To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the state of scientific research in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

No Sir. Britain has a science base of remarkable quality and the Government will continue to provide appropriate support for it.

Is it not now time for a full-scale inquiry into the levels of funding available to scientific research and the rates of pay available to university teachers? Does the Minister share the concern that has been shown by others about the conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which, for example, showed that this year the science and engineering research council has enjoyed—if that is the right word—a 3 per cent. increase over its budget of last year? Does he also agree that it is time that the Government came forward with reasonable and adequate resources to enable university employers to pay a more reasonable level in wage settlements than the 6 per cent. currently on offer?

The Government have advisory bodies—the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology—that are well placed to advise us on scientific research and I see no need for a special inquiry. We are considering the report of the House of Lords Select Committee, and the Royal Society is conducting its own inquiry, so we need no further inquiry. As for resources, the Government have increased the science budget by 22 per cent. since they have been in office. That matches the expansion of gross domestic product. We shall continue to support British science, but the extent of that support depends on the progress of the economy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that concern about that matter is not confined to one side of the House? The wise warnings of Sir Claus Moser last August should be taken seriously.

As my hon. Friend represents Cambridge, he is particularly knowledgeable on, committed to, and concerned about those matters, but he will also be immensely proud of the outstandingly distinguished science work that takes place in Cambridge. I was disappointed because, after Sir Claus Moser made his speech at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, I suggested that it might be helpful if we met to talk on the subject. However, he declined to take up my invitation.

Is the Minister aware that we need action, not another inquiry? We need wide-ranging action not only on resources, which have fallen far behind those of our industrial competitors, but on science education. There are many priority areas within science to which resources need to be switched, such as the realignment of defence research. It is clear that the Government are failing the nation.

The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the introduction of the national curriculum and the redefinition and improvement of science education for all our children. He has also overlooked the remarkable increase in the number of students undertaking science and engineering courses. As for action, the hon. Gentleman may have been a little disappointed by the Labour party's policy document that was issued last week. I found it remarkably vague and imprecise. His party seems to have adopted a policy of favouring particular sectors of science. It seems both foolish and wrong in principle to politicise decisions about scientific priorities. That document proposes the borrowing of unspecified sums to support the hon. Gentleman's purposes. It proposes to reduce defence spending, again on an unspecified scale. It is an extremely unimpressive prospectus.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the introduction of standardised testing in schools.

Seven-year-olds will be tested nationally in English, mathematics and science for the first time this summer. Tests in other subjects and for other age groups will be phased in over the coming years.

As many parents do not take seriously their responsibility in bringing up their young children, does my hon. Friend agree that standardised testing at the age of seven years will give schools the opportunity to monitor and identify pupils' achievements in relation to their ability? Does he accept that that will be of enormous value in channelling more assistance to those who are in need, and that the tests are nothing to do with pass or fail? Instead, they relate to identifying needs and channelling help to where it is needed.

I much agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that the results of the assessments and tests should be passed on to parents in a readily understandable way through annual reports. We shall be publishing a leaflet to accompany the reports, which we hope will help parents understand the results of the reporting mechanism.

If one of the tests shows a particularly low grade for a seven-year-old child, who will be responsible, within the school, for testing further to ascertain whether there are special disabilities such as dyslexia? If there is such a problem, what power does the Secretary of State have to tell local authorities to provide remedial classes—it would be no use for parents to take that course—in such cases? I am extremely dissatisfied for personal reasons, but I am not making a political point. I think that we have forgotten that something may be wrong, and that not enough has been done for those who suffer from dyslexia.

I understand and share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about dyslexia. In 1981, I initiated the first Adjournment debate on dyslexia. The results of national curriculum testing, especially in English, will enable teachers to identify children who are working towards level 1—in other words, those who have not attained that level. I would expect teachers and head teachers to get together to try to identify why a particular child had not achieved level 1 and then to formulate a system of help and assistance for that child. Outside help from the school, such as that from a child psychology support, may be needed.

