To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to present the revised statutory order governing national curriculum technology.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I expect to present to the House a revised statutory order by the end of the summer term 1993, following statutory consultation on our proposals by the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if his predecessors had worked with teachers, such drastic revision would not have been necessary? Therefore, will he work with the people responsible for implementing the technology curriculum to ensure that such changes work?

I am extremely grateful for all the hard work done by teachers to make that and other parts of the national curriculum work. In the past, all syllabuses have been changed and developed, as they will be in future. The aim of the proposed revision, which will be out for consultation, is to ensure a tilt from the theoretical to the applied. As my hon. Friends and I have made numerous visits to schools, we have gained the impression that such a change is much needed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made in relation to the development of the programme of local management of schools in Lancashire.

Local management of schools is progressing well in Lancashire. All primary and secondary schools have been funded by formula since April 1990. Most now have delegated budgets and all will have full management powers from 1994.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a sixth-form college in Blackpool that has been conspicuously successful in local management as it has enabled the headmaster, staff and governors to employ local tradesmen at a far more competitive cost to make improvements to the school more quickly than would have happened in the days of the old local education authority bureaucracies? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that I hope to have an opportunity to show him or one of his ministerial colleagues that sixth-form college when they are next in the district?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that positive and encouraging message. It fits in exactly with the experiences of my right hon. Friend and myself as we visited schools and colleges up and down the country, where the message that we received was that local management was working well. It is giving school managers the opportunity to take responsibility and use it to the benefit of their school. I believe that the example given by my hon. Friend should be an inspiration to schools and colleges up and down the country, and I cannot wait to visit the college.

Does the Minister accept that the majority of schools in Lancashire feel that the biggest problem with LMS is that the Government have provided insufficient cash resources? If there are insufficient cash resources in the first instance, schools cannot carry out the job. Will he recognise the problem caused by stable staff who are higher salaried, which puts severe pressure on the cash-limited budget?

That exchange could not sum up better the difference between Conservative and Labour Members. We heard from a Conservative Member who was proud of the achievements of his local education system and of a specific college. All we hear from a Labour Member is the tired, routine whingeing that we have become so used to. It really is not good enough; it really will not do. The other lesson that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has yet to learn is that there is no established connection between expenditure and quality of education. Resources will be available where appropriate, but we look to school managers and teachers to go for quality, which is what we want from them.

Will my hon. Friend consider the special requirements of children with special needs in Lancashire? Is he aware of the forthcoming Audit Commission report slamming local authorities for their failure to account for the performance of children with special needs?

That is an important matter. I pay tribute to the personal and political commitment that my hon. Friend has made over many years to it. I defer to his judgment on it. I am aware of the forthcoming Audit Commission report and of its contents. My noble Friend the Minister of State has had a lot to say about it recently in another place. She, the Secretary of State and I are working together to ensure that the delivery of education to children with special needs is of the best. We shall shortly have some important proposals to make which I am sure will please my hon. Friend and many others.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any proposals to reintroduce selection at 11 years throughout the country.

We have consistently made it clear that the Government do not intend to impose any particular organisational pattern for schools. It is, in the first instance, for local education authorities and school governors to establish the organisation most appropriate for their area, in the light of local needs and the wishes of parents and the community. That is why today there are, for example, at least 117 grammar schools maintained by 24 of the 109 LEAs in England, with a further 40 grammar schools in the grant-maintained sector. There are some 30 so-called bilateral schools in the country, which operate a mixed pattern of selective and non-selective admissions arrangements, as well as three technical schools and 13 city technology colleges. There are also comprehensive schools that select some pupils suited to particular specialisms offered by those schools.

I listened with great interest to that statement about the 11-plus. Given that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated on the BBC "On the Record" programme that he would be delighted to see grammar schools flourishing, and given what is happening with the 11-plus in the Wandsworth area, does the Secretary of State intend to reintroduce the selective process by stealth through the schools opt-out system?

