To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to raise the status and professionalism of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are committed to raising the status and professionalism of teachers. Our proposals to establish an independent review body for teachers' pay and conditions are intended to reinforce this. The end of collective bargaining and poor industrial relations in education will raise still further the esteem in which the teaching profession is held.

Does my right hon. and learned. Friend agree that teachers need greater status and more public esteem? Is he aware that recently I met members of the National Union of Teachers from my constituency who told me that they had made various representations to him? Can he comment on those representations and on his reply?

I have repeatedly confirmed that it is necessary to build up the public esteem and the self-esteem of the profession. I have had discussions with NUT representatives and heard their ideas. I have mainly discussed the pay review body with them and have sought to persuade them that its establishment will enable them to build up a career structure for their members and enable their members to be rewarded in the light of the advice of an independent body. It will also turn us away from the history of bad relations which has damaged the public reputation of the profession.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one way to raise the status and morale of teachers is to ensure that every curriculum committee set up by his Department has on it a majority of practising teachers, rather than advisers and organisers who live far away from the scene?

It is important that there should be active and practising teachers on all these bodies and, most important of all, that the bodies pay particular attention to all the advice that they receive from practising teachers, but it is going a bit far to say that practising teachers must be in the majority. Apart from anything else, there is always a danger in thinking that all teachers agree on these matters. My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that the more teachers one talks to, the more one realises that there is a wide range of opinion in the profession about the best methods of testing and assessing children.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the status and professionalism of teachers would be increased if the Government got off their backs, stopped attacking their pay claims and stopped interfering, while allowing the heads of privatised industries to make money hand over fist? One of them had a pay increase of 66 per cent.—

Order. The hon. Member is miles wide of the question.

Let us have less of the double standards. If the Government can turn a blind eye to such pay increases for chairmen of privatised industries, they can get off the teachers' backs.

I do not approve of the scale of some of the pay rises in the private sector, but neither am I responsible for them. We have implemented the advice of the independent advisory committee which gives all teachers a 9·5 per cent. increase this year and head teachers and deputy head teachers 12·75 per cent. this year. That is far greater than the usual pay increase for the vast majority of people or for those in the public sector. It is right that teachers should have that increase because of the work that they are putting in at the moment and because of the regard in which we hold them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to estimate how many statemented children require speech therapy; and if he will make a statement.

The identification of the special educational needs of children is the responsibility of local education authorities. Centrally held statistics on children's statements of special educational needs do not break them down by type of learning difficulty.

Does my hon. Friend accept the appeal court judgment in the Lancashire case that schools now have a duty to provide speech therapy and rather than its being left to the discretion of the local authority?

Yes. I recently made it clear that if speech therapy is prescribed for educational reasons, local education authorities are under a duty to provide it; if health authorities which are asked to arrange it are unable to do so, the local education authorities must provide it.

Is the Minister not concerned about the report issued yesterday by Mencap, which said that arrangements for children with learning difficulties leave a lot to be desired, including those for speech therapy and the problems of young people when they leave special schools after the age of 19? Does the Minister have any proposals to deal with the views of Mencap and others?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, local education authorities have a clear duty under the Education Act 1981 to ensure that the provision statemented for such children is made and that the necessary resources are provided. My Department is working with the Department of Health to secure better deployment of, among others, speech therapists.

Surely my hon. Friend is aware that there is considerable concern in many constituencies—and certainly in mine—at the lack of information about the number of children who need to be statemented. Has he made any estimates of the number of speech therapists required to meet what many of us know to be a real need?

My right hon. Friend is right. The number of speech therapists has nearly doubled, from 1,510 in 1979 to 2,810 in 1989, but we are working with the Department of Health to secure better deployment of speech therapists, to make greater use of assistant speech therapists, and to promote more even professional practice among local education authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that every three and four-year-old has the opportunity of a pre-school place.

It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of their provision for these children.

Why is it that the top 15 providers of nursery education for three to four-year-olds are all Labour authorities, which provide more than 70 per cent. of places, whereas of the 15 authorities providing the least nursery education for three to four-year-olds, one has no overall control and the other 14 are all Conservative controlled? How do the Government intend to ensure that Conservative local authorities live up to their obligations and make use of the available funds for nursery education?

