To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in the last month on key stage 3 English.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of the responses he has received regarding the key stage 3 English tests for 1993 have been critical of his proposals in their present form.

I have received various letters on key stage 3 English. These raise a wide range of issues. I made an announcement about them on 19 February.

Is the Secretary of State aware that today hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received a further letter from teachers' representatives showing that 99 per cent. of teachers involved in the tests have described them as inadequately planned and prepared? In the face of growing opposition from teachers, parents and school governors, why does the Secretary of State persist in pushing forward with the tests? Is it not time that he postponed them?

I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He cannot be aware that the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers have all welcomed my announcement on 19 February. Characteristically, the two TUC-related trades unions—the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—continue with their threats. In the face of evidence of growing illiteracy, it is critically important that the tests go ahead this year and in future, so that we can deal with the problem, which I am afraid has been growing since the 1960s.

The Secretary of State will have received many representations from my constituency in Plymouth, from Devon and throughout the country regarding key stage 3 English tests. Last week, he will have received a letter from the Tory chair of a governing body—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chair?"] That is how he describes himself. He is the chair of Devonport high school for boys, a grammar school in Plymouth, and he strongly objects to the tests. Is not the fact that the Secretary of State has had to defer publication of the test results this year an indication that the tests are flawed? In the light of that, will he make them optional this year, so that governors can make a proper choice about what is right for their children?

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands a serious situation in the teaching of English. Recent independent evidence, made available and published two Fridays ago, showed that up to a third of young people leaving school aged 16 and going to further education colleges needed remedial help with understanding English because they had the reading age of 14-year-olds. That shows the urgency of the situation and the necessity of having a test at 14 as soon as possible, to identify those young men and women who need help with grappling with the English language—a problem which should have been sorted out long before they reached the age of 16.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people who have studied his statement on 19 February are grateful for it, but hope that he will keep in close touch with heads of English and others, and monitor closely the first unpublished tests?

I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome and am pleased to see him back in the Chamber after his recent ill health. What he says is right—we should monitor carefully the results of the tests this summer. They will be made known to parents and we shall publish the national picture, which I hope will not give me cause for concern, as I fear that it may—I hope that I am proved wrong. We shall also ask the inspectorate—the Office for Standards in Education—to examine the conduct of the tests. As each test is introduced each year—whether it is key stage English 3, the GCSE, or the A-level—it is preparation for the next year's tests, and each test is refined and developed. Teachers have been teaching children approaching the age of 14 this year key stage English 3 for three years and have had a lot of time for preparation. They have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the tests.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. Can he explain why any competent teacher should have anything to fear from demonstrating that he has reached the standards expected of him?

I think that most teachers are highly professional and I pay tribute to our hard-working teachers. Sometimes, however, there is a bit of fear of the unknown and of something new. People do not like their performance to be exposed, professionals in particular. We in this place are exposed in our performance every clay. When something new comes along, sometimes people are rather frightened of it, but teachers of English should remember that, last year, when the tests for maths and science were first held, they were universally reported on by the inspectorate as having been successful and enjoyed by pupils. Truancy on that day went right down, because 98 per cent. of children turned up to do those tests, which was far more than are normally in school. Children will enjoy the new test and will benefit from it.

Leaving aside the Secretary of State's new answer for truancy, which seems to rely on having tests every day, the Labour party welcomes his partial climbdown regarding the reporting of the results of the key stage 3 test. The Opposition do not accept, however, that those tests are essential for identifying illiteracy, although we find it interesting that the Secretary of State referred to "growing illiteracy" after the Government have been in power for 14 years. Will the Secretary of State now follow through the logic of his own acknowledgment that the tests are flawed and postpone them for a year so that parents and teachers can have proper confidence in tests that have been properly trialled?

I am very sorry that the hon. Lady should sneer at what the Government, in a coalition of interested people, are doing to try to deal with the issue of truancy up and down the land. That shows the attitude of those on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Lady has displayed what I have always suspected about her; she does not support the concept of testing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage more 16-year-olds to attend colleges of further education.