Statementing?

As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says, it might be appropriate to go towards statementing. Each individual child will have to be dealt with, however, as an individual, depending on the result of the tests.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of parents in my constituency are much in favour of tests at the age of seven years? Will he accept also that we all believe that bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum so that teachers can spend the maximum time with children rather than going through procedures that at present are rather tortuous?

I agree that we must continue to work towards reducing bureaucracy. I intend, as a result of the national pilot of tests of seven-year-olds, to ascertain whether we can simplify the procedures.

Is the Minister aware that, while teachers are showing a high level of professional dedication and commitment in administering the tests, there is great anxiety among teachers and, I think, parents about the amount of curriculum time that has to be devoted to the tests? For example, at a school that I visited yesterday in Peterborough, every half day between now and half term is being devoted to the administration of the tests and that is disrupting the teaching of children. As the Minister referred to this year's tests as a national pilot, may we take it that Ministers will examine carefully the experience of the standard assessment tasks to ascertain whether they can be slimmed down further so that they serve a purpose without over-burdening teachers or disrupting teaching?

I have no hesitation in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. We must examine carefully the results of the national tests to determine whether the right balance has been struck between manageability on the one hand and fairness to the child on the other. We shall examine that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give us his views, I shall be delighted to take them into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the current level of truancy and on the figure for each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

The proposals that we published last week will enable truancy levels to be measured, for the first time, on a standard national basis. They require schools to record attendance in a way which identifies unauthorised absence, and to publish their rates of unauthorised absence.

I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, which is overdue. Will he look again at the inflexibility of the school-leaving age and perhaps link truancy with training? Is he aware that in France, Germany and Italy, youngsters are allowed to leave school and embark on a proper training course or apprenticeship, so long as it is an integral part of education? Is he aware that that would reduce truancy because young hands and minds could get involved with something they know and understand? At the moment, some youngsters who are forced to stay on at school until 16-plus as a minimum, often become the truants who cause the vandalism and troubles in our society.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about our proposals. We want to see a better and earlier vocational training in schools, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend decided in January to allow schools more flexibility over the curriculum from the age of 14 onwards.

I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of his proposals, which I received yesterday. Is he aware that punitive methods and measures in relation to young truants will not necessarily be effective unless more work is done in looking at how youngsters who are truanting spend their time? I think that he will find, if he talks to his colleagues in the Department of Employment and studies the report on the illegal working of children, that large numbers of young truants are working illegally.

I know of the hon. Lady's long-standing interest in the matter. If she has any evidence that children are being employed illegally, she should forward it to my Department or to the Department of Employment. I accept that it is not simply a question of punitive measures. We have, under the Children Act 1989, new instruments, such as education supervision orders, which come into force later this year, and which I hope local education authorities will consider alongside the increased fines that are proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill.

Having taught in secondary schools for 10 years before coming to this place, I am aware that truancy is often linked to tedium. Will my hon. Friend accept that the curriculum is still far too academic as it concentrates on the passing of O-levels and does not contain sufficient in the way of practical subjects to interest children? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that we should consider allowing children to leave school a little younger so that they can obtain the experience of practical work that they desire.

Hon. Members will agree that children should leave school fitted for the world of work. We want schools to have more flexibility so as to ensure better and earlier vocational training alongside more traditional academic achievements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the amount of grant paid in 1990 and 1991 to the most recent practicable date to the city technology college in Bradford.

Total grant aid to the Bradford CTC was £2·9 million in the 1989–90 financial year. For the 1990–91 financial year, the total grant was £4·7 million.

Is not it outrageous that those sums were paid to an elitist private school which is needlessly duplicating the local authority provision, when the total amount of capital expenditure for the whole of the Bradford local education authority in the current year is about £9 million? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that there are expanding rolls in Bradford and that at least £30 million is needed to repair many of Bradford's crumbling schools, to provide permanent extensions and to replace the more than 500 temporary classrooms that are now in use? Are not the Government's priorities typified by J. K. Galbraith's phrase "private affluence and public squalor"?

