To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average class size in the years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

In 1989–90 there were on average 26·4 pupils per class in maintained primary schools and 20·7 pupils per class in maintained secondary schools in England. Information on class sizes in 1990–91 is not yet available.

Is not it clear that despite a drop in pupil numbers, class sizes rose last year for the first time for 20 years? Does not that show that there has been a cut in resources and that primary and nursery schools in particular are under pressure as a result of the Government's policies?

The pupil-teacher ratio to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not linked directly to class size, which depends as much on how staff members are deployed as on how many there are. The ratio has fallen from 19:1 in the late 1970s to about 17:1 today.

Can my hon. Friend strike a comparison between teacher numbers in 1979—the last year of the Labour Government—and teacher numbers in 1989? Will he confirm that education spending this year is 16 per cent. higher than that for the preceding year? Does he agree that much of the additional funding is being spent on teachers?

As always, my hon. Friend is well informed on these matters. I am sure that he would like to know that the teacher vacancy rate, at 1·6 per cent., is the lowest of almost any profession. Vacancies have fallen significantly in the past year and last year we had the most applications for teacher training since 1977.

Is not the Minister confused yet again? According to The Times Educational Supplement of 3 May, a spokesman for the Department said that the figures that had been published by the Department for 1990–91 seemed to show an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio, but the Minister has denied those figures. In fact, he said that they were not available. When will he tell the truth to the House and when will he accept that there has been a deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio because of the Government's inadequate funding policy?

I explained in my main answer that information on class sizes is not available. I was trying to explain to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that class size is not the same as the pupil-teacher ratio. Class size depends just as much on how staff members are deployed as on how many staff there are. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, would understand the difference.

Is not it clear that if schools opt for grant-maintained status they will be able to liberate from local authorities a great deal of money that could be made available, at least in part, for recruiting teachers and reducing class sizes? In Leeds, for example, comprehensive schools could liberate between £250,000 and £500,000 a year. That would buy many extra teachers.

There is much that local education authorities can do to reduce central bureaucracy and the numbers of administrators and advisers to get more resources down to the classroom level. A central feature of local management of schools is that we are driving resources through the council hall direct to the classrooms, where they are needed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that high-quality nursery education is available for children throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities about increasing the number of nursery places available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that high-quality nursery education is available for children throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of provision for the under-fives in their areas.

As the Carlton club seminar suggested a lack of Government policy towards nursery education, what is the Secretary of State doing to encourage Tory-controlled local authorities which are not spending their allocation on under-five and nursery education?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there has been a considerable increase in the number of under-fives attending nursery schools and in nursery provision. Indeed, 150,000 more youngsters attend now than did in 1979.

Does the Minister agree with the findings of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which reinforced the belief in the importance of nursery education to assist children in their education and socialisation? Will he ensure that there is a nursery place for every three and four-year-old child who needs and chooses to have one?

I have already said that there has been a significant increase in the numbers attending. We have also made available an extra £150 million to local authorities next year, over and above what was available last year. I suggest that the hon. Lady has a word with her Front-Bench spokesman on public expenditure, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who, when she held my position, could not find the resources for nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. I notice that she has refused to do so on behalf of the Labour party.

Does the Minister accept that, having seen at first hand with one of my children the enormous benefits of nursery education, it seems to me shortsighted for the Government to abandon any form of national strategy in this area of educational provision? Although the Government may be concentrating on education post-16, is not it true that the quality of children's earliest experiences of education has an important bearing on their ability to make good use of the later opportunities that they get in life?

It is a rather distressing fact that the local education authorities that have large numbers of nursery places available also have some of the worst GCSE results and the worst staying-on rates in the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the London borough of Wandsworth a nursery place is provided for every child between the age of three and five who requires it? Should not that example be copied by a few Labour local education authorities?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I suggest that Wandsworth offers help to Labour LEAs to show them how it can be done.