The Government are committed to raising levels of participation and achievement. The proportion of 16-year-olds in education and training has now reached 87 per cent., which is an increase of 20 points since 1979. Our public expenditure plans already provide for 25 per cent. more students in further education over the next three years.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the £6 million investment that has been approved by the Government for the brand new campus of the North-West Kent college at Lower Higham road in Chalk near Gravesend. May I rest assured that my hon. Friend will give maximum encouragement to my constituents aged 16 and older to take advantage of the excellent courses to be found in that college in electronics, engineering, catering and many other interesting subjects?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am aware of Kent LEA's current provisional capital resources for the county, which are now being considered, taking account of competing claims, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand. An announcement on these matters will be made shortly.

Although the House would welcome provision to encourage more 16-year-olds to stay on in education, does the Minister accept that the findings of the Audit Commission, which were published recently, justify the concern felt about a number of students already in further education, not least because of the high drop-out rate? Does he accept that something needs to be done urgently to provide the motivation for young people who can see little point in pursuing further education when there is no prospect before them other than unemployment?

I, too, have studied the recent Audit Commission report and welcome its examination of the subject. We clearly need to secure the best possible value for the existing and enhanced provision that we are making for further education. We need to have higher standards and less drop-out. The figures that the Audit Commission exposed revealed a number of qualifying factors on the drop-out rate, including those who move to other courses in the same institution or to other sorts of study or directly into employment. We need to ensure the best possible counselling for our young people before they go into further education courses, a reasonable range of courses, proper advice while they are on those courses and, above all, proper vocational paths, which we are securing through national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Wiltshire schools have opted for grant-maintained status in the (a) primary and (b) secondary sectors.

One primary school and three secondary schools in Wiltshire are already operating as self-governing grant-maintained state schools or have been approved for GM status. A further three primary and two secondary schools have voted in favour of applying for GM status and have applications in the pipeline.

Is my hon. Friend aware that four schools to which my constituents send their children in the Swindon area have had ballots and negatived the proposal to go for grant-maintained status? Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at that outcome, which has been largely a result of general election-style canvassing by Labour supporters? Does he agree that the only people to lose out as a result are the children in those schools? If he does agree, what does he see as the way forward?

I am grateful, but, frankly, not surprised, that my hon. Friend has cited an example from his constituency. Up and down the country there have been shady goings-on with regard to grant-maintained ballots, emanating from some politically motivated people in virtually every local education authority. However, in spite of that, so far the rate of approval of yes votes in grant-maintained ballots has been 80 per cent. and in February it was 82 per cent. We can take great encouragement from that. There are measures already in the Education Bill, which we shall be discussing on Report later today, designed to improve the balance provided to parents, by providing for modest sums to be made available to governing bodies for expenses incurred in promoting grant-maintained status and limiting local education authority expenditure on publications associated with ballots. That will redress the balance between authorities and governing bodies. We believe that those and other measures in the Bill will correct the imbalance that has existed until now and ensure that parents come forward with informed and constructive views.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss graduate employment.

My right hon. Friend meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time to discuss general higher education issues. He has not received a specific request to discuss graduate employment.

Do not the ghastly numbers of unemployed young talent show that a tremendous opportunity for our country has been missed? In a week when President Clinton has introduced a bold and imaginative new initiative for young people, is it not about time that the Government had the imagination to use the talents of young people to do something about the urgent social and industrial problems of our country?

The hon. Gentleman perhaps forgets that we have already rapidly expanded the number of students in higher education at the expense of the taxpayer. I would not suggest to the House that graduate employment should be immune to the recession. It is important that we build on the existing high participation rates in higher education and the growing contribution and involvement of young people in further education. That is the best possible thing that those young people can do if there are employment difficulties. I strongly advise them to get the skills that they require, ready for when the upturn comes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in a period of world recession, anyone who is fortunate enough to achieve education in the higher sphere—particularly in a university—should consider carefully and seriously the discipline that they expect to study, if they are to look forward to the opportunities that will arise when the world comes out of recession?

As ever, my hon. Friend is on a good point. It is important that those at university should make the best possible use of their time there. There is no better way of ensuring that this country comes out of recession at the head of the line than having the highest possible ratio of skills in our population.