I have never heard such nonsense. Capital allocations to local government this year have been increased ahead of inflation. Bradford receives an allocation of £9·4 million for its schools and that sum has not been affected by the further sum that has gone into Bradford to invest in its splendid new city technology college. It is an essential part of effective inner city policy that the extra money provided should not just be spread over every deprived borough in the country, allowing each to carry on doing a little more of what was being done already, but should be invested. The Bradford CTC is a spectacular example of what can be done to provide opportunities for children of all abilities from deprived parts of Bradford, to raise expectations and to bring about new good practice in the education system of Bradford. The subscriptions of parents and the opportunities, which people are seeking, to teach and to be taught in Bradford show that this is a valuable new asset to the city for the education of people from deprived backgrounds that would not have come about without the CTCs.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Bradford CTC is proving extremely popular with teachers and pupils, that there are more than 1,000 applications for 12 teaching posts, and that this year, 660 students applied for 250 places? Is not that proof of the college's success, and is not that what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) detests?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Far more parents want to send their children to city technology colleges than there are places for them. There are also far more children waiting to be taught in them than can be admitted, and the teaching posts are hugely popular and sought after. I know from meeting people who are already teaching in the CTCs of their enthusiasm for, and commitment to, new methods of delivering high technology education, and that is one of the more exciting aspects that I encounter in the course of my job. The opposition of the Labour party to CTCs is unbelievably mean minded and small minded. Its view appears to be that the education system of Bradford should not enjoy a valuable innovation of this kind until every other school can be exactly the same.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities regarding the report on nursery education "Starting with Quality".

"Starting with Quality" dealt with the educational experiences of the under-fives across various settings. It has been sent to all local education and social services authorities for them to consider how it might be acted on in their areas.

The Minister will have noticed that the report says in its introduction that one of its terms of reference was quality, but that quantity should also be considered. What measures has he taken to ensure that local government has enough finance to carry on expanding nursery provision so that there is a nursery place for the child of every parent who wants one?

The answer is, a great deal. Over the past 10 years, the number of places available for nursery-age youngsters has increased by 150,000. This year alone we are providing local education authorities with £100 million more than what was spent last year on nursery education.

Does my hon. Friend agree that universal provision of nursery education cannot be justified on grounds of cost, and that the present variety of provision for pre-school children is largely beneficial to the needs of children today?

It is certainly difficult to understand how the priorities of educational spending could extend to cover universal nursery education as against some sort of assistance for young people under the age of five either in day care on in pre-school playgroups. The Labour party takes that view as well—at least the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), Opposition spokesman on public expenditure, shares that view. She made that very clear when she held my post about 12 years ago, when she could not find the resources either.

Does the Minister recognise that if the Government were prepared to switch the money that they have so far earmarked for city technology colleges to nursery education, we could have another 20,000 places this year? When will the Government accept their responsibilities, listen to His Royal Highness and recognise that they are responsible for giving our children the best possible start in life?

The hon. Lady has not reached level 1 in maths. Even if the money were diverted from the CTC programme as her party advocates—it would amount to about £15 million a year at most—it would provide only 50 part-time nursery places for every local education authority in the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the introduction of sound and structured nursery education by a Conservative Government would be enormously popular with the women of this country who, I believe form an electoral majority? Is he also aware that royal assent for such a measure already exists in that the Prince of Wales recommended it in his speech yesterday? Will my hon. Friend talk——

Order. Three questions are a bit much.

There are many things, Mr. Speaker, of which my hon. Friend should be aware.

He may be made aware of two. Let us have the answer, please.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for yet again making me aware of his views.

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

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

What proposals does the Secretary of State have for the expansion of post-16 education during the next two years? Surely he must agree that there should be some local democratic accountability in this crucial sector.