Will my hon. Friend elaborate on what he said a moment ago? Was not it the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who confirmed that her Government could not afford nursery education? Is not it the height of cynicism for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to go round City lunches trying to convince the City that they are not going to increase spending when they cannot afford it, while telling parents who want nursery education that they will fund it to the skies?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen must either put up or shut up. They have said that they will produce funding by scrapping the city technology college programme. The amount of funding that they could produce would fund all of 50 part-time nursery places for each LEA in the country. That is not overall provision of nursery classes for youngsters under five and they know it.

Although I welcome in principle the additional 150,000 children who are able to have nursery education, should not the Government consider what is achieved as a result of increased investment in nursery education? Is not it true that 20 of the top 25 nursery-providing local education authorities produce GCE O-level results that are at the national average or lower?

I agree with my hon. Friend and many of those same authorities have appallingly low staying-on rates post-16. Labour local education authorities should be concentrating on standards in their schools throughout compulsory school age to get the right results for children aged 16 and beyond.

Perhaps the Government need to make up their mind whether education for our young children is good. What consideration have they given to the remarks from the Carlton club that the Government's nursery commitment—or lack of it—is damaging, potentially vote-losing and must be corrected? Will the Minister be honest with the House about the figures which as the Carlton club says are both false and misleading? The Government claim that Britain is doing well in comparison with other European countries, but we are doing appallingly badly—[Interruption.]

Order. That was a rather long question.

The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that there are more three and four-year-olds in nursery schools than there were in 1979 and that the Government are making £740 million available to local education authorities for the provision of nursery classes for youngsters. Furthermore, if the hon. Lady believes that she can give an undertaking that the Labour party will make nursery education available to all three and four-year-olds, I challenge her to say so unequivocally and to get it endorsed by the hon. Member for Derby, South.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the participation rate in post-16 education and training.

The Government's plans for increasing the participation rate in post-16 education and training were contained in the two White Papers published yesterday.

I welcome the White Paper that the Secretary of State announced yesterday. However, it was belated and it is a great pity that it has taken 12 years to take some action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!".] Conservative Members may jeer, but we have one of the lowest post-16 participation rates in Europe. That means that our young people and our economy are disadvantaged. The Government should have taken action earlier.

Order. This seems to be rather contagious. Will the hon. Lady ask a question, please?

I am asking a question. I asked the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter for a serious reason.

First, I am grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome of yesterday's White Papers. Like many other hon. Members, she was unable to be here yesterday—she was no doubt engaged elsewhere. She may have noticed that the White Papers were welcomed by those with whom she normally shares those Benches—the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and the Liberal Democrats. Will she persuade Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to welcome the White Papers and to stop making churlish points against them which are slightly confusing most of the issues?

A-levels.

On A-levels, there is a difference between us. We propose an over-arching diploma which people can attain either by achieving the right standards in academic courses with A-levels or in vocational courses with BTEC or national vocational qualifications, or a combination of the two. I do not think that it would be right to scrap A-levels, which is the Labour party's position. We must keep up academic standards and put in place vocational qualifications that reach the same high standards and the same parity of esteem.

Order. If three questions are asked in one supplementary, we shall make very slow progress. One question please from Dr. Hampson.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of just how much the polytechnics will enhance their appeal as a result of his resolute decision yesterday to abolish the artificial barrier between polytechnics and universities which, despite the flannel from the Opposition, was always supported by Labour Governments? Will my right hon. and learned Friend use his powers under schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act 1988 to change by order the names of any polytechnics that wish to do that, so that we avoid what would otherwise be a three-year marketing blight?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the proposed change, which will be supported by directors of polytechnics, including at least two former Labour Ministers, Chris Price and Gerry Fowler. I shall consider the possibility of allowing name changes in the interim period, but I believe that we shall have to wait for the necessary legislation to pass through the House. With regard to overseas contacts, polytechnics are disadvantaged because they have to explain that they are, in anybody else's language, universities—certainly, of the same standard as other universities. The name distorts students' preferences when applying for entry to polytechnics. I shall take up my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion that I may have powers to act on this issue.