One of the reasons why Labour authorities have provided nursery education is that the Government have made available considerable funds for them to do just that. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are now 150,000 more three and four-year-olds in school than there were 10 years ago. This year alone, we have increased the amount that we make available to local authorities to spend on nursery education by £140 million. That is our record.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour party claims that universal nursery provision can be met by the abolition of the city technology college programme? Is he also aware that that would raise only £15 million, whereas the cost of universal nursery provision would be more than £1·5 billion? Is there not a strong case for giving the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) remedial maths tuition?

There are many other good reasons for giving the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) remedial mathematics tuition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A month ago, I asked the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) whether she was prepared to state from the Labour Front Bench that the Labour party was committed to introducing universal nursery education and, if so, whether she would get the endorsement of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). We have had nothing but silence from the hon. Lady on the issue. She owes the House and the country an explanation of what her spending plans are.

May we have a commitment from the Government about their determination, or otherwise, to offer young children the chance of a nursery place, which is seen as a right in many other European countries? Do the Government support nursery education?

We have made our position clear. There are 150,000 more children in nursery education than there were when the Labour party was in power, and we have made an extra £140 million available for nursery education this year compared with last year. That is a record of which we are rightly proud.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the testing of children at the age of seven years.

The first national tests for seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science are now complete and a full evaluation is under way.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the tests are meant not to be competitive between pupils but on the contrary, to provide a most useful appraisal of their skills in reading, writing, arithmetic and basic science so that their future education can be planned in each case?

I can certainly confirm that. The tests are diagnostic and are intended to identify the strengths and weaknesses of seven-year-old pupils so that teachers, pupils and parents can work together to remedy weaknesses and further to strengthen the strengths.

Is it not clear from this year's tests that the assessment system told teachers little new about the children in their charge, involved a great deal of teacher and student time, diverted attention from other children in the same class, and cost the taxpayer a great deal of money for Government experimentation? Against that background, would it not have been sensible for the Minister, to avoid the embarrassment and criticism that he faced at the headteachers' conference, to take the advice given to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and to listen, for once, to the advice coming from teachers and to use the expertise of individual teachers, rather than simply going ahead with a scheme based on the Government's own misplaced and outdated ideology?

I was under the possible misapprehension that the Labour party was committed to raising standards in education and to external testing of children at age seven, 11, 14 and 16. If Labour Members have changed their tune, they had better say so publicly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main purposes of the tests is to test the effectiveness and quality of the education provided by local authorities, by the teachers, and by the governing bodies which run our schools, whereas under the last Labour Government there was no effective monitoring of the quality of education in schools?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national curriculum makes it clear what we want children to be taught. Assessment and testing, which are integral to the national curriculum, are the only way available in which to assess whether pupils have learnt what has been taught.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received this year about the student loan scheme.

I have received very few letters about loans this year. The scheme has been successfully set up and is running smoothly. More than 180,000 students have so far applied for loans.

Is the Minister aware that many students find it difficult to continue their studies due to poverty resulting from the introduction of the student loan scheme and the first ever freezing of student grants from this autumn, together with the Government's decision to stop students receiving housing benefit and their disqualification from receiving income support and hardship allowance during the summer vacation? Bearing in mind that the unit administration costs of the loan scheme are more than double the Government's original estimate, is it not about time the Government realised the error of their ways, scrapped the disastrous loan scheme and replaced it with a far fairer system of student grants?

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the combined uprated grant and the new loan will increase student support by 25 per cent. this year. If students were facing the kind of hardship that the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would be very odd if student numbers continued to expand as quickly as they are expanding now. Applications through the Universities Central Council on Admissions and the Polytechnics central admissions system are up 8 per cent. this year. The loan to which each student is entitled, which this year is £420 outside London, is appreciably more than the average benefit claimed, which we estimate at £327. With regard to the costs of running the system, it is absurd to suggest that the initial establishment costs, which are an investment for the whole life of the scheme, should be a measure of the costs per account of each individual student loan. Obviously, as the number of students taking out loans steadily increases, as is happening now, the unit cost per account will steadily decline.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that in 1979 one in eight of our young people were in advanced education while today's figure is one in five? Can he also confirm that more than 1 million of our young people are in advanced education and that enrolments increased last year by 10 per cent? Does he agree that those figures vindicate the Government's position with respect to advanced education?