We aim to continue the rapid expansion of education and training opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds and my recent announcement about giving further education colleges and sixth-form colleges the same status that the polytechnics have used so successfully in higher education during the past two or three years was aimed at that. Extra resources are already going into that sector. The standard spending assessments for education authorities this year are up by 16 per cent. and inflation will be much lower than that in the forthcoming year. The hon. Gentleman's own excellent Wakefield district college had £2 million invested in it last year.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the removal of polytechnics from local education authorities has been a great success, setting them free to develop and enabling many more students to attend a degree-type course? Does he further agree that to give higher and further education colleges the same kind of freedom would enable them to develop likewise and to be a similar success in future?

I agree with my hon. Friend that giving independent status to polytechnics has proved to be an unmitigated success and they have made a major contribution to expanding the numbers in higher education during recent years. It is on that model that the principals of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges that I have met universally welcomed my proposals. They see the same opportunities for themselves providing a much broader range of opportunities for more young people both of an academic and vocational kind.

There will be widespread support for the Secretary of State's acknowledgement of the value of further education. Against that background, why are the Government cutting so substantially resources for youth training, much of which goes on in further education colleges, and why has virtually every Conservative local education authority cut its further education budgets? Why did the Secretary of State not pay one official visit to a further education college before he made his statement on 21 March about the future funding of such colleges?

It is entirely for local authorities to decide how they use the increased resources that we make available to them, but it cannot be true that widespread cuts are being made in further education when the financial allocations to local authorities have increased by 16 per cent. compared with last year, in a year when inflation is likely to be 5 per cent.—a real growth of more than 10 per cent. If such cuts are being made, there is a substantial switch of resources by some strange local authorities into other things. Our policy is to give higher priority to further education. I do not think that the Opposition will oppose our policy. Further education is now getting more attention and encouragement than it has ever received in the past.

In the light of the recent announcement that consideration is being given to ensuring that there is one separate funding body for all the post-school education system in Scotland, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Scottish counterpart, given that that most surely has implications for his Department as well as for Scottish local authorities?

With respect, it does not. I always tell Scottish National party Members that Scotland has a totally devolved system of government and I have no responsibilities for education there apart from those for higher education. I made my announcements in England after discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The construction of funding councils for Scotland is a matter for him and he will take his decisions in the light of Scottish circumstances.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the polytechnics would get the scheme parity that they deserve if they were called universities?

I am anxiously considering a number of matters relating to the present status of polytechnics and universities. At this stage, I can say only that I will take my hon. Friend's opinion very much into account, as I always do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering regarding the reform of qualifications for post 16-year-olds.

My right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment are considering a number of proposals for improving qualifications for post 16-year-olds. We intend to publish a White Paper shortly, setting out our plans for education and training for the 16 to 19 age group.

When will the Government sort out the jungle of post-16 qualifications and devise a system that meets the needs of the 1990s?

The National Council for Vocational Qualifications has made significant progress, but there is still some ground to be made up. We hope to see considerable simplification of the existing vocational system over the next two years. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.

In welcoming the progress that has been made, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider in particular the problems that confront disabled students, who often do not reach the necessary standards of levels by the age of 16 and who need special help and attention between the ages of 16 and 19?

Certainly.

Does the Minister personally accept the argument that the present academic-vocational divide should be ended in favour of a single system? Does he agree that such a system should apply to those who leave school at 16 and that there should be guaranteed access to it by 17 and 18-year-olds, so that they may achieve nationally recognised qualifications, which may even lead them to a college or university education?

We certainly need to dispel any idea of an academic-vocational divide, which is not helpful. We also need, as I believe the hon. Gentleman accepts, dramatically to increase the post-16, full-time staying-on rate. The hon. Gentleman's question raises a number of issues to which there are various answers, but I am broadly in agreement with him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to reform the training of teachers in reading methods; and if he will make a statement.