Many schools in the maintained and grant-maintained system are considering or developing specialisms in particular areas. That should be welcomed, because it liberates the talents of all our children. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the antediluvian, neo-clause 4 arguments of the late 1960s which he has just raised from the grave are wholly unsuitable for purposes of comparison with the early 1990s. We have as a guarantee of good-quality education the national curriculum, nationally assessed and inspected, for all our children. There will be no second-tier schools in this country by the time we have finished.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that selection is wilfully misunderstood by some Opposition Members and that if there is no selection there is no way to match pupils and their abilities to the courses available in the students' best interests? Will he therefore warmly endorse the selection by aptitude which is the basis of Wandsworth's selection process?

I am extremely interested in what is going on in Wandsworth, as all of us in the Conservative party always are. I must not fetter my discretion for a later stage when these proposals for a change of character come before me, but it is open to maintained schools—grant-maintained or local education authority-maintained —to introduce a large measure of specialism without having to come to the Secretary of State for permission to do so—just as comprehensive schools throughout the country can, I am advised, if they so wish, select small numbers of pupils by aptitude for particular subjects if that is what the local community wants. There is a rich diversity of provision, and so there should be.

The Secretary of State would do well to learn an original script between one Question Time and another. May I remind him that he criticised my views on selection on the last occasion? May I congratulate him on his decision not to introduce selection at the Castle Hall school in Mirfield and ask him to resist both proposals from the right-wing extremists behind him and all attempts to introduce selection by the back door in grant-maintained schools? The arguments are known; selection is wasteful and divisive, and the improvement in our staying-on rates and in the additional numbers in higher education have derived from a predominantly comprehen-sive system. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that and drop this 19th century idea of selection?

As for the Castle Hall school decision, it is open to the school to re-apply at an early stage, having reconsidered the basis of its first application.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure he has for the number of pupils being educated in grant-maintained schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of secondary schools have been granted or have now applied for grant-maintained status.

The total number of pupils currently being educated in grant-maintained schools is estimated to be 160,000.

Will my right hon. Friend help to increase the number of pupils at grant-maintained schools by dealing speedily and favourably with an application from Bushloe high school in my constituency? Is he aware that the application is made not on the basis of right-wing remarks or attitudes but because the pupils' parents, be they Liberal, Labour or Conservative, realise that the best chance of a good education within the school is provided by grant-maintained status?

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I note that his constituency has only one grant-maintained school within it so far, and that is Gartree school. It is an excellent school and I congratulate it on its progress. I hope that the number of grant-maintained schools in the constituency may soon be doubled. I look forward to receiving the application to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Is the Secretary of State aware that opting out is threatening the proper management of secondary schools, to the detriment of pupils? Will he explain how the centralisation of secondary education will benefit choice and standards and provide opportunities?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) he would have heard a pretty accurate description of the wide range and diversity of choice that is available already and on which, I think, schools in the grant-maintained sector will build. I hear, for example, that some schools wish to teach technology bilingually in English and German. That is a marvellous idea. Let us see many more ideas of that sort coming forward from the grant-maintained sector.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the increasing number of young people in grant-maintained schools is a clear sign of the success of those schools? Does he agree that grant-maintained schools represent an admirable opportunity for specialisation? For example, we have inner-city schools specialising in music, science, technology and mathematics. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that these schools represent an excellent opportunity to improve the quality and standard of state education, the sector in which the majority of children are educated?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is not in his place, I think that I can risk saying that if schools want to specialise in ballet—[Interruption.] Oh, he is here. It is too late; I cannot bite on my tongue. If schools want to specialise in ballet, music, performing arts, science or languages, so be it.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for all the spin that he tried to put on his figures, since the general election just 56 schools out of a potential 24,000 have decided to ballot to opt out? That takes us right through to October. Does not that figure show that, far from there being an avalanche of opting out since the election, a great many parents have seen through the rhetoric of opt-out and realise that opting out will lead to no improvement in standards, a loss of parental choice and tight central controls from Whitehall?

With inquiries coming in at the rate of 150 a day, that is a pretty surprising remark from the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid to say that in some parts of the country Labour authorities, over which the hon. Gentleman has no control, have been trying to do all that they possibly can to stop local schools going for grant-maintained status. I promise the House that in the next education Bill to be introduced in the autumn we will introduce measures to put a stop to that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of grant-maintained schools is that they reduce the pupil-teacher ratio, which is to the benefit of the schools and results in less money being spent on administration and more on teaching?

