the small local education authorities in London cannot provide education for children not only from their own areas but from surrounding areas? Will the Department make sure that local education authorities are required to provide that education and that the Department will recoup the cost from the other boroughs as and when it is able to do so?

The hon. Lady identifies a difficult area. We are in touch with the local authorities and hospitals concerned. We are working hard to try to ensure that we maintain the appropriate level and type of education in hospitals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will increase capital allowances for equipment for schools in rural areas.

The 15 per cent. increase in annual guidelines for schools' capital from April should enable LEAs to spend more on equipment for schools in rural areas, as they wish.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no point in having a new curriculum, good though it is, without the resources to make it implementable? Is he aware that in areas such as Devon extremely low capital authorisation prevents the re-equipping of schools, and credit approvals are so inadequate that new computers, books and other equipment have to be provided by parents raising the money rather than by the local education authorities raising the funds?

Devon received an allocation of about £7·7 million for the forthcoming year. Included in its bid was only £1·4 million for improvement and replacement work, including equipment, most of which it received. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I recently met a delegation of colleagues from Devon to discuss the allocation further.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the meetings to which he has just referred between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the local education authority from county hall in Devon, the capital funding for schools in rural areas should properly take account of a degree of rural deprivation? It is sometimes difficult for children in rural areas to get transport to libraries and other facilities that they need. New spending assessment rules should perhaps take that into account. In that context, does my right hon. Friend welcome the rebuilding of Horrabridge county primary school, for which we are turning the first turf on Friday?

I certainly welcome the project to which my hon. Friend refers. When we republish the criteria for next year, we shall consider my hon. Friend's other point about rural areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the cost of school repairs.

Provision to meet the recurrent cost of school repairs is included in the total standard spending settlement, which in 1991–92 allows for local authorities in England to spend some £17·5 billion on education. It is for each local authority to decide how much to spend on repairing school buildings from the recurrent resources available to it.

Is the Minister aware of the serious crisis affecting schools in Leicestershire due to the lack of school repairs? Does he realise that schools in my constituency have had to wait a collective total of one and a half centuries for repairs to be initiated? Will he visit schools such as Abbey primary school where 75 children have to share one lavatory? Would the Minister like to share one lavatory with 75 of his colleagues at the Department of Education and Science? Will he visit such schools or provide the local authority with the resources that it needs to initiate repairs?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about schools in Leicestershire—so much so that I have agreed to meet him next week to discuss the matter further. Leicestershire received an allocation of £6·9 million this year, which was over half its bid, for schools alone. That is certainly above average for England.

Would not it be possible to achieve a more flexible and perhaps more cost-effective approach to school repairs by allowing schools to have more control over their budgets?

Yes, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the heart of the matter. The more money that is delegated to schools level, the more it can be protected from the politicians and bureaucrats at county hall and spent on those items that the headmaster and governors regard as essential.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the Secretary of State is seeking to justify the gross and excessive financial inducements being offered to grant-maintained schools by way of additions for repairs and other matters by the allegation that they are necessary due to what he describes as past neglect by local education authorities? Is the Under-Secretary of State further aware that the Secretary of State has been unable to place in the Library of the House any evidence whatever of such past neglect? Is not that allegation without foundation doubly shameful, given that the clear responsibility for the neglect of school buildings across the country is not the fault of the local authorities but that of central Government who, over the past 10 years, have denied local authorities the money to repair their schools?

If grant-maintained schools had felt properly looked after by their councils, they would not have chosen to be grant maintained. Through direct grants, we are able to spend more on such schools than their councils have spent over the years. Extra spending on schools should be welcomed and not complained about.

Is it my hon. Friend's experience that schools that have complete control of their budgets have a more flexible and successful repairs policy compared with schools that still see a huge slice of their possible repairs budget retained by the local education authority for its own bureaucratic purposes?

That is exactly why we aim shortly to propose a new requirement as to the maximum amount that a local education authority can hold back at the centre. It is to ensure that more resources are delegated to school level where they can best be allocated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the change in the demand for nursery places in the United Kingdom in recent years.

It is for local authorities to assess changes in the requirements of the under-fives and how these might best be met within available resources. The numbers of these children attending school full or part time has grown markedly over the period of the present Government and our expenditure plans allow for this welcome trend to continue.

