To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the relationship between the Funding Agency for Schools and local education authorities. [19168]

The Funding Agency for Schools now has shared or sole planning responsibility for the supply of school places in 50 local education authorities. It also has regular contact with LEAs about the funding of grant-maintained schools. In my experience, those relationships are generally constructive.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Liberal Democrat-controlled Wiltshire county council told his Department that it had a clear mandate and the agreement of heads to take money out of school budgets when neither of those claims was true? Does the FAS have powers to investigate such deception?

I know that my hon. Friend has corresponded with the FAS about this matter. I understand that the GM schools were initially consulted about the proposal to which he refers but that they did not respond as a result of a misunderstanding about the document that they were sent. From the evidence that I have so far received, it does not appear that the LEA intended any deception. In the event, as my hon. Friend knows, the proposal to which the GM schools eventually took great exception was at variance with the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It was accordingly modified by her before it was approved, and a ceiling of 0.5 per cent. was imposed on the percentage of the general schools budget.

As the grant-maintained schools movement in Wales has run entirely into the sand, despite the constraints on local education funding and the enticements to schools to become grant-maintained, does the Minister agree that there is now no reason to establish a schools funding agency for Wales?

The hon. Gentleman knows better than to tempt me down the highways and byways of the Principality. However, if the energy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is as great as I know it is from having worked with him I am sure that he will draw inspiration from, for instance, the fact that, last month alone, eight out of 10 ballots in England resulted in a yes vote to become grant-maintained.

I know that it is extremely difficult to obtain a straight answer to a straight question from the Government on education, but the relationship between LEAs and the FAS depends on the number of grant-maintained schools in a given part of the country.

The whole House enjoyed that one. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, as he has been told many times from the Dispatch Box, that we have no plans to make such a change.

Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers who behave like yobboes and hooligans in public, whether they are employed by GM schools or local authority schools, are likely to be unsatisfactory in professional terms? From experience, I know that often they are the people who do least in the classroom and elsewhere in the school.

As my hon. Friend knows from his wide experience, those are matters for governing bodies. I doubt whether many governors across the country would have been other than appalled at some of the scenes at the National Union of Teachers' conference, which did no service to the union. There is no place in the classroom for politics; what teachers do in their spare time must be a matter for them. The incident did not assist in the projection of teaching as the honourable and proper profession that we know it to be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she last met teachers or their representatives to discuss pay and conditions; and if she will make a statement. [19169]

I discussed pay and conditions with representatives of each of the main professional teacher associations at meetings held in March. At the end of March, I announced my acceptance of the independent review body's recommendations.

Does the Secretary of State realise that vague promises about possible jam tomorrow are simply not good enough and that parental support for teachers and for a better education service remains strong? What will she do, here and now, to tackle the problems of class sizes and to ensure that the teachers' pay award is fully and properly funded?

Each year local authorities say that funding is insufficient. The settlement is manageable, although it is tough and has a variable impact across the country. The vast majority of local authorities have managed to fund the teachers' pay award in full, many of which are funding other aspects of education in addition. There is no accumulated evidence to link class size with attainment. Class sizes have edged up over the past couple of years and, I am glad to say, standards have risen a great deal.

Is my right lion. Friend aware that Northumberland county council has cut £800,000 from its schools budget amid a well-orchestrated campaign to convince parents that it is the Government's fault? Does he realise that the county council decided, at the same time, to spend £700,000 a year funding road races? Furthermore, a few days ago it decided to award county councillors higher allowances—it will spend a further £400,000 a year on allowances, including a 260 per cent. increase in the basic allowance. Does that not show that Labour local authorities are more concerned with propaganda than with educating children?

It seems extraordinary that a local authority should place greater emphasis on councillors' allowances than on spending in the classroom. That merely goes to prove what we have been saying all along—that the vast majority of authorities are able to identify their priorities and protect front-line services. What a pity it is that Northumberland is not prepared to do so.

In the light of the right hon. Lady's statement about class sizes, will she tell us why class sizes in public schools are much lower than in state schools?