My hon. Friend is right. He draws attention to an expansion of personal opportunity and a change in our society of the first order of importance, comparable in importance with the expansion of home ownership over which the Government are presiding.

Will the Minister confirm that among the representations that he has received were representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals drawing his attention to the fact that, on the basis of an extensive survey, the unit cost to institutions of issuing the certificates under the student loans scheme is running at £7 per certificate, compared with the £3·50 that the institutions are reimbursed by the Student Loans Company? Will the Minister instruct the company to reimburse the institutions fairly for the administration costs, especially as the banks were to be paid a £12·50 handling charge before they pulled out of the scheme? Or is higher education to be short changed yet again, as it has been so disgracefully by the Government's refusal to compensate institutions for the increase in value added tax?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Representations have been made to us that the reimbursement of administrative costs provided by the Student Loans Company might be increased. We are, of course, considering those representations. There has been a wide diversity of administrative practice across the range of higher education institutions and a wide diversity of costs. We shall look to reimburse institutions on the basis of the most efficient practice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as the student loans scheme has enabled more students to enter higher education this year, and as students do not have to repay the loan until the year after they have graduated and at a zero real rate of interest, that is a very good deal for students and can in no way be construed as depriving them of the opportunity to enter higher education?

My hon. Friend very fairly points out that the student loans scheme is a humane and practical scheme which offers students additional support well above the previous level of support and at a zero real rate of interest. Students only have to repay in real terms the money that they borrowed in the first place. That contrasts interestingly with the terms offered by the banks. It has been rather gratifying that the banks have responded to the stimulus of the competition provided by the Student Loans Company by offering relatively advantageous borrowing terms to students while they are studying. However, the repayment terms compare very unfavourably with the repayment terms under our scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to deal with the backlog of repair and maintenance in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Support for recurrent spending on education, including repairs and maintenance, totals £17·5 billion this year, an increase of 16 per cent. over the comparable total for last year. Annual capital guidelines for schools total £472 million, an increase of 15 per cent. on last year. It is for individual local education authorities and school governors to determine their expenditure priorities within their total resources.

Is the Minister aware that the Northumberland education authority has accrued a repair bill of £10 billion during the lifetime of this Government? [Interruption.] I am sorry—£10 million. Is the Minister further aware that school teachers in the county of Northumberland have been given plastic buckets to catch rain coming in through school roofs?

I am aware of the problems of Northumberland education authority, including its difficulties with timber-framed structures. That is why we have increased Northumberland's capital guideline from £1·9 million last year to £3·5 million this year.

Is the Minister aware that the best plan that he ever had to clear the backlog of repairs was to have local management of schools and to enable schools to look forward to the opting-out system? It is only when schools have control of their own funds that they can do the repairs that they badly need to have done.

My hon. Friend is quite right. Giving schools their own budgets is the fastest way of ensuring that money allocated for schools is actually spent on schools. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the average amount being held back per pupil this year is £230. That is the local education authority tax on every pupil, which is being spent on so-called central services when it could be spent in the classroom.

The Minister knows that in allocating funds to local authorities for school building programmes there are real problems in areas such as my own, with aging Victorian schools, particularly primary schools, without school halls and without inside toilets. Year after year, those schools have not been getting funds because they are third in the order of priorities and therefore the problem has never been tackled. Again, last year, we had £6 million to spend and £100 million problem growing, so there was another year of decline. Will the Minister tackle that problem? When will he conclude his review of the minimum standards for school building, or is he planning to cut them and wait until after the general election to admit it?

I understand the problems of local education authorities in areas such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents. That is why we have ensured an overall increase of 15 per cent. in schools' capital and a specific 50 per cent. increase in the capital category specially allocated for improvement and replacement work, which this year has gone up by 50 per cent. to £109 million.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) that local management of schools is the best way to deal with the backlog of repairs. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that in Cleveland, the LEA has let three-year contracts to the direct labour organisation for all school maintenance and repairs? That has been done on a cost-neutral basis to frustrate the Government's policy of delegating budgets to schools. What does the Minister intend to do about that?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are going to do something about that. The contracts were entered into before local management of schools began. As soon as each of those contracts expires, the amount concerned must be delegated down to the head and the governors, who we believe are able to arrange maintenance and repairs much more cost effectively than can be achieved by the local education authority through its direct labour organisation.