Can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has now denounced the promise made by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in 1972 that as a nation we should try to provide universal nursery education for all children whose parents want it? Given that most of our European Community partners allow their children to get off to a good start with nursery education, and given the Prime Minister's commitment to putting education first, is not it high time that we provided places for all children aged between three and five whose parents want them to attend nursery schools?

What I can confirm is that 150,000 more children now have nursery education than 10 years ago; there has been a 50 per cent. real increase in expenditure on nursery classes and nursery children; and next year the Government are allowing an extra £140 million to be spent on nursery education. That is the record. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find a local authority which is offering places for all three and four-year olds, I suggest that he visits Wandsworth.

While welcoming my hon. Friend's statement concerning increased expenditure on nursery education, does he agree that it is absolutely essential that, in that expansion, due regard is paid to the necessity of having a curriculum appropriate to the needs of the under-fives, and not merely some extension of the primary curriculum? All the evidence suggests that that is the best way to get the maximum benefit out of nursery provision and the head start that children need before going into full-time primary education.

I know that my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has studied the issue carefully. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) produced her report on quality in nursery education, which has been widely welcomed.

I am sure that those parents who are worried about authorities cutting nursery education will be most concerned at the Minister's response. When will the Government ensure that local authorities have the resources to increase nursery education? Will he further recognise that no Labour-controlled authority is in the bottom half of those authorities delivering nursery education, and that if children live in a Labour-controlled borough they have twice the opportunity for nursery education than in any Tory borough?

What the hon. Lady failed to point out was that the Government have made £140 million extra available for nursery education next year, whereas her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) promised the princely sum of £100 million—£40 million less than we are to make available. With regard to the performance of Labour-controlled authorities, it is interesting that school leavers in 20 of the 25 education authorities that spent most on nursery education achieved lower than average results in GCSEs. There is a message there.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of gross domestic product the Government spend on civil scientific research; and what are the comparable figures in Japan and the United States of America.

In 1988 the United Kingdom Government spent 0·55 per cent. of gross domestic product on civil scientific research. The corresponding figures for Japan and the USA were 0·45 and 0·39 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those real increases in spending on scientific research are matters for praise and not the criticism that we hear from the Opposition Benches? Does he agree that, by any measurable criteria, scientific output in this country, as a result of that increased spending, is a matter for considerable satisfaction?

I thank my hon. Friend. Certainly, the 23 per cent. increase in real terms in the science budget that the Government have achieved is evidence of the high priority that we give to basic and strategic science. I also agree that it is important not to concentrate exclusively on inputs. We are just as concerned with output, where our scientists excel. For example, if one considers papers published in the main scientific journals one sees that, between 1981 and 1986, the United Kingdom share of world output remained constant at 8·3 per cent., while that of Germany declined from 6·3 to 5·9 per cent. and France's output fell from 5·1 to 4·8 per cent. By that measure, the United Kingdom remains second only to the United States of America.

Does the Minister recognise that the problem of research funded by the British Government is that it is not inspired by any industrial strategy and is not worked out in collaboration with industry? Does not industry spend far too little of its own resources in support of civil research? Why do not the Government address these problems? Or is the thought of a weekend with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry too much for these people?

The Labour party is itchy-fingered, as always. It wants a political strategy for science. It wants bureaucratic, political determination of the way in which resources devoted to science are spent. The Labour party's science strategy would be every bit as disastrous as its industrial strategy.

My hon. Friend will know that I want a scientific strategy, not a political strategy, for science. May I ask him whether, in drafting his reply and including the figures that he has given, his officials advised him on the analysis of this matter in the definitions of research and development in the House of Lords report on science and technology? As it happens, I was looking at that report this morning. Is he aware that those figures, together with figures in the 1988 analysis of scientific research in Germany, plus OECD and "Eurostat" figures, fail to support the view that, in this field, we are doing better than Japan?

The whole House has enormous respect for my hon. Friend's knowledge and expertise in this area and for his very serious dedication to supporting British science. His attitude contrasts with the rather frivolous attitude of the Opposition, which persists in rubbishing British science. On the statistics furnished by the OECD, it is correct to say that we are spending a larger proportion of GDP on civil science than are Germany and Japan. One can certainly look at definitions, but the important point is that the British Government are fully committed to the provision of responsible and proper support for British science, which is of an excellent standard.