Does the Minister accept that work and education are the foundation of human well-being and that the willingness of people to be educated and trained and to work is a nation's greatest asset? Given that undergraduates are, by definition, the best and most expensively educated human assets that this country has, does the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) indicate that neither the Minister nor any of his colleagues has taken a single initiative in discussing the issue of graduate unemployment?

The Department primarily responsible for employment matters is the Department of Employment. The original question asked specifically when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. As and when it makes such a request, I shall respond. I have shown the House that we have increased the involvement of our younger people in higher and further education. We plan to continue doing that and to have the best-educated and best-skilled work force in employment, to exploit in future the competitive advantage that skills can bring to industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the drop-out rate of students on full-time courses after the age of 16 years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the proportion of students in full-time education post-16 who are failing to complete their course of studies.

I am very concerned by the recent report from the Audit Commission and the Office for Standards in Education, which identified unacceptably high drop-out rates among 16 to 19-year-olds. Schools and colleges should tackle that urgently. Our policies of improving the information and qualifications available to young people will help them make better choices and strengthen their motivation to succeed. We will publish information about vocational examination results of schools and colleges to encourage that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that students sometimes experience great difficulty in transferring to not only sixth forms but universities? As someone who lasted only six months at university, I understand those difficulties. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Department will carefully examine the way in which universities and sixth-form colleges approach that aspect? I pay tribute to Bournemouth university and to Weymouth sixth-form college for the way in which they help students to select relevant courses and to make a successful transition. Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing college and university drop-out rates, so that students—such as my own four children, who are all receiving a state education—will be able to make sensible decisions on their choice of university education?

I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) in paying tribute to the university and sixth-form college in his constituency, both of which are excellent. I agree also that the drop-out rate should cause us concern. I believe that it is partly due to young people making the wrong career choice—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred earlier—and partly to young people not receiving closer supervision at school and closer instruction at college. That is one reason why we shall make in the next three years a 25 per cent. increase in the number of students entering further education colleges. As young people make decisions about which career path to follow in vocational or academic education, it is critically important that they have the information that they need. I said in my original answer that we will publish the results of vocational examinations. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is on to something good, and perhaps we should publish drop-out rates as well. They might tell us something about not only young people but colleges.

I am sure that the House agrees that the present drop-out rate of one in three among students over 16 is unacceptable, as the Secretary of State said. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government must take a major share of the responsibility for that? It is not just a question involving colleges and universities—though they have a role. The Government's responsibility is in respect of poverty. Do the Government realise that until they reverse their mistaken decision to freeze the student grant and to enable students to have an adequate standard of living, drop-outs will continue at an unacceptably high level?

It is not for me to say whether the hon. Gentleman's question relates directly to the question on the Order Paper. I can say, however, that there is no evidence of any fall in the number of people—from all social and economic backgrounds—who enter further and higher education.

Notwithstanding the difficulties identified in this and earlier questions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's record, and the prospects for further education, are exemplary? It is important that the expansion mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, enables us to tackle more effectively both the problems of the juvenile unemployed and some of the law-and-order problems to which our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will refer in his statement later this afternoon.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is, in large part, the architect of the recent expansion in further education—480 colleges are involved and there will be one in or near the constituency of every hon. Member in the House—and I pay tribute to him for that.

Order. These answers are much too long.

The Audit Commission has revealed that 150,000 young people are leaving full-time courses without the qualifications for which those courses were designed. Does the Secretary of State accept that, after 14 years of Conservative government, that is a scandal? Does he accept that it is not the fault of the schools and colleges that he would seek to blame, but the Government's fault? Does he also accept that the Government's mindless view that the way in which to resolve the unemployment problem for young people is simply to get them into the colleges—again, without any recognition of the importance of quality and qualifications—gives neither the students nor the country any hope, or anything else?

Order. Questions are proceeding far too slowly. We want brisker questions, and I certainly want brisker answers.

I shall put my question very simply. After 14 years, what do the Government now intend to do about the problem?

We intend to do what I have been saying in my "much too long" answers. My replies to the hon. Gentleman's first two questions are, respectively, no and no.