In a recent magazine interview, the Secretary of State said:

"I don't believe the figure of a £3 to £4 billion backlog of repairs",

In the four years since that survey was carried out, £2 billion has already been spent in clearing the backlog. The amount spent on repairs and maintenance per pupil has risen from £28 in 1979 to £64 in 1989—a real terms increase of about 20 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of literacy and numeracy levels at 16 years of age (a) nationally and (b) in the south-west; and what were the comparable rates 30, 20 and 10 years ago.

Information is not available in the form or over the period requested. However, GCSE results in English and mathematics indicate a welcome improvement in pupil performance since the examination was introduced in 1988.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that we do not have the figures to work on? What is he doing to improve standards of literacy and numeracy, which are perceived by the general public to be lower rather than higher as the years go by?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is why we introduced the national curriculum and insist on rigorous external tests for those aged seven, 11, 14 and 16. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that he was looking into how the teaching of reading is taught to teachers on training courses. That, and a number of other measures are designed to improve standards of numeracy and literacy, and the way reading, writing and arithmetic are taught in schools.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the statistics are not readily available at present, his recent decision to oblige schools to publish, in common form, their public examination results will produce that information, which will be widely welcomed by parents, many teachers and many schools?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his ten-minute Bill, which added a spur to our efforts to ensure that the measures I announced a few days ago would be introduced.

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

Staffordshire spent £1,050 per nursery and primary pupil in 1988–89, the latest year for which information is available. On the same price basis, Staffordshire spent £815 per nursery and primary pupil in 1978–79. Therefore, Staffordshire's spending per nursery and primary pupil in 1988–89 was some 29 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures refute absolutely Opposition charges of underfunding primary school education in Staffordshire since the Government came to office?

Yes, absolutely. The Staffordshire figures clearly demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to funding the education service and the substantial increases that have taken place over a 10-year period.

On the question of primary school funding in Staffordshire, if it is the Government's policy to cut taxes, how much will have to be cut from the Department of Education and Science budget? Perhaps the Minister can relate those cuts to his proposed expenditure in Staffordshire in future.

The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed that, at the same time as increasing education spending, we have reduced the direct rate of taxation. That is in direct contrast to the Labour party policy which would tax teachers more heavily than they are taxed at present.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be responding to the Education, Science and Arts Committee's third report of Session 1990–91 on standards of reading in primary schools.

Soon, Sir.

I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that if we want children to learn to read quickly and efficiently, one of the key components is for teachers to listen to their pupils while they read. Has the Minister considered the problem of organising lessons so that teachers can listen to 30 pupils reading in class, one after the other? Does he accept that many teachers have found it extremely difficult to fulfil that commitment during the past six or seven weeks while also carrying out the testing of seven-year-olds?

I entirely accept that it is important that teachers listen to individual pupils reading. That is a key part of the tests for seven-year-olds that have just been carried out. I agree that we have had representations from teachers about the difficulties of managing that exercise and many schools have had to employ supply teachers while that is being done. We shall take all representations carefully into account when deciding on the form of next year's tests for seven-year-old but we cannot give up arrangements whereby each pupil reads to his or her teacher if we are to ensure that reading standards are of the required level in primary schools.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that primary school children's reading is greatly facilitated if they have an opportunity to attend a nursery school? Does he recall the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), when junior Education Minister, saying that nursery education was not a high priority and that the Labour Government would not increase funding to it?

For many years, successive Governments have not been able to insist on the provision of universal nursery education because the cost is very high. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the experience in Wandsworth, where the local education authority is funded on the same basis as other inner London boroughs but is able to provide nursery education for all three and four-year-olds who want it because of the sensible way in which it has organised the finances of the remainder of its education provision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that school children have a proper understanding of grammar, spelling and punctuation; and if he will make a statement.

We are progressively implementing the national curriculum requirements for English. Spelling will be taken into account in the marking of GCSE examinations in 1991 in the usual way. I am awaiting advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council about what additional steps can be taken in public examinations in 1992 and in subsequent years. In my opinion, the teaching of grammar and the correction of spelling and grammatical errors will resume their proper place in the classroom if they are known to be relevant to the marking of public examinations.