We have asked the——

What about my question, Mr. Speaker?

I shall call the hon. Gentleman next.

We asked the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to conduct an inquiry into how students are trained to teach reading, and to advise, before the end of the year, on whether any amendments are needed to the criteria used for course approval and whether further guidance should be given to institutions. My right hon. and learned Friend commissioned that inquiry in response to public concern and in the light of the professional advice received from Her Majesty's inspectorate and others. We see action on teacher training as one of the keys to the problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appropriate that education questions should be on the Order Paper today, as it is Shakespeare's birthday? Does he agree also that the Prince of Wales was speaking for millions of parents when he voiced frustration at those educationists whose experiments in the teaching of reading have done so much to fail millions of pupils? Will he ensure that the inquiry that he has just announced is not subverted by those same educationists in his Department, local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate?

I certainly agree with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Teachers must be taught how to teach reading, which are the most effective methods and, above all, that teaching skills cannot be acquired simply by children browsing through books—as some of the shadowy education experts appear to believe. That is one purpose of the inquiry.

Will the Minister apologise to the people of this country for the Government's neglect of the teaching of reading in the past 12 years and for their abandonment, in 1988, of the national monitoring of reading standards? Does he accept that the Secretary of State and his predecessors have approved every teacher training course into which they are now launching an inquiry? Is not that a classic case of political buck-passing? Will the Minister and the Government accept responsibility where standards are inadequate and make way for a Labour Government who will put reading standards first?

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman was coming to the Dispatch Box to apologise for the incompetent performance of authorities such as the Inner London education authority, which ran schools like Culloden primary school in Tower Hamlets until April last year. This Government have introduced the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, have revised the criteria and have now asked it to conduct an urgent inquiry into the methods of teaching reading.

What conclusion does my hon. Friend draw, and what implications are there for the training of teachers, from the excellent articles that appeared in The Mail on Sunday recently about the failure of teachers properly to teach children at Culloden school to read?

It was parents who first raised the alarm at Culloden school. However, rather than attacking the messenger, I should have hoped that the head teacher and governors of the school would concentrate on the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate and the finding that, in more than two thirds of the classes in that school, the standards of reading were poor.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) for misreading my Order Paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions he has made about the publication of the tests of seven-year-olds.

I expect schools to publish their results this summer. They have certainly been encouraged to do so.

The Secretary of State must be aware of the concern about the publication of crude aggregate figures, which could lead to a false market in schools. Therefore, as I understand it, authorities such as Sheffield will not publish the results this year. Will the Secretary of State rethink the matter and allow local authorities the discretion to decide whether to publish?

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, parents make judgments about schools on hearsay, on subjective values. Surely it is right that where there are objective assessments of how a school is doing, that information should be in the public domain to enable parents to choose between schools on a better-informed basis.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the publication and provision of tests for seven-year-olds does not necessarily mean that our children are being branded as failures in any way? Will he explain to Opposition Members and others who are providing a misleading impression of Government policy that this is a good policy, that it is right for our young people and that it should not be misrepresented in such a way?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, who has much experience in this area. The purpose of the tests is to assess how children are doing and to identify weaknesses and strengths, so that weaknesses can be remedied and strengths further enhanced.

Will the Minister explain the connection between the proposals to publish tests of seven-year-old children and the outrageous treatment of Culloden school, which will exacerbate children's problems and not help them? Is that an attempt to stampede parents, who know that the tests for seven-year-olds will be severely damaging to their children's self-image and self-confidence, into supporting them?

I am extremely surprised at the attitude of the hon. Lady. HMI made an objective assessment of Culloden. I should have thought that it was in her constituents' interests to ensure that that school remedies the defects identified by HMI in a way that will benefit children and parents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress made in establishing grant-maintained schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have opted for grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

A total of 147 schools have balloted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status. Of those, 127 schools have submitted applications and a further 20 applications are awaited. Of the 127 applications, 71 have been approved, 12 have been rejected and 44 have yet to reach me for decision.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that where applications for grant-maintained status have local merit they will be supported locally, even by Labour councillors in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition?