That is the sort of answer that I like.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what flexibility he has given to schools on the length of the school day.

I shall try to show some improvement, Madam Speaker.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is not flexibility one of the great, outstanding freedoms for our schools? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to that freedom is flexibility in regard to pay, enabling existing teachers to be paid more for the extra hours that they work and removing the need to recruit part-time extra teachers? A quick yes and yes to that question will do nicely.

In shorthand, maybe and maybe. If I may, however, I shall answer in slightly longer hand.

In any consideration of the flexibility of the school day, will the Secretary of State issue guidance to schools on the better community use of their facilities? Would not a better way to tackle problems such as truancy be to make the school a real part of the community, instead of its being hived off in an opt-out corner and the rest of the community feeling divorced from the people using the school?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Not only the concept but the actuality of community schools and colleges, of which there are many, should be applauded. The hon. Gentleman is right and we should do all that we can.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools have so far applied for grant-maintained status; what that is as a percentage of the total number of secondary schools in England; and in which local education authorities no grant-maintained schools have so far emerged.

I shall answer these questions as quickly as possible.

With a record like that, we are going to give my right hon. Friend an E for effort this term. Does he appreciate that the opportunity provided by grant-maintained status has shifted the balance of power so that school governors who are not politically correct are no longer sacked, as happened on the Isle of Wight under the Liberal Democrat-controlled education authority, has put an end to the councillor busybody and has given power back to the principals and parents of schools throughout the United Kingdom and the Isle of Wight?

We all know about the shameful and undemocratic practices of the Liberal Democrats on the Isle of Wight and I wholly condemn them. I believe that power is being redistributed in schools from the centre or hub of the wheel to the rim. Across the country, more parents and governors are taking control of their schools not only through grant-maintained status but through local management of schools which, four or five years ago, the Labour party so opposed.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the figures that he has just given underline the growing importance and success of the grant-maintained schools sector? Will he therefore disregard the ill-informed and ill-considered advice from certain members of the Opposition who would abolish grant-maintained schools? Will he also reflect on the number of children now being educated in the grant-maintained school sector?

The number of children in England being educated in self-governing state schools, which is what grant-maintained schools are, is 236,000. There are an awful lot of committed parents, teachers and governors and their numbers will be growing in the next year or so. Unfortunately, they know, because the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has made it clear, that there is a Labour commitment to abolish grant-maintained schools. I wonder what the modernisers in the Labour party think about that.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the widespread concern that has been expressed about grant maintained status being granted in the primary sector, where the Government are giving no guarantees to protect funding for nursery education and, incidentally, no protection where they insist on the rationalisation of schools to remove surplus places?

The position of primary schools is clear. If they have a nursery class or stream when they become grant maintained, that is their status when the Secretary of State gives his permission for the school to become grant maintained. If not, they have to come to the Secretary of State and publish an application for a change of character.

Does the Secretary of State believe that schools applying for grant-maintained status are exercising what he falsely believes to be parental choice and democracy? If so, is he willing to extend those principles further and allow future generations of parents to exercise parental choice in voting back out of grant-maintained status into LEA control, or is his belief in democracy really a sham and does he believe in it only when it supports Tory party dogma?

For a Liberal, the hon. Gentleman is showing appalling contempt for the rule of the ballot box because in eight out of 10 ballots for grant-maintained schools, the vote is an overwhelming yes and, generally speaking, between 60 and 70 per cent. of parents entitled to vote turn out to vote—far more than in a local government election. The hon. Gentleman is pouring contempt and scorn on the parents who voted in favour of the two grant-maintained schools in Bath which he has done nothing but attack since he has been a Member of Parliament.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent poll organised by the BBC on Baverstock school in Birmingham found that although, at the time it opted out, 75 per cent. of parents voted in favour, two years later, 99 per cent. of those people eligible to vote were in favour of the opting out? Does not that show how popular grant-maintained status becomes over a period of time and how idiotic it is for the Opposition to threaten to abolish grant-maintained schools?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The BBC broadcast the results of such a poll to which I listened carefully, as I always do. It shows increasing support for Baverstock school as a grant-maintained school. It is one of the biggest schools in the country with, I think, more than 2,000 pupils. After two years' experience, almost every parent of a child at that school has said that they wish it to remain grant maintained and welcome the fact that it has become a successful beacon in Birmingham's educational landscape.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on comparative levels of expenditure per pupil in individual local authorities.