My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks are welcome. Is he aware that a survey conducted in Birmingham by City 2000 found that there was widespread concern among employers in the city at the poor basic quality of skills in grammar, spelling and punctuation, particularly among support staff? Does he agree that, with the apostrophe being subjected to the most intolerable abuse and split infinitives everywhere, the biggest favour that we can do young people today is to give them a thorough knowledge of the form and structure of the wonderful English language?

My hon. Friend's description of the experience of employers and others in the west midlands is borne out by the experience of many other people, who feel that standards of spelling and grammatical use of English in this country have been deteriorating in recent years. It is important that we restore those standards and express parts of the English national curriculum will enable us to do just that.

Does the Secretary of State accept from someone who has trained as a learning support teacher that, where children are diagnosed through the correct administration of diagnostic testing, the urgent need throughout the education system is to ensure that resourcing is made available and that every primary school has access to a learning support teacher to enable children to cope with the difficulties that they experience?

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support of what she calls diagnostic testing and the need, after such testing, to help particular children, which is the basis of our current policy. It is also important that all schools are properly resourced, but all the evidence, including that from Her Majesty's inspectorate, shows that there is no direct correlation between the resourcing of a school and standards of performance in reading, spelling, grammar, and so on. Well-organised classes are required and they are achieved in well-resourced as well as less well-resourced schools. Organisation is the key to the whole subject.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although grammar, spelling and punctuation are extraordinarily important, they are also sometimes indicative of learning difficulties in a particular area? Does he accept that Devon, although not apparently an area of difficulty, has special problems and that some parts of Devon might be classified as areas of social deprivation? Will he bear that in mind when he considers the grant for next year?

In distributing grant to local education authorities we must take a variety of matters into account, including social deprivation. I have no doubt that we shall continue to do so when we make allocations to Devon and other counties this year. Again, success or otherwise in teaching children to read does not seem to be closely related to the children's social deprivation. There are some extremely successful schools in deprived areas and less successful schools in affluent areas. That is why it is so important to get the method of teaching, the curriculum and the testing system right, which is what the Government are doing.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his words amount to no more than hot air? The reality is of attacks on teachers, attacks on school budgets as local management of schools bites, attacks on standards and the undermining of education standards. When he leaves office he will leave a legacy that amounts to nothing more than criminal neglect.

That rather curious outburst seems to have nothing to do with the question. I trust that the hon. Gentleman was at least capable of spelling it properly when he committed it to paper. We have spent this question session describing the increased resources in schools and their increased achievements. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the spectacular improvement in the number of people going onto further and higher education. Only one in eight people could go on to higher education when we came into office, one in five now do, one in four will shortly and one in three will go on to higher education by the end of the century. That is all solidly based on real improvement in education standards in this country, forwarded by our education reforms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to take any action to accelerate the trend towards grant-maintained schools.

The number of schools seeking and acquiring grant-maintained status is already increasing very rapidly. In the past sixth months alone, the number of schools voting in favour of seeking grant-maintained status has more than doubled. We shall continue to urge schools to consider the opportunities afforded by grant-maintained status.

Is it not the case that the new GM schools have proved popular with parents, teachers and pupils? Can my right hon. Friend say whether standards have risen in such schools?

So far in the 88 GM schools that we have, my hon. Friend's assertion can be supported. As far as I can tell, all those running grant-maintained schools have found that the experience is popular with staff, parents and pupils. Obviously, in time we will be able to tell—from reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate and elsewhere—what effect they have on standards. However, it must be beneficial to raise staff morale in that way and to give complete control over policy in the school to headteachers and governors who are bound to be responsive to parents in the way that they carry out their duties.

Since only 14 per cent. of schools in the pipeline for opting out are in Labour-controlled education authority areas, while 66 per cent. are in Conservative-controlled areas, does not the evidence clearly show that parents in Labour-controlled LEAs have great confidence in the ability of their LEAs to run their education service? How can the Secretary of State come out with such nonsense about the number of grant-maintained schools growing rapidly, as he has just done, when the total number opting out or in the pipeline—236—is less than 1 per cent. of the country's 24,000 maintained schools?