The Secretary of State spoke a moment ago about the new diploma being over-arching. How exactly will it work? Will it be a relabelling of existing exams such as A-level, AS level and BTEC, will it be a separate examination in addition to those, or will it involve a reform of those examinations together with a system of credit accumulation?

It will underline the equal status for the different qualifications by setting out standards that are genuine equivalents, so that they can be recognised by those in universities and employers and by setting a bench mark to establish the equivalents between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications or, increasingly, a combination of the two. I explained that system yesterday and I think that it is perfectly comprehensible.

May I welcome the marvellous plans that have been announced for post-16 education, particularly to take colleges out of local authority control and reduce the unnecessary differences between polytechnics and universities? Would my right hon. and learned Friend like to make himself a real hero in Derbyshire, where we have neither a university nor a polytechnic? Will he consider designating one of the colleges, preferably in Derby, as a polytechnic as soon as possible?

I am disappointed to hear that I have not yet attained heroic status in my neighbouring county of Derbyshire. I have recently designated a college in East Anglia as a polytechnic, having been advised that it had the standards and comprehensive nature of courses to justify that description. We shall retain quality and I look forward to the day when a college in Derbyshire will reach the right level of quality to become a university, rather than a polytechnic. My city of Nottingham benefits considerably from having within its boundaries a first-class university and polytechnic and I am sure that Derby aspires to the same.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will encourage schools to publish their exam results; and if he will make a statement.

Schools are already required to publish details of their GCSE, A-level and AS-level exam results in their prospectuses.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is not it vital that we get on with the process and publish the information quickly so that, just as in the private sector, parents have as much information as possible before they determine which school their child should go to?

I agree with my hon. Friend and we shall also investigate ways of ensuring that further education colleges publish their results in a consistent form that allows comparisons between schools and FE colleges.

Does the Minister agree that unless there is early assessment and clear identification of the potential of children enrolled in any school, publishing results could misrepresent the achievements of the teachers, parents and pupils of that school?

I agree entirely that it is important to assess children from an early age. That is why we are committed to assessment and testing for those aged seven and 11. We have had too many distressing letters from parents and individuals about how they or their teachers failed to recognise deficiencies in one sector or another. As has been said repeatedly to me, when a child is 16 it is too late to identify weaknesses. People have urged me on this matter and I believe that the way forward is to assess pupils at ages seven and 11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of 16-yearolds leave full-time education or training.

The latest provisional figures show that the proportion of 16-year-olds leaving full-time education or training after completing their compulsory schooling fell to 41 per cent. last year. That means a fall of 11 percentage points in only the past four years. The great majority of those who leave go into jobs with part-time education or training, or take part in youth training schemes. Contrary to much popular belief, only about 10 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers in this country drop out of education and training completely and they are people who choose to reject the guaranteed training place on offer to all of them.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage local education authorities, if not schools, to publish their own figures relating to the number of students staying on for full-time or part-time education, so that those who at present are not tempted to do so will realise that they are cheating themselves of opportunities in their future working lives?

That is an excellent suggestion. My hon. Friend's original question concerned the proportion of students who leave, but I think that schools should be encouraged to publish their staying-on levels, which are steadily improving across the education system. A written answer to another hon. Member this afternoon will shed further light on the improvements that we are achieving in our schools.

In response to a question from me yesterday, the Secretary of State made it clear that the proposed funding for the increased number of students whom he expected to stay on after the age of 16—and, indeed, to enter higher and further education—would arise naturally out of the increased funding that each individual student attracts for the college or university concerned. On that basis, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he envisages an overall cut in funding per student during the period of increase and that colleges will therefore be unable to maintain their present standards?

No. What I was saying to the hon. Gentleman, and will say again now, was that our funding system was linked to the growth in the number of students. It would be a great mistake for any Secretary of State to abandon a mechanism that linked the increase in funding to the number of students attracted. The financing of our policy will be geared to its success. Our aim is to expand the number of students receiving education and training after the age of 16, but, of course, to achieve that expansion in a cost-effective way.

The proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend announced in the White Papers yesterday will provide considerable encouragement for 16-year-olds to stay on at school. Will he encourage Opposition sceptics to visit Bournemouth polytechnic, which has led the way in the development of vocational degrees and courses? Far from being derided by employers, such courses are now highly regarded internationally and show the way for other similar colleges of learning to develop for the future.

I would commend such a visit to any hon. Member who wanted to see what has been achieved by Bournemouth and by many other polytechnics across the country. I have not made such a visit recently; nor, no doubt, has the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). When I have visited polytechnics, however, I have found that they have all achieved great success since—contrary to the preference of the Labour party—we took them out of local government control. They all expect to make further progress in future.

To encourage more 16-year-olds to stay on, will the Secretary of State tell us what his proposed advanced diploma offers young people over and above the A-levels and vocational qualifications which he says that it comprises? If vocational qualifications are truly to be the equivalent of A-levels, why should not the two be combined in the form of a broader advanced certificate, as Labour proposes?

The diploma answers a valid criticism of the system in this country—the charge that the confusing number of qualifications of all kinds has created a maze through which parents and students must try to find their way. The structure of the advanced diploma will—like that of the baccalaureate in France and the equivalent qualifications in Germany, but, I think, in a better way than either—allow academic and vocational qualifications of the same standard to be recognised as a benchmark for advance into higher education or certain types of employment. We have introduced clarity to our system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of pupils applying to attend Hendon school since it became a grant-maintained school.

I understand that applications for first-year places have risen sharply since the school became grant maintained in 1989. So far this year, there have been 348 applications, compared with 270 in 1990 and 200 in 1989.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Hendon school's last year as a local authority school, 100 pupils applied? Is not the dramatic growth since then a vindication of Government policy and a tribute to the school's headmaster, staff and governors? Would not it be mean-minded and extreme folly to reverse the policy and ignore the wishes of parents and pupils?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Any fair-minded individual who saw what had been achieved in Hendon in the past two years would recognise how entirely inappropriate it is for the Labour party to be determined to ignore the wishes of parents and, in effect, destroy an excellent school that has been turned itself round in a short time, thanks to our grant-maintained policy.

As one who, 60 years ago, was a pupil at Hendon school and has been deeply grateful to his teachers ever since, I warmly welcome the school's decision to opt for grant-maintained status. Is my hon. Friend further aware that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) visited the school last year, he was met by an experienced member of staff who said, "Although I have always been a member of the Labour party, the school's decision to go for direct-grant status was the best decision that it has ever made"?

My right hon. Friend told me that, and I received a similar message when I visited the school. I am sure that pupils at Hendon school, and all hon. Members, welcome and recognise the considerable education advantages that my right hon. Friend gained from his time at that school.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the extra financing of that body.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her maiden question on sport. I have regular meetings with the chairman whenever necessary and will meet him in the summer to discuss his corporate plan and additional funding requirements for 1992–93. The Sports Council's current grant in aid is £46·7 million.

I welcome the Minister to his first sport questions. I am sure that he will agree that it is time that sport had its own Question Time.

As the hon. Lady well knows, VAT is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have demonstrated that their commitment to sport, in whatever capacity, is second to none. I do not need to take lessons from Opposition Members on how we are committed to sport and are spending money on it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making his maiden answer to a question on sport and on answering it so brilliantly. Is he aware that we believe wholeheartedly that when he meets the chairman of the Sports Council, he will give him every satisfaction?

As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not sure that I can deliver the satisfaction that he is talking about, but I shall try.

I shall not congratulate the Minister on his first answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), which was little short of a disgrace, especially in view of the answer which he gave to me only last week when he made it clear that, given the cuts in the urban programme, the Government have stolen £15·7 million from sport and, next year, plan to find £5·3 million cuts on top of that. Is not it time that the Government stopped parading themselves as the friends of sport while such highway robbery is going on?