Is the Minister aware that in the United States a great deal of basic research is financed from the defence budget, and that Japanese industry spends twice as much on research and development as British industry? A more relevant comparison would be with France and Germany, where Government spending, in GDP terms, is 30 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom. Has the Minister digested the House of Lords report, to which the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) referred? That report points out that the United Kingdom is the only industrial country in which total expenditure on research and development, as a percentage of GDP, actually fell between 1981 and 1988, largely as a result of the reduction in Government expenditure.

The Government's expenditure on science, as a proportion of GDP, did not fall between 1979 and the present year. It is very easy to be selective with statistics, but I am not sure that doing so gets us very far. I agree that the Japanese spend proportionately much more on research and development. We ought to emulate them, and that is what Government policy encourages.

Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to say whether the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has released a small amount of GDP to keep open the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment to keeping open the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury and his concern for the welfare of his constituents there. No one could have fought more effectively on their behalf than he. The decision on the allocation of public funding for science must be made by scientists themselves. No further decisions on that matter have yet been announced, but such decisions will be made by the scientific community, rather than by the Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to ensure that standard spending assessment levels will enable local education authorities to meet their obligations under the Education Reform Act 1988.

Standard spending assessments for next year have been set at a level which will enable any well-managed local education authority to meet all its obligations under the Act.

Following that incredibly complacent answer, will the Secretary of State give Manchester schools a further guarantee that they can spend all the money that they require for books and equipment from their standard spending assessment, so that all the science and technology demands of the national curriculum can be met?

The answer that the hon. Gentleman has described as complacent referred to a standard spending assessment more than 10 per cent. above next year's likely level of inflation, as well as specific grant of £270 million, which includes provision for extra books and information technology. Even Manchester borough council should be capable of delivering a well-run service, and living up to the requirements of the education reforms, within such sums.

Local authorities and bodies such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities claim that transferring education expenditure to central Government represents a denial of democracy and would create a vast army of bureaucracy. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, until 1958, there were Exchequer percentage grants limited to education?

I shall certainly remind the bodies that my hon. Friend has mentioned of that fact. I shall also bear in mind that, throughout most of today's Question Time, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been protesting about decisions made by their local education authorities in the name of—among other things—local democracy.

Would not the Secretary of State have a rather more accurate view of the reality of spending in schools if he had been able to visit a single local authority school during his first three months in office? How can he come out with such bogus figures, when at least one third of all spending on books and equipment comes not from central Government but from parents?

The hon. Gentleman is clearly in considerable difficulties when he reduces exchanges about school resources to arguments about when I first visited a local authority-maintained school. I was appointed shortly before the Christmas holidays, but my familiarity with schools is as good as the hon. Gentleman's, and my familiarity with the increased spending for which we are providing next year is much better than his. He sees no distinction between increased efficiency and the removal of costs. Next year's 16 per cent. increase will allow any well-run authority, whatever its political persuasion, to provide our children with good-quality education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the standards set in examinations in English literature; and if he will make a statement.

I have not received any representations about the standards set in GCSE or A-level examinations in English literature.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the concern felt by the Oxford University English faculty, which claims that students are being exiled from their cultural heritage, that English literature is being marginalised in some schools and that there is a trendy fashion for appearing to raise standards by making exams easier? Does he accept that Conservative Members would not agree to a process of educational apartheid, putting the fortunate few who come from well-educated backgrounds in touch with literature but leaving the vast majority ignorant of their cultural heritage?

I feel as strongly as my hon. Friend that we should ensure that pupils are not cut off from access to the complete corpus of English literature, both traditional and contemporary. Those who are implementing the reforms and conducting today's examinations do not intend to do that. It is not always fair to compare the pupils who took O-levels in both English literature and English language with those who are now taking only English language exams at GCSE. The School Examinations and Assessment Council and the examining bodies are, however, laying down syllabuses that require a wide range of reading and knowledge of English literature, including Shakespeare. I shall do all that I can to ensure that that continues.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds have been allocated to local education authorities to meet the costs of repair and maintenance to the fabric of primary and secondary schools in 1991–92.