I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Members so frequently raise the subject of independent education. I should have thought that they might be embarrassed that so many of their colleagues are in the awkward position of wanting to exercise choice for their own children while opposing it for other people's. Conservatives have no such difficulty: we believe in choice, diversity and excellence, and we have the added advantage of practising what we preach.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge? Will he therefore make it clear to teachers that those who argue the case for selective strikes or who seek to introduce a rota under which children are sent home will damage not just the children's education but teachers' standing in the eyes of parents?

Yes, industrial action by teachers, whatever form it takes, can only damage children, children's education and our schools. It will certainly infuriate parents and it will yet again harm teachers' professional reputations, which had begun to recover after the regrettable industrial action of the mid-1980s.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the number of teachers' posts that will be cut in the current financial year. [19170]

My right hon. Friend has not made any such estimates.

I am extremely surprised by that answer because in a letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the Secretary of State for Education predicted that a teachers' pay award of between 2 and 3 per cent. would be the resource equivalent of the loss of between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs. She went on to say that that would mean a tightening of pupil-teacher ratios and, to use her words, class sizes would "shoot up". Was she right then, or is the recent research published by the University of Manchester in The Times Educational Supplement, which predicted teacher job losses of 14,000 this year, more accurate?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers have never commented and will never comment on allegedly leaked documents.

Is the Minister aware that 776 schools in Lancashire employ 12,300 teachers to educate 217,000 children? That gives a ratio of 17.64:1, yet when a constituent of mine rang county hall and asked how many teachers were teaching classes of over 30 he was told that three quarters were doing so. He then commented acidly to county hall that that means that between 3,000 and 5,000 teachers are doing absolutely nothing at all.

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has put her finger on a very important point. The whole House, and certainly I as a Minister, awaits with interest the next instalment, when we shall hear Lancashire education authority's explanation for that astounding disparity.

Does the Minister personally believe that over the next 12 months teaching posts will be axed and class sizes will rise, and does he believe that rather than attacking local government bureaucracy it would be more appropriate to look at central Government bureaucracy in education? Does he acknowledge that there has been a significant increase in the administrative costs of quangos from £3 million to £98 million and a significant increase in the cost of departmental publications? Does he accept that, with all that going on, central DFE administrative expenditure has also risen?

There was a lot of fluff in that question. I am not sure what it adds up to, but I agree that it is correct for Government to look to control their administration, which we certainly do and will continue to do. The hon. Gentleman glosses over not a few Liberal Democrat councils that have deliberately chosen to maintain staffing at county hall or town hall and put teachers' jobs at risk. As for predictions about teachers, I can only say to the hon. Member that over a year ago we heard similar stories about chaos and calamity, yet the net result has been that 1,000 extra teachers have been employed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to broaden the education base for sixth formers, and others, currently taking A-levels for entry to university; and if she will make a statement. [19171]

I have asked Sir Ron Dearing to review the qualifications framework to see whether there is scope to achieve greater coherence and breadth of study post-16 without compromising standards.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. With one in three students going into further and higher education, which is a huge contrast to the appalling record of the Opposition under whom fewer than one in eight did so, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a broader-based curriculum for those studying for A-level and planning to enter university? Does she agree that we need more articulate engineers and more numerate arts graduates and—dare I say it?—Members of Parliament?

I expect that my hon. Friend will dare to say it. I know that he has taken a particular interest in the range of courses available to 16 to 19-year-olds. The new qualifications framework offers the opportunity to mix and match qualifications—A-levels, AS levels, general national vocational qualifications and so on—so that learning programmes can be suited to individual needs. However, we want Sir Ron Dearing to advise on what more we can do to extend the benefits of that framework to make it easier for young people to mix and match so that they will satisfy the needs of admission tutors and employers or be fitted for further training, but, of course, always without compromising standards.

What study has the Secretary of State made of the international baccalaureate, especially two aspects of it that relate directly to this question—the fact that more subjects are studied and that studies are undertaken at two different academic levels, with half the subjects being taken at a higher level than the other half?

I am aware of the nature of the international baccalaureate and of its popularity in certain quarters. There are those who say that the standard A-level course is too narrow but, of course, it is open to young people to enhance A-levels with AS levels or GNVQs. We want Sir Ron to look at ways to extend the benefits of mixing qualifications. I am sure that he will take into account the lessons of the baccalaureate, and I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will draw its advantages to Sir Ron's attention, which he is most welcome to do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of some public concern that public examinations are not as rigorous as they used to be? What assurance can she give that not only will the A-level remain the gold standard in the education system but that other public examinations, especially GCSEs, will be toughened to ensure that people are tested on what they should be tested on and that we are not aiming simply for large numbers of examination passes?