That is why we must try to spend as much money as possible on pupils and as little money as possible on administration. That is not to say that good administration is not needed under a local education authority or a grant-maintained system—of course it is. We need better management and better leadership from those who run our schools. That is something which we need to promote during the next five years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any further plans to meet teachers' union representatives to discuss teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

I expect to meet the teacher unions again early next year to discuss the second report of the school teachers review body.

When the Secretary of State meets the teacher unions, will he tell them that he intends to restore teachers' negotiating status in matters affecting their pay and conditions? Does he recall that before the general election the review body offered the teachers 7.8 per cent? After the election another review body gives the judges, the generals and the top civil servants 30 per cent. Is not that an example of the double standards being operated by the Government? Are not teachers just as important to society as judges and generals? What has all this to do with the classless society? Give the teachers the same.

I congratulate the interim Leader of the Opposition on this excellent question. At least we are getting some opposition from below the Gangway. I would vote for the hon. Gentleman if I had the chance—I think. Before the general election the 7.8 per cent. pay award announced by the teachers review body was warmly welcomed by five out of the six teacher trade unions. Needless to say, the National Union of Teachers did not care for it much, and we have heard the NUT's song sung this afternoon by the interim Leader of the Opposition. The pay review arrangements are working well and I look forward, as I am bound statutorily to do, to meeting the trade unions in due course to hear what they have to say, but the decision is for the review body. Since 1979, teachers' pay has risen by 45 per cent. ahead of inflation. It fell between 1975 and 1979.

Does my right hon. Friend regard the vacancy rate among teachers as a clue to the adequacy of teachers' remuneration and will he say what the signs are in that respect?

As I have just said, teachers' pay has risen by 45 per cent. ahead of inflation since 1979. That is ahead of the general average in adult earnings. The average salary for a schoolteacher—there are 400,000 of them in Britain at the moment, a considerable number—is some £20,000. The vacancy level is lower than it has been for more than a decade, which is good news.

As the Secretary of State is so enthusiastic about pay review bodies, why does he fail to apply to the higher education sector the logic that he adopts in respect of schoolteachers? Why does he not establish a pay review body for university teachers, as he has been urged to do by them and by many Conservative as well as Opposition Members?

As the hon. Gentleman represents the other half of the university city that embraces my constituency, he knows that pay negotiations are currently under way. There are many more universities and polytechnics than ever before, and they are developing very well. Record numbers are staying on in higher and further education. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, the number was about 220,000. The figure today is about 800,000. Universities today derive a substantial proportion of their incomes from sources other than the Government, which gives them much more flexibility when dealing with pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current teaching arrangements for GCSE; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is wholly satisfied with the adequacy of the current teaching arrangements for the GCSE.

As the efficient use of teachers' time is so important in raising GCSE standards, can my hon. Friend confirm that although tests at 14 are important, they will not get in the way of or disturb essential classroom work on raising GCSE standards?

The tests for 14-year-olds are straightfor-ward for teachers to administer and to mark, and are economical of their time. The tests are not expected to encroach significantly on the time that teachers can devote to their GCSE pupils. That is not to say that the marking and manageability of the test will not be examined closely before we settle the detailed arrangements for testing 14-year-olds in 1993. I emphasise that the test results will give teachers hard, objective information about each pupil's strengths and weaknesses, which will provide pupils with the best possible start to their GCSE courses. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I can reassure him that there is no problem or incompatibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what evidence he has of schools operating local management of schools getting into budgetary difficulties.

The Department receives some letters from governors and headteachers expressing concern about their school budgets, but we have no evidence of schools getting into budgetary difficulties.

The Minister keeps pretending that there is no evidence that schools are encountering budgetary difficulties, but the budget of one school in Leyton does not match its staff costs, which is creating long-term teacher vacancies and causing early retirements. Does not the Minister acknowledge that the LMS formula discriminates against longer-serving, experienced teachers, because it is based on average teacher costs instead of actual costs—which are higher in many cases? Special measures are needed to help schools that run into LMS difficulties.