It is foolish for the hon. Gentleman to reduce every aspect of managing schools to a party-political argument about Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities. However, it is relevant that in the areas served by Labour-controlled authorities the most intense pressures are put on headteachers, governors and staff not to opt for grant-maintained status. That is because the Labour party is especially wedded to the defence of town hall bureaucracy in that as in many other areas. As regards the figures, the hon. Gentleman keeps making extraordinary claims that somehow the process is slowing up, when it is accelerating at a remarkable rate, as he knows; 12 months ago there were only seven ballots pending and now there are more than 50. All the time that I have been in office, the rate at which grant-maintained applications are being received has steadily accelerated. When we return to office and people no longer fear pressure from Labour authorities, those applications will become a flood.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of testing for seven year-old primary school children.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

On the principle of testing, given that some teachers have expressed the view that the tests are complicated and occupy a great deal of classroom time, will my hon. Friend review that when he is looking at the future of testing seven-year-olds?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the need for testing. Like the tests for 11, 14 and 16-year-olds, the tests for seven-year-olds must be simple, rigorous and objective. It is very much with that in mind that we are currently evaluating all the evidence that we have received from individual schools and teachers. Four conferences are taking place around the country and we are gathering evidence through the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the National Foundation for Educational Research, and Her Majesty's inspectorate. When we have put all that together, we shall be able to conduct a proper analysis of this year's national pilot scheme and to introduce our proposals for the testing of seven-year-olds next year.

If such testing reveals bad results from a particular child, is the Minister satisfied that schools have the necessary processes for finding out why, for example, because of dyslexia? Whose job is it to ensure that local authorities provide proper classes and special teachers for dyslexic children because, whether under Labour or Conservative authorities, the facilities in this country are not good enough?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about dyslexia. For years the education establishment has refused to accept dyslexia as a problem. Recognition of it is long overdue. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has made clear our commitment to try to help dyslexic children.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

Now that it is clear that the privatisation of the gas, electricity and water industries has led to bigger salaries for the bosses and bigger bills for the consumers, with no improvement in the level of service, how can the Prime Minister continue to argue that the privatisation of those industries has been in the public interest?

I am afraid that much of what 1 he hon. Gentleman says is incorrect. It is precisely because Whitehall has stopped interfering in the privatised companies that electricity prices have fallen in recent years, that gas prices have fallen and that British Telecom's prices have fallen.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that British troops will not leave Iraq until suitable assurances have been given to the Kurdish population?

Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq. The United Nations has taken responsibility for the humanitarian relief operation in northern Iraq. It was never our intention to keep a permanent troop presence on the ground there, but before we or the other allies withdraw, we will need to have several things in place: first, an effective United Nations force on the ground; secondly, clear warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression will meet the severest response; thirdly, a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back up those warnings and fourthly, the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq. Without that, we will not leave.

In the light of the Government's constant call for restraint, will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the salary increase of 58 per cent. that has been awarded to the chief executive of National Power?

Yes, Sir—[Interruption.]

Order.

I am delighted by that not unexpected news—[Interruption.]

Order. This is taking up a lot of time.

As the Prime Minister is against the increase, is not he now required to explain why the Government did not use their 40 per cent. shareholding to prevent it, and what action he will take before the annual general meeting?

Certainly. I am happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was made clear in the prospectus that the Government had no intention of using their shareholding to intervene in financial decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we did that for good reasons.

In this as in so many other matters, the Prime Minister says one thing but is not prepared to act to back up his platitudes. If he had given me an honest answer to my original question, he would be prepared to take some action now. If he is not prepared to take the action which is within his power, no one will believe that his condemnation was anything other than feeble public relations.

If people want to hear something that is feeble, they should listen to what the right hon.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he thinks would happen to the British economy if the basic rate of income tax were increased to 40p in the pound?

It would undoubtedly do very great damage to the economy. It would cut incentives, it would recreate the brain drain and recreate all the economic difficulties that we had during the 1970s when the Labour party pursued policies of precisely that kind.

As the Prime Minister seems prepared to isolate Britain in Europe over the word federalism, perhaps he will tell us what he thinks federalism means.