On the first point, I agree that supporters of grant-maintained status are to be found among governors and head teachers of all political persuasions. With regard to the second point, I know of my hon. Friend's discontent at the recent decision affecting schools in Taunton. The reasons for that decision were given to him. Officials of my Department have met officials of Somerset county council and I had my first meeting with the chairman of the council's education committee yesterday. When I hear the results of the contacts about how we should go forward I shall certainly consider whether I or one of my ministerial colleagues should have the meeting for which my hon. Friend asks.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that, this very day, the parents of children at Waltham Toll Bar comprehensive school, in my constituency, are completing their ballot papers on the question whether they should seek grant-maintained status? As most grant-maintained schools are 30 per cent. over-subscribed, what advice does my right hon. and learned Friend give to those parents?

Giving myself rapid legal advice, I must conclude that it would be most inadvisable to suggest how people should vote in the ballot, as an application would come to me for decision. However, I can confirm in general terms what my hon. Friend has said. The existing grant-maintained schools have been a huge success. The best advertisement for grant-maintained status comes from the teachers and parents. Anyone who visits any of these schools will find that it benefits enormously from the ability to control its own affairs.

Why does not the Secretary of State occasionally talk about reality to the House of Commons? We expect it, but we do not get it. Only about 50 schools—he says 70, but people disagree—have applied for grant-maintained status. There are scores of thousands of schools in the country and virtually none—expressed as a percentage—have asked for grant-maintained status. Why does not the Secretary of State tell us the truth—that this policy is a complete failure?

The number of schools balloted that are in favour of grant-maintained status has almost doubled during the five months that I have been in the Department. It is obvious that we are about to have a flood of applications. As for reality, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there are not scores of thousands of schools in the country; there are just a little over one score of thousands. I expect that, before very long, most of them will have grant-maintained status.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in addition to The Times newspaper's description of the opting-out policy as "an evil", the Roman Catholic archbishop. and bishops have described it as "un-Christian"? The Conservative education chairwoman of Bromley education committee, Mrs. Joan Bryant, has resigned in protest at precisely the kind of disruption to local education that has been identified by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). Given that the Conservatives' prediction at the previous election was that 50 per cent. of schools would have opted out by now, whereas less than half of 1 per cent. have done so, why does not the Secretary of State accept that this policy is both educationally and morally bankrupt?

Pretty silly things are said in local campaigns when ballots are held on grant-maintained status. However, to describe that as evil, un-Christian and morally bankrupt is going a little over the top about a policy that is a huge success in schools that have attained grant-maintained status. The hon. Gentleman frequently advises me to visit more schools. I trust that my diary allows me to d o so without cancellation. I advise him to visit a grant-maintained school and a city technology college, where he will see that his opinions are based on prejudice. He will encounter people who are achieving all the benefits of our very enlightened reforms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what special arrangements he makes for ensuring that there is sufficient provision of primary and secondary school places in areas under the planning control of urban development corporations.

It is for local authorities to make proposals to ensure that there are sufficient school places available, whether in urban development areas, or elsewhere. My right hon. and learned Friend always considers proposals for new schools on their merits and in the light of all the relevant information that is available.

Is the Minister aware that a memorandum that I sent to his colleague shows that in the London borough of Newham, south of the A13, which is an area as big as Earl's Court to Waterloo and Chelsea to the middle of Hyde Park, there is an abundance of primary schools but no secondary schools? As the borough lies within the area of the London Docklands development corporation and as large numbers of people are likely to move there, is not it the Government's responsibility to ensure that there are both primary and secondary schools in the area so that the population of Newham is not prejudiced? Where else in the country do such conditions exist?