I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman brings such problems to me, but he appears to have bypassed his local education authority somewhere along the line. I suggest that he questions Waltham Forest LEA about the extent to which it delegates school budgets—because it is not yet up to the mark—and the central administration costs that the authority still seems obliged to carry. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade his LEA to sort out those problems, I expect that, under a developed and successful LMS, the very schools to which the hon. Gentleman refers would make better use of their funds, at the level at which expenditure decisions should be made. The hon. Gentleman should ask his local education authority the very questions that he put to me.

As my hon. Friend approaches the three-year LMS review, will he reflect on the fact that in many local education authorities, the formula needs revising in two respects? Although many schools welcome added control over their own budgets, some pressures are emerging. I refer in particular to special educational needs, which have already been mentioned this afternoon, and the question of average and real costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

We have undertaken to examine again the latter point that my hon. Friend raised, but we shall bear it in mind that many LEAs and schools are coping admirably with the changes that are occurring. When making our review, we will bear their managerial successes in mind.

Many schools in my constituency are in budgetary difficulties because of a 4 per cent. budget cut brought about by poll-tax-capping legislation. According to the county treasurer's estimate, there will be a 10 per cent. cut next year. What advice does the Secretary of State give those schools?

My right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers would advise all such schools to ask their local education authority what it is doing, what its policies are and how it expects matters to develop. Under our system, local education authorities still rightly carry the bulk of the responsibilities for local decision-making. I would also advise the schools to make inquiries of the kind described earlier by my right hon. Friend and to consider again all the opportunities that are open to them. If they are not satisfied with what their local education authority is doing, they should break free from it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that I have drawn his attention to the problems affecting a number of schools in my constituency after talking to my local education authority about them? Will he bear out the impression given in his letters to me that the Government are taking action on the issue of average, as opposed to actual, salaries?

I am certainly conscious of the approaches made by my hon. Friend on behalf of the schools in his constituency. They should come as no surprise to anyone who knows how assiduously he looks after his schools and, indeed, all his constituents.

How can the Minister claim that there is no evidence of the major problems that have been caused by local management of schools? Is he completely marooned in the jacuzzi-swirling glass palace, aptly known as the Sanctuary, that passes for the headquarters of the Department for Education? Is he not aware of the existence of independent evidence showing that parents now have to contribute between £80 million and £100 million from their own pockets to meet the shortcomings of local management? Does he not realise that many schools are being forced to appoint the cheapest teachers and to sack the best as a consequence of the scheme?

Had the hon. Gentleman been fortunate enough to occupy the position now occupied by my right hon. Friend, I wonder how long he would have been able to resist that very jacuzzi—were it to exist. Fascinating though it may be, however, that question can exist only in the imagination.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the smaller primary schools are beginning to have difficulty in balancing the books, not least because the funding formula does not adequately recognise that fixed costs bear disproportionately heavily on the budgets of small schools with fewer pupils? Will he listen sympathetically to the representations that are made to him, and does he agree that smaller primary schools are essential to the lives of the communities that they serve?

I can understand the question, that my hon. Friend asked very well indeed, but the balance of expenditure within a local education authority between the secondary and primary sectors is, and must be, very much a matter for that authority to determine. It may well vary from time to time and between one authority and another, but safeguards in the formulae for small schools, and for small primary schools in particular, should operate very much to their advantage. If my hon. Friend has a case in mind, I ask her to let me know about it and I shall consider it to ensure that the school is benefiting as much as it should from the protections that we have put in place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the future of the education social work service.

My right hon. Friend sees a continuing role for the education social work service —more commonly known as the education welfare service —in working with schools, parents and pupils to promote and maintain regular school attendance. The importance of that role is reinforced by new attendance and pupil reporting regulations, which place greater emphasis on the identification of unauthorised absence.

The Minister must be aware that, by any measure, there has been a huge increase in the workload of the education social work service in recent years. What steps are the Government taking to improve staffing levels to take account of its increasing workload? What assessment have they made of the proposed introduction of league tables on truancy for the work of education social workers, and is the Minister aware that that proposal and the direction in which the Government are moving on the issue fly directly in the face of the spirit and intentions of the Children Act 1989?