Education standard spending assessments allow for variations in the costs that authorities in different parts of the country incur in providing a common standard of service. Differences in levels of actual expenditure per pupil depend, however, on spending decisions taken by local education authorities.

The Minister will be aware that there is a school of thought that people born in Yorkshire are naturally more intelligent than the rest of the nation. Do the Government subscribe to that school of thought, or are there other reasons why pupils in Wakefield are allowed £1,000 a year less expenditure per head than pupils in Conservative Wandsworth?

I might be tempted to subscribe to the view that the further north one is born the more intelligent one is, but I will leave that to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman must not get into the business of trying to make invidious but specious comparisons about expenditure per pupil across the country, for a number of reasons. In several authorities expenditure per pupil is less than in his own; his is 15th off the bottom of that particular league table, if he wishes to look at it in that way. More particularly, there is no proven relation whatever between expenditure per pupil and quality of education. Many excellent local education authorities have amply demonstrated that it is the quality and outputs that count, not the money that is shoved in at the other end.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that point from the evidence of going round the excellent schools in Surrey and particularly in Esher, where teachers are making use of the local management budget and getting tremendous output, very high-quality results and low levels of truancy? That is what teaching is all about: the commitment of the teachers and the headmasters in the schools.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is typical that from the Government side of the House we have an acknowledgement of how quality of education comes about, whereas from the Opposition we simply have an obsession with money and expenditure. That sums up as well as anything could the different attitude to education of the two sides of the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the funding of universities.

We regularly receive representations about a range of higher education matters, including funding.

Why is not the Secretary of State intervening to stop institutions such as Edinburgh university and Royal Holloway and Bedford New college selling priceless art treasures by artists such as Turner and Gainsborough to balance their books? Will the Secretary of State intervene to stop universities selling off the family silver?

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's sense of geography. He will know that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will shortly take over responsibility for—[Interruption.] One at a time, please. The Universities Funding Council is responsible now; the hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. He will also know that there is a Charity Commission and an export licensing procedure under which such matters will be considered. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the real resources made available to the university sector are at record levels. The problems of particular institutions need to be addressed by those institutions in connection with the relevant funding councils.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that our system of student support is more generous than that in any other country in the western world? Will he further confirm that the reaction to student loans has been for more people to apply to go to university, not fewer, as the Opposition forecast?

Not only is the provision for student support one of the most generous, if not the most generous, in the western world, but support for the university sector generally through the taxpayer, running at £4 billion a year, is extremely generous and contributes to excellent results.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about pupil-teacher ratios in all schools and separately in primary and secondary schools.

As at January 1992 the overall pupil-teacher ratio in England stood at 17·44:1, compared with 18·94:1 in 1979. The within school pupil-teacher ratios were 22·21:1 for primary schools and 15·83:1 for secondary schools.

Is the Minister aware that throughout the country many teachers have lost their jobs because of the funding arrangements? In my constituency, for example, Gilesgate primary school has lost three teachers over the past three years, which has had a detrimental effect on the pupil-teacher ratio. When will the Government accept that more resources are needed so that schools can pay their teachers and give children an equal opportunity in education?

The hon. Gentleman seems to resent the fact that through local management of schools and grant-maintained status we are now giving the responsibility for staffing and the management of schools to governors and heads. They are the people in the best position to make arrangements for teaching in schools and classrooms and it is to them that we entrust that responsibility, which they are discharging admirably.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way in which local education authorities can improve pupil-teacher ratios is to dismantle the expensive administration of school meals and devolve the arrangements to parents? Does he recall that my local authority employed more than 170 additional teachers by dispensing with that apparatus?

In the matter of meals I defer to my hon. Friend, who is the House's expert. He has made an important point—the more opportunities that those who are responsible for managing schools, such as governors, heads and staff, take to alter the arrangements so as to deliver the best quality of education and the maximum expenditure in the classroom, the better the quality of education will be. We want to see the most flexible arrangements and the greatest possible variety of arrangements in schools throughout the country, as befits local requirements.