It would be interesting if the Europeans would tell us what they mean by federalism. In a treaty text we need to have language the meaning of which is clear. Federalism in the European Community means different things to different people. If it implies a central Government for the federation, that is not what people in this country want. If it means decentralisation, it sounds like subsidiarity, which many people in this country would find more acceptable. But in no way could we permit that word to appear in the treaty until or unless it is clear what it means and that it does not mean the centralisation of power.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing a statutory minimum wage? Will he also say what effect a statutory minimum wage would have?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no doubt that as many trade union leaders have testified, a statutory minimum wage would dramatically increase unemployment in this country, as it has done in some other European countries.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that if the hope, now I am happy to say, widely entertained, of a new way forward between Ireland and England is to be realised —[Interruption]—from the present talks over Northern Ireland, the best qualities that can be brought to those talks are first, the resolve that the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Haughey expressed following their meeting last Friday night and secondly, the staying power displayed throughout by the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I entirely agree with his analysis. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose patience and skill ensured that the talks could begin. We all hope that they will be successful and that they will reach a conclusion that will enable a substantial transfer of power and responsibility to locally elected representatives. It would be a remarkable move forward for Northern Ireland if that were achievable. I hope and believe that it may be done.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the nation today the philosophy that this Government will offer to the people only that which they can afford and will not indulge in wild, exaggerated, uncosted promises?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can also give him the assurance that if anyone else offers an uncosted agenda we shall cost it for them.

When the Prime Minister goes for his audience later today will he take the opportunity to have a word with the colonel of the Grenadier Guards who also lives at the same address? In a letter to my constituent, Mr. Fred Crowton, he expressed his support for Sean Povey and his two colleagues getting fair and decent compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Given that the Palace now supports that justified case, why are we waiting for a decision?

The hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about that last Thursday and I have nothing to add.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee to the House today that his Government will continue to support and fund the Black Country urban development corporation, which has transformed areas of derelict land, created thousands of jobs and already attracted £195 million in private investment? Does he agree that, given the success of the 10 urban development corporations, it would be sheer folly to hand over their powers, as Labour suggests, to local councils? The Labour party suggests that they should be handed over to councils such as Birmingham and Liverpool which have a dreadful reputation and have done so much in the past to damage and hamper economic generation.

My hon. Friend makes her point with great force and vigour. I agree with what she said about the possible transfer of the powers of the UDCs to local Labour authorities. The Black Country urban development corporation has had a remarkable record in recent years and I hope and believe that it will continue to do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

For hundreds of thousands of British businesses the word recession has already acquired only one meaning—disaster. What does that word mean to the Prime Minister?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of what the Confederation of British Industry, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the OECD—and the Government's own forecasts have had to say about the future. All of us expect the economy to turn up in the second half of this year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept from one who was loath to support the Single European Act that his conduct during the European negotiations has been superb? As First Lord of the Treasury will he ensure that those who talk to the British people about the dream of a European super-state also understand fully the economic and taxation costs of that dream should it ever become a reality?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about an economic super-state in Europe. That is not what the majority of members in the Community wish to see and it is not what we wish to see. It will not be the outcome of the negotiations.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that 55-year-old Ernest Saunders, the former Guinness chairman, becomes eligible for parole this Friday, having served 10 months of a 30-month sentence in an open prison for the conviction of theft of more than £8 million? However, 71-year-old asthmatic Norman Laws is halfway through a 60-day sentence in the maximum security Durham gaol for non-payment of less than £300 poll tax. Does the Prime Minister think that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?

I do know that the position of many people over the community charge may have been made far worse by the leadership that the hon. Gentleman gave in not paying the community charge. I know also that no one who sits in this House pretending to make the law has any right to break the law.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the great support of many people in this country in his discussions in Europe? Is he also aware that people are confident that in his future discussions he will not sell them or future generations down the river?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said and I assure her that that will be the case.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be trying hard not to think about retirement, but is he aware that this country's laws on retirement are in a complete mess, and that we are in danger of losing cases before the European Court on the ground that we discriminate against both men and women through our different retirement ages? There are many men who would like to be able to retire at 60 and many women who would like to go on working after the age of 60. When will we sort out the problem and have a flexible retirement age—one that suits people?

That is a problem of some importance, as the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that for some years we have considered the principle of flexible retirement for both men and women. As he rightly added, I have no intention whatever of retiring for many years.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the positive attitude taken by the Minister for Corporate Affairs towards the establishment of a digital European television standard? Will he contrast that attitude with the efforts of the European Commission to throw European taxpayers' money down the drain chasing antiquated technology? Is not the latter activity typical of much antiquated European thinking and is it not right that this country should once again be taking a lead, as in so many other European matters?

I fear that my hon. Friend is right about the attitude taken in the Community, but he is also right to praise the activities of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.