The fact that there is a successful development corporation at work in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as there is in many other areas of the country, has nothing to do with school planning provision in that area. It is a matter for Newham and Newham alone. I note that this year Newham has been allocated £8·6 million for capital expenditure on schools, as against £5·6 million last year.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister agree that under the proposed council tax the price of protecting the rich will be that the rest of us will have to pay more? Given that the Labour party proposes to protect the interests of retired people, does the Prime Minister believe that someone who lives alone but who has an income of £50,000 or £100,000 a year and owns two properties should or should not be entitled to an automatic 25 per cent. rebate on both properties, when a couple who are struggling just to make ends meet will get no relief at all? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he talks about developing a classless society?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement, setting out the details of our new proposals immediately after Question Time. Whether people live in a large, small or medium-sized property, they will have to pay less under Conservative local government than they do under Labour.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect today on the great respect that there is in my constituency for the way in which he kept his nerve during the local government review and was not pushed into making a premature announcement? Would not it have been wiser for his political opponents to give him the credit for that, particularly as their policies are the result of three years of hand-wringing and head-scratching before they decided to go back to where they started from?

To be fair to the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition did precisely what I did in terms of consulting and waiting before introducing proposals for his own tax. As he wrote in April 1990:

"We are currently consulting widely with people in local government about our proposals. Our proposals have been planned and tested. Our aim is to get the system right rather than to announce it prematurely."

Does the Prime Minister think that Mr. Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors was right to say today that this awful recession

"is a failure of Government economic management"?

If the difficulties that the economy faces are solely the result of domestic economic mismanagement, it is an oddity that there are recessions in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland and in many other countries.

Last week's figures from the Government showed unemployment soaring and output and productivity collapsing. Today's figures show that imports and exports are wildly out of balance again, with imports rising twice as fast as exports. When all that is the case, is it any wonder that the Institute of Directors, like everyone else, understands very well that this is a recession hand-made in Downing street by the right hon. Gentleman?

If the right hon. Gentleman cares to examine the trade figures more carefully, he will find that export volumes are up on last year and import volumes are down.

In so far as there is any improvement year on year in the import figures, would it have been any wonder, when the right hon. Gentleman has flattened the economy, that imports should have been falling? Instead of that, imports are rising twice as fast as exports. Why is not the Prime Minister man enough to accept his share of the blame?

What we are flattening is inflation and interest rates; both are falling.

Is not it clear to my right hon. Friend and to the House that interest rates and inflation will fall in the remainder of the year and that it will be possible for economic recovery to come as a consequence? Is not it equally clear that any Government who had a policy of increasing the rates of tax on incomes, without telling the British people exactly what those rates and what that coverage would be, would be both working against the interests of recovery and not levelling with the British public?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. As he knows, inflation has fallen by nearly 3 per cent. since October and will show a further dramatic fall again next month. That has paved the way for five interest rate cuts. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this morning, the economic recovery will gather pace in the second half of the year.

Is the Prime Minister concerned that after 12 years of Conservative Government, one third of our seven-year-olds are still being sold short on the learning of their mother tongue, English? How can he explain that?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made clear on a number of occasions the importance that we attach to the basics in the curriculum—the most important of all being English. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about such matters, perhaps he will offer us his clear and unequivocal support for testing so that we can determine precisely what is happening and improve it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the cost of the new council tax comes to be analysed per household, all policies should be taken into account? If a policy included the scrapping of any capping on local authority spending or the re-creation of the Greater London council, one thing is clear: it would cost every London household an absolute fortune.

My hon. Friend will know that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition for local government would lead to a massive and costly disruption. The Labour party proposes two upheavals: first, a return to the rates, which would mean massive bills for many people in different parts of the country; and, secondly, ever-rising bills because Labour refuses to cap spendthrift councils.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Employment that there needs to be yet another job creation scheme to massage the figures before the next general election, or will he side with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wants nothing to do with it?

The hon. Gentleman would know, if he studied these matters, that we now have in place in this country the largest training programmes that we have ever had.