Does the Minister believe that class sizes matter in terms of the quality of education delivered to our children?

I do not believe that there is any proven connection between class sizes and quality of education.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an interesting fact that about 14 years ago the discussions were about reducing the size of classes that still contained more than 40 pupils, whereas today the discussion is about removing the remaining classes with more than 30 pupils? Is not that a measure of the progress that has been made under the Government in improving teacher-pupil ratios?

Yes, indeed. The vast bulk of our children are educated in classes of fewer than 30. The average class size is well under 30. It would be wrong to focus exclusively and entirely on that. It may be a factor, but it is by no means the definitive factor.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what extra support will be made available to schools to assist with the implementation of physical education in the national curriculum.

In 1993–94, the grants for education support and training programme will support £180 million of national curriculum-related activity, including £85 million of expenditure for national curriculum books, equipment and training. It will be for schools to decide exactly how that money is spent.

Is the Minister aware of the specific difficulties of physical education, especially in our inner city schools? Does he realise that in key stage 1 the assessment will require more than 900 individual tests which must be carried out by a teacher? Does he agree that more resources must be targeted for physical education, or that basic skill will not be learnt by children in primary schools?

Of course, I appreciate the points that the hon. Lady has made, but, with the exception of mathematics and science teachers in primary schools, we have not so far been persuaded that to ring fence expenditure to specific curriculum items is the correct way to go. Therefore, for physical education, as for other subjects in the curriculum, we believe that it is right for local decisions to be made on the use, distribution and prioritisation of the resources that we have given to education. We believe that those resources are more than adequate to carry out the task.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more power that we can extend to individuals by devolving authority and decision making in our schools and the national health service, the better? Is not the best way to give individuals more responsibility and more control over their lives by reducing the power of the state? Is it the case that, on this crucial test, those who belatedly speak the language of conservatism but still think like socialists, such as the Leader of the Opposition, fail dismally?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description. We believe in giving individuals more choice and more power. I fear that that is not the policy of the Labour party. Labour Members want less choice and more government, rather than more choice and less power for government.

In that case, can the Prime Minister tell us why he is opposed to a freedom of information Act?

Because we are extending freedom of information in practical ways—unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who would not give information to parents about schools or to users of the health service about hospitals. That is the sort of information which people in the country want, not the sort of information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerns himself about.

If the Prime Minister is genuinely committed to giving information and to open government, can I give him a simple test? How many billions of pounds were lost in the currency dealings in the fiasco of Black Wednesday?

As a former shadow Chancellor, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that no one knows what the figures will be until those things are unwound, he should not be sitting where he is.

Is not it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister either does not know how many billions of pounds were lost or is unwilling to tell us? Does not he understand that there is a crucial difference between the national interest and covering up the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

We are dealing with the national interest day after day, with no assistance whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Could the Prime Minister give to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland an assurance that the envoy from President Clinton to which he has agreed will not hold talks with the IRA, Sinn Fein or any other terrorist organisation?

The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what announcement is made about the fact finder who I believe may come from the United States to Northern Ireland. Many distinguished people from the United States have been there in the past. Many of them have gone back with great enthusiasm for the changes that they have found in Northern Ireland and the great desire among the people of Northern Ireland for a lasting peace.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

After 14 years of Tory government, the unemployed and low paid in my constituency are sick of hearing the Prime Minister saying why we cannot have the social chapter in Britain. Can he tell the people of Britain why France, Germany and all the other countries in Europe can have the social chapter but Britain cannot? Are we a second-class Britain as a result of 14 years of Tory rule?

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not know his own constituency better, for he would know that unemployment there has fallen 16 per cent. since 1987. He may also have noticed the trend in unemployment in France and Germany.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the citizens charter, which very properly enhances the rights of the citizen, should be complemented by a renewed emphasis on the obligations of the citizen, so that we foster and strengthen mutual responsibility in our society? Will he therefore look systematically to identify and eliminate obstacles that at present discourage voluntary work and charitable activity, including aspects of eligibility for both unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit as well as aspects of the council tax and VAT regimes?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have done a great deal to improve the quantity and quality of voluntary work in this country. I am happy to examine any practical suggestions to improve it even further.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

May I offer the Prime Minister the chance to welcome Chelsea's long-awaited victory last night after a change of manager? Does he now understand why millions of unemployed people in Britain would welcome a change of manager of the economy?