We certainly value the work of the education welfare service. It is very important that its 3,000 officers in England and Wales should continue their supportive work. There is no suggestion that truancy is anything other than a most serious problem which the Government view very seriously, not least because it is estimated that in the worst-affected areas perhaps one in five pupils is truanting at some stage. We shall continue to ensure that the education welfare service does the job for which it is appointed and shall support it through the new regulations to which I referred in my first answer.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the relationship between the education psychology service and the education welfare service, particularly in relation to the need to produce proper statements for children in need? Is he aware of the possible dangers to the education psychology service from schools opting out, and will he ensure that the service has a future, just as grant-maintained schools also have a future?

I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Opted-out schools are making use of the service. Furthermore, we believe that it is right to give discretion on these matters to grant-maintained schools so that they can make decisions in the light of their own circumstances.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to expand the provision of nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in the provision of nursery education, both independent and state funded, since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of their provision for under-fives. Between 1979 and 1991, the number of under-fives in maintained schools in England rose from 429,000 to 604,000, while the number in independent schools rose from 28,000 to 45,000 —an increase of nearly 200,000 children in all.

Is it not an abdication of duty for the Government always to seek to say that it is solely for local authorities to make provision for nursery education? Will the Minister be more positive about what the Government plan to do to encourage and promote the provision of nursery education throughout Britain? Does he accept that there are great variations in provision from one end of the country to the other and that in some areas it is inadequate? Is not one of the best ways of increasing the life chances of children from underpriviliged families to give them statutory access to nursery places if they wish to take them up?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the provision of nursery education has increased under the Government from four in 10 to five in 10, which is a very satisfactory increase. He should also take account of the fact that the policy on which his party fought the previous election would have involved a considerable increase in expenditure on such matters—in excess of £500 million —money which could well be spent by local authorities for other purposes within the education budget.

Although I warmly welcome the increase in expenditure and the diversity in recent years in nursery provision, whereby we are now spending about £740 million a year on the under-fives—

Question.

Order. I am very keen to get through the Order Paper and I do not like long statements. Straight into the question please.

The question is, does not my hon. Friend welcome that expenditure, because nursery education is the bedrock of education and represents enormous value for money?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of diverse provision for the under-fives. If one considers the international figures, one finds that this country compares very well with our European partners. If one also includes day care, the figure for the relevant age which is covered is about nine in 10.

Will the Minister recognise that almost all the increase there has been because the commitment of Labour authorities to ensure that they offer children—

Question.

Order. If the hon. Lady is not directly putting a question, I must ask her to do so.

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I suspect that the Secretary of State did not hear. I asked, will the Minister—[Interruption.]

Order. We all want to hear, including the Secretary of State.

Will the Minister recognise that fact, and will he commit himself to ensuring that every child in the nation gets the opportunity to receive publicly funded nursery education as the very best start for his education life?

That intervention from the Labour Front Bench was a bit rich, when one recalls that under the previous Labour Government, whom I imagine the hon. Lady supported, the funding for nursery provision was cut substantially from 1976 to 1978.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure for the number of schools that are operating under grant-maintained status.

There are 217 schools operating under grant-maintained status and a further 50 schools have been approved or are minded to be approved.

North Yorkshire schools continue to achieve some of the best examination results in the country and parental approval levels of local schools are very high, but parents and governors note the experience of grant-maintained schools, which have more books, more teachers for pupils and better equipment. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that when he publishes the White Paper in the autumn there will be a scheme for the grant-maintained system to attract the best as well as the worst schools?

My hon. Friend shows a greater understanding of the grant-maintained school system than any members of the Opposition have displayed, because, as he says, the reality is that anyone who visits grant-maintained schools cannot but be impressed by the enthusiasm and confidence of heads, governors and teachers who have discovered that to be in such control of their own futures is a liberation, and one which they welcome. That is the main justification for schools to consider grant-maintained status carefully and whether they wish to accept it. The White Paper that my right hon. Friend hopes to publish shortly will fully reflect that and all the advantages.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the question of local management of schools budgets within the last four weeks.

The Department has received a number of representations within the past four weeks concerning the local management of schools.