Perhaps I could reassure my hon. Friend immediately. We certainly have no intention of scrapping A-levels. GCSE A-level standards are of paramount importance and have to be protected. A-levels have been tried and tested and are internationally respected, but a number of questions have to be tackled in Sir Ron's review. One is the 26 per cent. drop-out rate among A-level students. Clearly, that must be examined because it is a waste of young people and resources. Sir Ron will also examine the standard of all the qualifications that have already been studied by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and Ofsted, and the effect of increasing modularisation. Given Sir Ron Dearing's reputation, I do not think that my hon. Friend need have any fear.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what conditions attach to the release of £50 million grant withheld from the Further Education Funding Council for 1995–96. [19173]

Grant will be released to the council as colleges certify their commitment that all contracts entered into with lecturers during 1995–96 will be as flexible as their contracts signed with newly appointed lecturers last year.

Is not the reality that the Government are using cash penalties to force college managements to impose on their staff the conditions that the Government want? Does not that make nonsense of the Government's claim of flexibility, and does not the Minister realise that it is undermining industrial relations, prolonging the dispute in places such as Birmingham and doing nothing to improve relations between college managements and their staff?

The Government and the taxpayer have a very strong interest in flexibility and efficiency in the delivery of the further education system, expenditure on which runs to nearly £3 billion of public money and which has targeted an increase of 25 per cent. in student enrolment in a short period. It is imperative that that is delivered in general. The Government have no intention of intervening in the day-to-day or detailed negotiations that take place between individual colleges or, indeed, the colleges employers forum and the respective unions. We said that we would welcome the opportunity for those parties to come together. I have today written to the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers commending him on his readiness to take his union into discussions at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service with the colleges employers forum. I hope that the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education will follow suit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the aims of her campaign to promote the English language. [19174]

Raising standards in English has been at the heart of our education reforms.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Does she agree that, in the interests of children, parents and employers, it is absolutely essential for children to learn to use plain, correct and effective English? Is not one of the great problems with the socialist ideas in education peddled since the 1960s that employers complain that those leaving state education after 11 years are unable to use their own language properly?

Indeed, it is very important that the revised national curriculum puts greater emphasis on the teaching of written and spoken standard English, on grammar, spelling, punctuation and the need for correct English across the curriculum. It is a great sadness that Opposition Members chose to vote against the national curriculum, means of testing it and independent inspections.

Will the Secretary of State look specifically at management-speak in education, where better class sizes has come to mean more pupils and fewer teachers? Is not that a perversion of what parents want?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's use of English was entirely correct, but you, Madam Speaker, are in charge of such matters. I have already made my views on class size perfectly clear. Many variables affect how teachers perform in classes of different size, but there is no accumulated research evidence to link class size and attainment.

When my right hon. Friend looks at the promotion of the English language, will she consider the video that has been released by her Department to commemorate VE day and VJ day? Is she not concerned about some of the criticism levelled at the video by a certain newspaper, or is she satisfied that it will ensure that the right message reaches all our children throughout the country?

The point of the videos and the packs is to help pupils understand the significance of VE and VJ commemorations. They will run alongside the national curriculum. For the sake of reassurance, I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has examined the packs in detail, was involved in monitoring them and is delighted with them. Given his relationship to Sir Winston Churchill, the House can also be reassured.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she last met local authority associations to discuss the funding of teachers' pay. [19175]

I discussed the funding of the 1995–96 school teachers' pay award at a meeting with representatives of the National Employers' Organisation for School Teachers on Monday 13 March.

Does not the Secretary of State understand the frustration of teachers throughout the country at the Government's refusal to fund the teachers' pay review and at their phoney explanations for that refusal? She knows that surplus funds are not evenly distributed or available for that purpose. She knows that LEAs such as mine in Staffordshire have taken effective action to remove surplus places. She knows the damage that the refusal to fund the settlement will do in terms of larger class sizes, fewer resources and lower standards. Why does she not fund it? Is not the answer that her Government neither care nor want to fund the award?