Uncharacterisitically, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), the Government have demonstrated that we are committed to sport in a variety of areas. Only a month or two ago, I was able to find a further £1 million for extra coaching, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a foundation for—[Interruption.] It is no good the Opposition behaving like football hooligans. If they want to hear the facts, I shall give them. In a recent speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the setting up of a foundation for sport and the arts, which will, in due course, more than double the money committed to sport. The hon. Gentleman should not go round whingeing about the Government's lack of spending. We have shown that we have done more than a Labour Government ever did.

When my hon. Friend leaves the Chamber, will he pick up a telephone to ring the chairman of the Sports Council and tell him that he will not pay one penny piece to Cleveland county council until my constituent, Mr. J. G. Campbell, and his son are treated fairly? The boy, who is a captain of the Middlesbrough football schools XI, has been denied the opportunity to continue to represent his home town and possibly to go on to greater things in football because the mean, vindictive and spiteful Cleveland county council will not recognise the Macmillan city technology college for the excellent place that it is.

I find it inexplicable that people can be mean and small-minded enough to prevent a young boy who plays a game to a high standard from continuing to represent his town. My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) will have my full support in any campaign that they care to mount to get the youngster back playing for his town and representing his county at the game that he plays so well. The best of luck to him.

Is the Minister aware that I, at least, am absolutely delighted that he is so interested in sport? May I advise him to get as much practice as possible between now and the next general election because he is for the high jump?

The hon. Gentleman should know better than most that his hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who asked the main question, is more likely to be for the high jump than I am.

Has my hon. Friend seen that in the otherwise excellent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has a locus in this.

Has my hon. Friend seen that in the otherwise excellent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs a suggestion that the affairs of horse racing should come under the Department of Education and Science? If that is the case, will he assure the House and the country that the Sports Council will have no part in it?

If equine quadrupeds were brought under the control of my Department, it might at least be able to explain what they were. As my hon. Friend knows, horse racing is not my responsibility, although it has been mooted that it should be. If that were to happen, I should take the advice of my hon. Friend, who is arguably one of the most knowledgeable hon. Members on matters to do with racing.

I should like, in accordance with the customs of the House, to welcome the new Minister at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, even though we have been waiting 10 months. That is a remarkable period of gestation. As far as I can see, no new policies or initiatives have emanated. Is the Minister still in training? When will he be ready to take the field? There are many issues on which we need his advice, such as the place of team games and swimming in the school curriculum, which was discounted by the Secretary of State, and the publication of the report on youth policy on sport, for which we have been waiting three years. Most important of all—[Interruption.]

Order. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) just said, this is the first time we have had sports questions since the Minister was appointed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your defence of sport as well as of the House.

It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise me for not answering a question. In case he has not noticed, hon. Members are required to ask questions before I can answer them. The hon. Member for Vauxhall, who tabled an early-day motion criticising me for not answering questions, has only just asked me her first question. I suggest that before levelling criticism, the right hon. Gentleman should look at the beam in his own eye.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Was it a point of order about that matter?

Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that there is now a ballot for questions and that it is an insult to any hon. Member to suggest——

Order. That matter can arise as a point of order after Question Time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of introducing standard assessment tests.

The testing of seven-year-olds in the core subjects started immediately after the Easter holiday. Teachers have worked hard and well on the tests. The evidence so far suggests that the exercise is going reasonably well in most schools. I will, of course, consider the experience of this year before deciding the precise form of the tests for the next year.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that union and Labour opposition to the standard assessment tests is not borne out by talking to teachers and parents? I recently visited 34 of the 36 schools in my constituency and heard universal support for the principle but concern about the detail. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the detail has been organised by teachers and not by politicians? Does he agree that testing has the support of teachers and parents, which contrasts with Labour's hostility to testing and its commitment to mediocrity for all?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are two clear issues, which he rightly distinguishes. One is the principle of whether to test seven-year-olds on their progress through the curriculum. There is widespread support for that among the teaching professions and parents. There is even bipartisan support in the House. The second issue is the exact form of the tests, which I should wish to consider in the light of the experience of classroom teachers this year. The form of the tests had been devised by the School Examinations and Assessment Council, appointed by me, which took a lot of trouble in devising child-friendly tests in response to pressures from parents and others. We have to ensure that the tests continue to be child friendly, that they do not put stress on the children, that I they are reasonably straightforward and manageable and that they produce clear results as they evolve.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase funding for science.