The hon. Gentleman may have spent some time rehearsing that. It was not time well spent. Perhaps he needs a training course.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the recent "Small Business Bulletin" from Barclays bank, which shows that there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of small businesses in Britain in the last quarter of 1992 as compared with the last quarter of 1991? This is good news— [Interruption] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear it, but it is good news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows the resilience of the small business sector in Britain? When he next has a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he encourage him to introduce on 16 March a small business-friendly Budget which will help our small businesses?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the small business sector both to the economy generally and in terms of job creation. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that after 14 years he stands condemned about the seedy state of Britain today? Pensioners have a job to live; they do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. The banks rip off customers. The bosses steal the pension funds. Ministers have their debts paid by the taxpayer. Is not that the reason why the British people understand him less and condemn him more?

The hon. Gentleman must have been taking lessons from the Liberal spokesman.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective weapons in the armoury against crime is the right to refer to the Court of Appeal any sentence that may be considered too lenient? Does he also agree that those who voted against that in the House, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have very little right to posture about crime and even less right to parade their self-righteousness up and down the country?

My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. The public rightly expect the sentence to fit the crime. The power for the Attorney-General to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal is an important weapon in the fight against crime and one which I believe will have the warm support of people right across the country. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will change his mind. At the moment, his voting record on crime is a worse record than that of an old lag.

Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his election promises?

All Governments intend to keep their election promises.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

Is not it clear that many of the young people who are committing crimes are not unemployed, because they should still be at school? In that regard, may we have a vigorous campaign against truancy, to improve education and to reduce crime?

I believe that it is necessary to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that we need to cut down on truancy and if we are successful in doing that, we are likely to cut down on juvenile crime. That is why in future, against the opposition Labour Members, we propose to include information on truancy rates when we publish how schools are performing. It is vital information for parents and vital information against crime and it would be helpful if the Opposition would support us in that policy.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the revelation that the Director General of the BBC has been avoiding tax on a massive scale leaves a very nasty taste in the month? Does he further agree that John Birt should pay back to the Inland Revenue all the tax avoided in his period as deputy director general?

Although I am familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter for the Director General of the BBC and the Inland Revenue.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the revealing remarks of Professor Halsey on the way in which the schools were hijacked in the 1960s and 1970s by the trendy lefties? Is not it clear that now that those pupils who had been hijacked are parents, they are unable to give their families the moral base to know what is right and wrong today? Will he not be deflected from his path?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I believe that Professor Halsey now speaks for the views of parents, whereas he certainly did not in the 1960s. The view of the overwhelming number of parents is that the fashionable theories of the 1960s did immense damage to the quality of education in this country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Can the Prime Minister tell me whether it is his policy to achieve full employment?

Every Prime Minister wishes to achieve full employment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if discipline is not instilled at home it cannot be reinforced in schools and then enforced in society? Do not the people of this country have a right to expect the courts to be tough on parents who refuse to apply discipline to their children?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take firm action with that relatively small number of young people who are persistent offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about that shortly.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to visit one of the nursery schools in my constituency, or in some other constituency, to remind himself that it is 21 years since a previous Tory Government gave a commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds? Does he agree that that promise, far from being fulfilled, is now rapidly being forgotten? If he is really concerned about family life in this country, he will ensure that deprivation and other family difficulties are identified by having children under expert eyes at a very early age? Does he agree that, by his meanness in nursery education, he is depriving hundreds of young children of educational opportunities and of care and attention?

I know that the hon. Lady takes a great interest in this matter. That being the case, she will know that there are more rising fives—four-year-olds—going to school in this country than in any other European country. We have a different pattern of provision, by which our youngsters are brought into school earlier. Notwithstanding that fact, there has been a significant increase in nursery provision.