Over £650 million has been allowed for the recurrent costs of school repairs and maintenance in setting 1991–92 education standard spending. Local education authorities are free to decide how much to spend on the repair and maintenance of schools from whatever overall recurrent and capital resources are available to them.

Are the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State proud of the fact that many of our kids—not necessarily those of Cabinet Ministers, by the way—are being educated in schools that are ramshackle and shabby and which mark us down as having one of the most philistine Administrations in the past 50 years? What will he do to make the education of our children a priority and to put them in the buildings that they deserve?

We have increased schools capital by some 15 per cent. to some £472 million from this April. As my right hon. and learned Friend has already told the House, there is a 16 per cent. increase in the education standard spending assessment for current expenditure.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

During his busy day will my right hon. Friend consider Lambeth council's decision to impose a community charge which is more than four times as high as that imposed in neighbouring Wandsworth? Is he aware that in Merton where there was a change of control last year community charge payers will pay 50 per cent. more this year than last, while the Leader of the Opposition can look forward to a 10 per cent. reduction in his community charge? Does not this show that Conservative councils give value for money and that Labour councils squander it?

It is what one has come to expect from Lambeth council and from a number of other councils. One might call it Labour local government in action—if they are not on strike at present.

Does the Prime Minister still take satisfaction from the leading part that he played in introducing the poll tax?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are reviewing the community charge. He will be interested to know that we are making good progress and are on track for the announcement.

Why is the Prime Minister so coy about his poll tax past? Is he not the man who said just last Friday

"I think I'm clear in my own mind which way we're going on the poll tax"?

The right hon. Gentleman will find out the answers to those questions before too long, and when he does he will perhaps, having introduced a roof tax some months ago, tell us what will be the average rate bill under his tax—even in his constituency—how much people in the midlands and the south will have to pay extra under his proposals and how many people will be eligible for rebates under his tax. None of those questions can he answer.

rose [Interruption.]

Order.

From his answer it is obvious that the Prime Minister has not made up his mind about making up his mind. Why does he not do the sensible thing, abolish the poll tax completely, which is what the whole of Britain wants and introduce a new system—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—very interesting. But despite his hon. Friends and their enthusiasm for the hated poll tax, why does he not introduce a system calculated on the basis of property and charged according to ability to pay? A fair system—and Labour party policy.

The right hon. Gentleman will find out soon enough. Was not it the same right hon. Gentleman who said that the Labour party would produce several different tax bases and bung the figures into a computer?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that children need protection not only from abusers but from officials who fail to provide proper protection? Will he instruct local authorities to use some common sense instead of carrying out secret dawn raids on innocent families?

As my hon. Friend may know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health said that further guidance would be issued this summer to local authorities and, of course, the Children Act 1989 comes into force this October. That will ensure that the welfare of children is paramount. I hope that those steps will make it less likely that another situation such as that in Rochdale will occur in future.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the sea change in both the tone and substance of his European speech last night? If he does as he says—place Britain at the heart of Europe, play a constructive part in steps towards a single currency and encourage political and foreign policy integration—he can count on our united support—[Interruption.]—even if he has to cope with splits in his own party.

It is a generous offer, but I am not sure if it is a fair swap. There are only three ways to go in the Community—to leave, which is unthinkable; to stand aside and let ourselves be dragged along by others, which is untenable; or to be at the very heart of the Community and to help frame the decisions, and that is our policy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

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

During my right hon. Friend's admirably timed talks with the crown prince in Kuwait last week, what assurance was he given about the protection of the large Palestinian community there and about future democratic developments in Kuwait? As the Kuwaiti police force was destroyed by the Iraqis, will Britain play a part in rebuilding it and in training the Kuwaiti defence forces so that they can play their full part in the excellent plans for the Gulf, which were recently agreed in Damascus?

I raised the first part of my hon. Friend's question with the crown prince when we met last week. He gave me a firm assurance, which he has subsequently repeated to others in public and in private, that the Kuwaiti authorities would not tolerate retaliation against the Palestinians. In the present circumstances in Kuwait, it is difficult for the Government to exert control, but I understand that law and order has, to a large extent, been restored.

Will the Prime Minister stop darting, dithering and dodging and tell us that he is ready for turning by announcing the abolition of the poll tax which, as he knows, is unfair and unworkable and which, as he knows to his cost, is also unpopular?