We are spending record amounts on education. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the independent review body took into account the affordability of the teachers' pay award. It took into account the £700 million held in schools' balances, the £500 million held in local authority balances, the £250 million taken up by surplus places, the £500 million being spent on administrative and clerical posts that the Audit Commission said could be done without and, finally, the £1.2 billion in uncollected rates, community charge and council tax. All that confirms the independent review body's view that the pay award was affordable if local authorities identified their priorities—unlike Northumberland.

Is the Secretary of State aware that on the day that Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council decided not to fund the teachers' pay settlement it had more than £150 million in reserve? The same county council spends £12,000 per week on conferences and hospitality and £10,000 per week on periodicals and magazines for officials and last year it underspent by £17 million. It is fast becoming one of the worst-run local education authorities in the western world.

My hon. Friend, as ever, gives a cogent illustration of the point that Conservative Members have been making consistently—poor old Kent.

Is the Secretary of State aware that 20 schools in my constituency will lose 18 teachers between them this year? Does she understand that she adds insult to injury by apologising for the meanness of this year's settlement, which does nothing to help schools? I relay to her a question put to me by the head teacher of one of those schools, which is due to lose three staff this year. He wrote to me this week and asked, "Will the Secretary of State please stop sending me expensive brochures about things I have to do when I do not even have the hooks and the teachers to do the basics?"

Perhaps I could offer the hon. Gentleman a question to relay to Staffordshire local authority, which I understand has about £68 million in reserve.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a significant difference between the number of teachers who might lose their posts and the number who need to lose their posts? When a school with a budget of £1.75 million must make a saving of £20,000 the obvious conclusion is not to make teachers redundant.

Teacher numbers fluctuate each year. There is a turnover in such a large work force of some 30,000 annually. I do not expect large numbers of redundancies this year. Last year we were told that there would be many redundancies, but in fact teacher numbers increased by 1,000. There may have to be some adjustments in some areas, but one would expect that in view of fluctuations in pupil numbers and other organisational changes.

Does the Secretary of State agree that her recent so-called charm offensive would have been a great deal more charming and a great deal less offensive if she had decided to provide the money for children in the coming year rather than salting it away for tax cuts next year?

The hon. Gentleman has been practising that point in his press release. Whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may decide about tax policy, firm control of public finances must be at the centre of successful economic policy. I do not think that that lesson has ever been learned by Labour Members.

In any discussions that my right hon. Friend may have with local education authorities or others, will she continue to emphasise the damage that any strike or industrial action could do in our schools? Is she aware that the result of a massive vote was announced yesterday by the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses, which has decided to join with the no-strike Professional Association of Teachers? Is that not an important and welcome development?

I certainly think that the Professional Association of Teachers sets a marvellous professional example to its colleagues. I hope that other organisations will take the message that the number in the Professional Association of Teachers is being enhanced by so many. My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very useful point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has for amending the law in relation to the holding of financial balances by (a) locally managed and (b) grant-maintained schools. [19176]

My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Do the Government agree in that case that it is totally two faced to set up a large number of systems for grant-maintained schools, for the local management of schools, for training and enterprise councils and GP fundholders—all of which require these new mini-quangos to hold financial balances—and at the same time criticise them for holding those balances? If the Government did not want them to have to hold balances, why did they set up all those mini-quangos in the first place?

Within the rules of the House, I might ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat that question, because I think that I lost him a hit when he got on to GP fundholders, which is not something I have previously answered for at the Dispatch Box.

Is not it a fact that many of our schools hold balances for a huge variety of reasons? Is not it also a fact that one of the reasons is the way in which the local funding formula operates, and that some of the questions that have been directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should more properly be directed to the LEA, questioning why the funding formula can so often disadvantage many schools in that LEA?

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right that there are a variety of reasons why schools hold balances and, indeed, acquire them. The central issue is that the success of the local management of schools has encouraged governing bodies to take a much greater say in the control over their schools, and a logical extension of that is grant-maintained status, to which earlier comments have been addressed.

Is not the Minister concerned that, because of the liability for grant-maintained schools to pay value added tax in the past financial year, £l7 million was spent on tax rather than books?