Is not the real reason why the Government are so insensitive to the funding crisis m state schools that the great majority of Conservative Members send their children to private schools—public schools—and find their way around the difficulties that exist in the public sector? What do I say to governors in my constituency who are now resigning on the basis that they cannot manage with the scarce resources being allocated by the Government? What do we say in reply?

It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to make such a tired and inaccurate accusation. I remind him and the House that my own children, those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those of the Minister of State all went to the state system. To suggest that in some way we have no understanding of the needs or the strengths of the state system is irresponsible and wrong and ill becomes the hon. Gentleman.

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

The Prime Minister is aware that local authorities nationally have had £15 billion of assets frozen in the bank because of his Government's policy. In the light of the national housing crisis we now face, will the Prime Minister give the House a straightforward answer to my question? Why do we not allow local authorities to build houses for rent, which are much needed, with the money that they already have in the bank?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are perfectly able to use a portion of their accumulated receipts and that has been the position for many years. It is the right position for us to keep and we have no intention of changing it.

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

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

I believe that what is good news for Basildon is good news for the rest of the country. Does the Prime Minister share my constituents' delight in Basildon at yesterday's historic European air fares agreement? Is not it the case that yesterday's agreement is a particular triumph for Britain and for Basildon, as we pressed for the liberalisation of air markets?

My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the triumph of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the very talk of Basildon at the moment. The Community reached an historic agreement yesterday on the final phase of aviation liberalisation. I believe that that is excellent news for the travelling public and it should mean more choice, better services and lower fares. It has been a long time coming, but it is a very welcome agreement.

Will the Prime Minister now serve the public interest by ensuring that the report by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation into the Maxwell companies' pension fraud is published without delay?

I well understand the concerns generated by the whole Maxwell case. I understand that the Securities and Investments Board intends to publish a report on IMRO's findings and conclusions. However, the House will understand that it will be essential to ensure that publication does not jeopardise either civil or criminal proceedings in the Maxwell affair, including those currently under way against Kevin and Ian Maxwell.

I am grateful for that answer. However, I must express the hope that there will not be a delay, even given the requirement to take account of the implications for possible proceedings. Does the Prime Minister accept that the report, as so far recorded in the newspapers, says that the organisation fell short of the high standards which it should have expected of itself and that, therefore, publication is a pressing necessity so that everyone can know just how the organisation fell short, what is the Government's full responsibility in the matter and how that bears on the future of the Maxwell pensioners who have been robbed?

I understand the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but, as I said a moment ago, the report will be published in due course. The SIB intends to publish a report of the findings and conclusions, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would wish to prejudice in any way either the civil or criminal proceedings—nor, I believe, would any hon. Member.

May I in the meantime put it to the Prime Minister that we now know that in 1987 the Bank of England blocked an attempt by Robert Maxwell to take over a bank, that in the following year, 1988, the Department of Trade and Industry granted an investment licence to a main Maxwell company and that later that year IMRO renewed that licence? Is it not clear that in those circumstances both the Government and the system that they established have a clear and serious charge of negligence to answer and that they must answer it? The main responsibility is not with the SIB to publish the report; it must remain with the Government and they must account for their actions and omissions in the whole disgraceful episode.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has not addressed his mind to the necessity of ensuring that nothing is done to prejudice civil or criminal proceedings. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman well understands. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am equally anxious to ensure that the report is considered alongside the SIB's assessment.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that shows that many 14-year-olds like taking tests, in direct contradiction of the many so-called education experts? Is that not another example of how Conservative policy is good for pupils, parents and those who are employed in education?

I warmly welcome the news contained in yesterday's report about testing. It confirms that we were absolutely right to press ahead with testing in the teeth of opposition from the teaching unions and, indeed, from Opposition Members. I hope that, in the light of what has been said in the last couple of days, the Labour party will stop fighting testing, will support it and will change its policy, as it seems to have done on grant-maintained schools.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it was a profound error of judgment for the British Government to press the European Community to lift its package of economic and oil sanctions against South Africa earlier this year? At the European Council meeting in Lisbon this Friday, will he press the EC to reconsider that decision, urge it to support the establishment of an interim Government in South Africa and seek international monitoring of the violence there?