As I have explained, the hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait for the answer.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

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

If the Government's policy is to stand up for small nations that are invaded by their larger neighbours and to prevent atrocities and the trampling underfoot of cultures by invaders, why will not my right hon. Friend meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the United Kingdom next week?

The Dalai Lama is visiting the United Kingdom on a private visit and no conditions have been imposed by the Government. I have no wish to be discourteous to a distinguished spiritual leader. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will see the Dalai Lama at a meeting that he will chair.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

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

Will the Prime Minister find some time today to reflect on his words yesterday about producing a more tolerant, more efficient and more just society? Will he tell us how those words relate to the continued imposition of the poll tax on the people of Scotland? Will he relate those words to the problem and, instead of disparaging votes cast against him and his party as votes cast into a dustbin, would not he do better to look back on the Scottish votes cast against his poll tax in 1987? How can he justify continuing to impose the tax on people who are on income support and on students? Would not it be best to cast the poll tax into the dustbin?

If the hon. Gentleman will endure with the same patience as his hon. Friends, he will soon know the answer. I may come to Garscadden and make a speech about the matter there.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the good relations that he has achieved with Herr Kohl, demonstrating that there does not need to be ill will when there are differences of interest? However, will he give the House and the nation leadership and tell us whether he personally favours a single currency?

As I have said to my hon. Friend on previous occasions, we have set out in detail our proposals for economic and monetary union, and we have produced treaty language to that effect. There is now welcome evidence that a number of European nations are following our proposals and moving closer to us.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that within the past fortnight, his Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has finished off 2,000 years of tin mining in Cornwall? That decision has been taken despite the pledge of Government support. The cost to the Department of Social Security and to other Departments will exceed the money saved by the Department of Trade and Industry. Will the Prime Minister look again at the way in which Departments operate? At present, one Department may attempt to save money, although there will be an all-round cost to the Treasury in excess of the savings, and there will also be the cost of the jobs of people who lose work as a result.

An overall look is taken on these occasions to see what is the right policy. We have to examine the matter not just in the short term, but in terms of what is sustainable in the medium and long term. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have done.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether his discussions with Chancellor Kohl and his speech last night are likely to be more fruitful in achieving European unity, while maintaining national sovereignty, than the more fundamental and more difficult to accept proposals of Commissioner Delors?

The proposals of Commissioner Delors are not generally acceptable in the House and they are not acceptable to me. We have made that clear on a number of occasions and nothing in that respect has changed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

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

In view of the Prime Minister's strong words against the property tax, which the whole House will have noted, can we take it that he is now in favour of the poll tax, or is he still dithering on the matter?

The hon. Gentleman is as unoriginal as his hon. Friends. He will soon know.

To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to appoint a Minister with responsibility for United Kingdom tourism.

I fully recognise the importance of an industry that contributes more than £22 billion a year to the economy and which provides work for 1·5 million people. The present arrangements allow for the separate interests of England, of Scotland, of Wales and of Northern Ireland to be effectively represented, while ensuring the necessary co-ordination of the policy for the country as a whole.

As tourism is Britain's fastest growth industry and is the major employer in cities such as York, will my right hon. Friend look closely at the possibility of appointing a Minister who has overall responsibility, rather than leaving this important area to junior Ministers in England, in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland?

It would be difficult precisely to do what my hon. Friend suggests without raising difficulties over territorial responsibilities and the territorial Departments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has a co-ordinating responsibility for tourism as a whole in Great Britain, but the day-to-day responsibility in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland rests with my right hon. Friends the relevant Secretaries of State.

In view of the importance of tourism between our country and all the other countries in Europe, particularly Germany, is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us on both sides of the House who, over the years, have worked hard to promote friendship and understanding with the Germans and who recall their special efforts in our three attempts to enter the European Community, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to establish a trusting and lasting relationship with the Germans in Europe? Does he recognise that the relationship between our two Parliaments which has involved a certain amount of tourism—[Interruption.] is closer than it has been for many years. Indeed, it is closer than the relationship between any other two Parliaments in Europe.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who expresses his view with great clarity. I hope that, in view of that clarity, he will see many German tourists in south-west Essex.