The size of the science budget for 1992–93 will be considered in the forthcoming public expenditure survey.

Do the Government now appreciate that there is a science crisis? Does the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology confirm what scientists and Opposition Members have been saying for months? Surely the Minister is aware that decisions are being taken to halt research programmes, to disband research teams and to scrap expensive equipment and facilities. That will do real damage to Britain's science base unless the Government announce an additional allocation of funds to research councils for this year.

The hon. Gentleman totally fails to do justice to the outstanding quality of British science, which is highly regarded internationally. We are committed to maintaining an internationally competitive research base through the higher education institutions and the research councils. We are considering the important and interesting report of the House of Lords Select Committee and shall respond to it formally in due course. I would only comment now that the noble Lords explicitly said that they would like the research councils to have flexible budgets

"without recourse to invidious choices."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

"It ain't working, but it's really hurting" is what one of my constituents told me in Dumbarton high street last Saturday. After a lifetime of work, at the age of 54 he now finds himself made redundant. When I next meet my constituent, can I tell him that the Prime Minister echoes the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that my constituent's tragedy and that of the hundreds of thousands who will surely follow in the coming months is a price well worth paying, or will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunhity to add substance to his new caring image by dissociating himself completely from the Chancellor's remarks?

The hon. Gentleman has no monopoly of concern about unemployment. It is shared by every Conservative Member as well. It is precisely because we care about the impact of unemployment that we are determined to remove its cause—which, predominantly, is inflation—and we are now making substantial progress with that. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment—I return to the point that the Opposition have ducked on every occasion—may I say that the minimum wage proposal will put many people out of work.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

In view of the recent spate of horrific incidents involving certain breeds of dogs, do the Government intend doing anything about that and, if so, what?

Everyone will have been shaken by the attacks during the past few weeks, particularly the horrific attack on Rucksana Khan at the weekend. I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and we are persuaded that urgent action must be taken. From midnight tonight, the import of dogs bred for fighting, such as the American pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa, will be banned. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will wish to make a statement to the House tomorrow setting out further action to deal with the problem. But it is clear that such dogs have no place in our homes.

I strongly support what the Prime Minister just said about fighting dogs.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on the subject of dogs. It if comes to legislation, which it may well do after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement tomorrow, I hope that his support will hold good. It is a matter that the whole country will be keen to see brought to a conclusion at an early stage.

What we are hearing, Mr. Speaker, is the hysteria of defeat. The Prime Minister does not appear to understand his own legislation. The trusts are not owned by the national health service. They can buy and sell, hire and fire and make contract deals without regard to the national health service. They are not part of a national health service. [Interruption.] That is the big truth and the Prime Minister should face it.

There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear because they know they have been wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has now been told by sufficient people who are professionals in the national health service that trusts are part of the national health service. If he is not prepared to correct the mischief that he and his party enunciated last week, that is a matter for them, but the whole country knows that he is wrong and that trusts are part of the national health service.

On the subject of listening, the Prime Minister should hear what was said in Monmouth last Thursday. The people of Monmouth spoke. The right hon. Gentleman and his party were beaten fair and square, so why does he not listen to them and stop the second wave?

The right hon. Gentleman and his candidate won the Monmouth by-election, and I congratulate the candidate on so doing, but I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the accuracy of the campaign that was run on that occasion. The Monmouth literature was deceptive and untruthful, because

"self-governing hospitals continue to fulfil the crucial criterion of being a part of the NHS: they provide, free of charge, health care that is funded by the taxpayer's contributions. What they have opted out of is the central bureaucracy of the NHS".

My right hon. Friend will have noted that the dictator of Ethiopia appears to have left the country. Will he seize the initiative now and instruct our representative there to make immediate contact with the successor Administration to find out how we can help to lead the country towards democracy? Britain liberated Ethiopia from the Italians in the second world war. We now have a chance to lead the country towards democracy.