No, I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the recent violence in South Africa. I also note the commitment of the South African Government to bring to justice the people responsible for that violence. The prime responsibility for law and order rests, as it must do, with the South African Government. But they have made enormous strides towards representa-tive democracy. I understand the strength of feeling that exists at the moment, but it is of great importance that the talks do not break down and that they continue, for great progress has been made. The people who will stand to gain most from the successful conclusion of the talks are the people in South Africa who have least and about whom we should be most concerned.

In the tragic and violent disorder that is now regrettably taking place in South Africa, is my right hon. Friend not absolutely right to send a message of support to President de Klerk, who has come so far in his brave and courageous attempt to find a democratic solution which is satisfactory to all parties? In those circumstances, should not the message go to Mr. Mandela and the African National Congress that empty gestures such as suggestions of Olympic boycotts and sanctions will only hinder their chances and restrict the people of South Africa in the wonderful opportunities that they now have in front of them?

Over recent months I have had many opportunities to discuss the present situation in South Africa with both President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I remain closely in touch with both of them. What is necessary at the moment is that both of them stand back from the present difficulties and then determine how it will be possible to continue the talks and reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 26 January that the Government's mortgage rescue scheme had "stopped repossessions"? Is he aware that since then, for every family mortgage rescued, 2,000 homes have been repossessed and that repossessions are now running at 140 families a day? Does he recognise that what he did then, although welcome, was too little and too late and that he now needs to do something more?

No. I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were there to diminish the number of repossessions—where people are in receipt of income support, the repossession does not proceed. Repossessions are falling and that has been acknowledged, not merely by the Government but by many others. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the facts.

Following my right hon. Friend's meeting with Members of the European Parliament last week and in the spirit of subsidiarity and our right to govern our democratic processes, is the Prime Minister able to assure the House that the European elections in 1994 will be conducted under the present voting system?

That is certainly my intention.

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

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

Would the Prime Minister like to commiserate with the millions of English football fans who have had to endure their team's performance during the past few weeks? Would he like to reflect on Graham Taylor's commitment to deal with his European problems by playing it long? Indeed, Graham Taylor might only be happy once he has picked the whole Wimbledon team to play for England. Does the Prime Minister agree that his European problems look just as difficult and troublesome? Does he further agree that, like the tactics of the England team manager, his commitment to play his European problems long, and to avoid an early debate on them in the House, is just as likely to prove to be unsuccessful?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries me with him on either proposition. I offer the same support and encouragement to the England football team that I was happy to offer to the Scottish team after its excellent performance in the recent championships. On the European policy of the Government, I have made it clear that we shall have a further debate before the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. That remains the case, but the time is not yet right to bring the Bill back.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the British Government's part in negotiating the first-ever global ban on chemical weapons. Does he agree that one of the gravest threats to peace in the years ahead will come from the acquisition of a non-conventional weapons capability by third-world military dictatorships. many supplied by European countries? Is it not time that steps were taken to put on notice British defence contractors and others in European countries that they cannot expect Government contracts if they forge documentation, as evidence shows has been happening, to avoid the Government's embargoes on the export of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

My hon. Friend is right in his strictures on chemical weapons. If he has any detailed information on the second aspect of his question, I should be happy to receive it.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that in February the Government announced a settlement of RECHAR and promised action with all expedition? It is now July—[HON. MEMBERS: "June."] It is now almost July and no ground rules have been agreed. I have sent two questions to the President of the Board of Trade and have written him one letter, but he still has not replied. Will the right hon. Gentleman sack him and get something done?

It is almost July and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is almost ready to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members welcomed the abolition of the National Economic Development Council, or Neddy, last week for it meant an end to trade union domination and the running of the country through the union block vote?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that, in its day, Neddy did have a role to play, but that day has passed. I think that the right decision was taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will lists his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June 1992.

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

Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where I hope that he learnt a lot about the environment, will he support moves in this Parliament to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people? [interruption.]

I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman repeats his question, I will try to answer it.

Order. If the hon. Member repeats his question, we will all be able to hear it.

Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where, undoubtedly, he learnt much about the environment, will he support legislation in the House to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people?

No, Madam. That is a matter of personal choice.