The Prime Minister will be aware from his visit to my constituency last week how much my constituents appreciate the community charge reduction scheme. Many couples benefit to the tune of £500, while families of three benefit to the tune of £800. Does he understand the anger of my constituents at the Labour party's action last Wednesday in trying to scrap the community charge reduction scheme?

I can certainly understand that. I think that anybody would be extremely angry indeed not only at the Labour party's plans for that, but on examining the details of what it proposes to replace the community charge with.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm today that, despite the desperate need to improve his electoral chances at the next election, he will not be extending his safe-haven policy to representatives of other small, distant minorities, such as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)?

I am at the moment fully occupied with dealing with safe havens in Iraq.

Bearing in mind the widespread calls for Britain to adopt an industrial strategy, has my right hon. Friend ever met anyone who would like to go back to the days when we last had an industrial strategy, when British Airways was rated by passengers below Aeroflot, when British Steel was the world's largest loss-maker and when British Leyland was the butt of international jokes?

Certainly, as my hon. Friend intimates, I have never met anyone sensible who wished to return to such a process. But, of course, Opposition Members have policies remarkably like that, with the return of quangos, enterprise banks and all the nastiness of the 1970s.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

Now that the Prime Minister and the Government have recognised the unfairness of the payment of 20 per cent. of the poll tax by the poorest people in the country, why does not he act now and abolish the 20 per cent. payment? Why is he planning to continue the misery and suffering of thousands of poorer families for a further two years?

The hon. Gentleman would be better employed asking his own leader why he should wish to abandon the community charge reduction scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is surprising to hear the Leader of the Opposition praying in his support the chairman of British Petroleum, who spoke against the Government today, bearing in mind the fact that much of the inflation has been caused by petrol companies putting up prices more than they should and paying themselves more than they should? What lead is that and what example is that for the Leader of the Opposition to give to the rest of the country?

The statement by the chairman of British Petroleum was certainly odd in that respect, although he did make the very wise statement that pay settlements are often too high, that the labour market remains riddled with imperfections and that while it remains so riddled it is prevented from working properly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

The Prime Minister, when being interviewed last week by Brian Walden on television, said that some of the principles of the poll tax need to be enshrined. Does the Prime Minister still stick with that statement, or is he going to change his mind again?

The hon. Gentleman has just invented a new definition of impatience. He need wait but a matter of minutes and he will know.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no Government under his leadership will ever introduce a national minimum wage? Will he confirm that such a policy would destroy jobs and massively increase unemployment, as well as wipe out the system of apprenticeships?

I can most certainly confirm all those matters. The estimate of the Department of Employment officials is that a minimum wage would cost between 750,000 and 1 million jobs.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

As the original poll tax was the beloved flagship of the Prime Minister's predecessor, is it surprising that some of the more ardent supporters of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) believe that the Government are betraying the true faith of Thatcherism again today? Is not it understandable that the right hon. Lady is pretty cross about the record of the Government since she left office?

I have never seen the hon. Gentleman as someone who could adequately reflect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that parts of the country such as Bristol would benefit from being unitary authorities and that the Government have no intention of following the Labour party lead and imposing regional authorities, which would mean just another tier of local government?

I can confirm that, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will also cover such matters in his statement shortly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has a real problem in his Cabinet—a truant? What action is he prepared to take about the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, during his period in the Department, has spent less than one working day in state schools?

When the hon. Lady sees the full range of proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has prepared for education she, like everyone else, will be bound to applaud them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the most significant aspect of local government finance is how much is raised and what the money is spent on? Does my right hon. Friend have a view on the proposal of the leader of Derbyshire county council and of some Members of the House that there should be no controls on council spending? Does he agree that that would lead to huge increases in bills under such councils?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There have to be controls over levels of local authority expenditure, for two reasons—first, to protect community charge payers and ratepayers and, secondly, in the interests of the wider economy.