President Mengistu's resignation this morning is welcome. We hope that it will facilitate the peace process and enhance donors' ability to help those in need in Ethiopia—a matter of considerable importance to us all. I urge both the Government and the opposition movements to take this opportunity to negotiate a lasting settlement of their differences and, above all, to put an end to the civil war from which Ethiopia has suffered for too long. We shall do what we can to help to bring that about.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

Does the motion about Europe signed by 105 of the Prime Minister's colleagues represent Government policy? The Prime Minister has often repeated the assertion that not this Parliament but a future Parliament must decide whether we should adopt a single currency. Is that assertion based on the belief that a future Parliament would contain more people who hold our view that Britain should take the lead in the development of Europe and its currency and fewer of the type of people who signed the motion?

We are increasingly taking the lead in the European Community. That will become more and more evident as month succeeds month. Discussion in the two intergovernmental conferences is still at an early stage and negotiations will continue throughout the rest of this year. The Luxembourg paper that is identified in the early-day motion is but one part of that negotiation. The early-day motion rightly identifies elements in the paper that need to be changed, and will be changed, before the negotiation is complete.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the health service reforms are already working well—[Interruption.]—and gaining the support of most hospital staff throughout the country? Is he aware that this year Exeter health authority will purchase some 200 hip and knee operations from the London hospitals? That will reduce waiting lists and help the London hospitals. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend continue to champion the rights of the patients, in contrast to the Labour party, which champions bureaucracy and the trade unions?

Indeed, I will, for that is the basis of the reforms. I welcome the example provided by my hon. Friend of a health authority using the opportunity of the reforms to secure better and, in many cases, speedier treatment for patients in the local area. Similar improvements are evident in many parts of the country for those who wish to look and see.

May I take the Prime Minister's mind back to his meetings with Ulster Unionist leaders last week? [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members should listen. Will the Prime Minister confirm that there has been no change in the basis of the discussions between the constitutional parties in the Province as a consequence of his meeting with those two Ulster Unionist leaders?

I can certainly confirm that there has been no change in the nature of the discussions. As we speak, there has been no session of the talks yet. Discussions are continuing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the hope that the talks can soon begin. For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that all concerned will speedily find a basis on which the talks can go ahead.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the polytechnics were given control of their own affairs —[Interruption.]—they have recruited a further 36,000 students? Now that colleges of further education have been given the same freedom, what does my right hon. Friend think will be the result?

From what I could hear of my hon. Friend's question over the hubbub, I think that he was commending the way in which the polytechnics have flourished since they were given their independence. That is certainly the case. Any director of a polytechnic will confirm that to anyone who seeks the information.

Referring to what the Prime Minister said about the economic consequences of the minimum wage, we do not have a minimum wage in Eccles or, indeed, anywhere else, yet unemployment increased in Eccles by 100 between last month and this month. Can the Prime Minister explain why that is happening?

I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the Fabian pamphlet, which is about to be published, which lists a substantial number of jobs that would be lost if a minimum wage were introduced. There is no way in which the hon. Lady can get away by wriggling. The minimum wage proposals will cost jobs and it is Labour party policy to destroy those jobs.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

My constituents in Basildon—indeed, people throughout the country—would be grateful if my right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government, in their spending plans, are able to distinguish between overriding priorities, key priorities, top priorities and urgent priorities. Opposition Members certainly cannot. [Laughter.]

My hon. Friend makes a point that is so telling that it has even caught the imagination of the Opposition. Our priorities are indeed clear, but that is certainly not the case with the Labour party. Labour's campaign co-ordinator has said that education is a first priority; the overseas aid spokesman has said that aid is a top priority; the shadow Chancellor has said that manufacturing industry is a key priority; and just this morning it happened again. Asked for Labour's plan about "Son of the GLC", the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, "It's a first-term commitment." [Interruption.] I shall wait until Opposition Members are silent.

Order.

I am prepared to wait until the Opposition listen. The reality is that their programme does not add up. It never has, and it never will. It all points towards higher taxation, and that is what we should get.