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is, no, I am not concerned. Their VAT treatment follows from the nature and status of grant-maintained schools, and the Government have no plans to change that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action to discourage drug abuse is under way in primary and secondary schools. [19177]

My right hon. Friend has committed the Department and the education service to playing a full part in the Government's strategy for drug prevention. The national curriculum requires all primary and secondary schools to teach about the harmful effects of drugs. Following recent consultation, we shall issue next month our circular on drug prevention and schools, with curriculum guidance on teaching about drugs, and a digest of drug education teaching materials. In addition, a range of innovative projects on drug prevention, supported by the Government, started this month.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to refute the mendacious and malicious misinformation put about by Nigel de Gruchy, which suggests, totally falsely, that the Government recommend that we go soft on the use of drugs in schools? Does my hon. Friend share my regret that, once again, one of the leading teacher unions has shown itself incapable of properly representing the interests, not of its extreme left wing, but of the pupils whom it is supposed to serve?

Could that possibly be the same Mr. dc Gruchy who was reported in The Independent on 22 April as saying:

"is it better for a child to steal a car or to disrupt classes … I suppose I would choose kicking a car in."?

Does the Minister agree that in our wish to tackle the drugs problem, especially at primary school level, there is a fine balance to be struck in the way that we teach children about drugs and what they can do to people? It is a thin line because if we teach them too much, they get to know too much and by the time they reach secondary school they are actually taking drugs.

I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point; it is a concern that is frequently raised. We have to judge whether it is better to tell our young people sensibly and responsibly, and in the right context in schools, about matters such as sex and drugs, or whether to allow them to remain ignorant and to learn, in the wrong places and from the wrong people, the wrong message about those matters. The balance of our judgment—which is widely shared, as has been shown by the wide support for our circular—is that the right way to proceed is to tell young people in the proper way about the dangers of drugs, sex and sexual abuse, rather than leave them in ignorance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to combat truancy. [19178]

In addition to the publication of pupil absence data, the Department is supporting locally devised projects to a value of £15.4 million in some 90 English local education authorities under the truancy and disaffected pupils programme of the grants for education support and training—GEST—scheme for 1995–96.

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent answer about what the Government are doing. Does he agree that the primary group dealing with truancy must be the schools, working with parents to ensure that we cut down truancy as much as possible? What effect will the spotlight of publicity on recording the level of truancy in every school have on the truancy figures for the coming year?

I am convinced that, for too long, we have allowed absence from school to go unreported, unrecorded and, to a large extent, unnoticed and not properly dealt with. My firm belief is that in highlighting the problem and bringing out the facts about non-attendance at school, we, working with people involved in education, can tackle the problem and ensure that all our young people are in school or being educated—because if they are not in school, they are at risk.

Will the Minister tell the House what he would think of a head teacher who had a group of disaffected students outside his school, but allowed them back in even though they had not promised to improve their behaviour or to agree to follow school rules? Does he agree that the result would be to undermine the credibility of the head teacher and the discipline of the school?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not query the discretion, judgment or infinite wisdom of head teachers or anyone else in charge of groups of people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce the truancy level would be to increase the number of teachers in classrooms? Will he comment on what has happened in Lancashire, where there are 12,300 teachers to teach 217,000 pupils, a ratio of less than 18:1—yet the true ratio in three quarters of classes in Lancashire is more than 30:1? That means that 4,000 teachers are not teaching pupils in classes. They are outside schools, when they could be better employed inside schools.

I hope that, following my hon. Friend's question and a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) earlier, parents in Lancashire will be asking searching questions about what on earth is happening in their county. It appears that there is a rather odd relationship between the number of pupils, the number of teachers and class sites. I know that my hon. Friends will help parents to get to the bottom of the matter and sort out education in Lancashire.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding the withdrawal of the older student's allowance. [19179]

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, including those from university administrators and student unions.

In terms of encouraging older students to enter higher education, the mature student's allowance has been an outstanding success. How can a Minister with responsibility for education justify a Treasury-led cut that will bring such hardship and difficulties to thousands of mature students?

Any Minister with responsibility for education must consider all priorities in the context of the huge public expenditure on student support and universities, amounting to £6 billion a year in England alone. It is our view that, given that older students receive the full battery of mandatory award—grants and loan provisions from the access fund—and that many of them initiated a career and built up savings, every chance exists that they will continue to come to university in the numbers that have been expanding so rapidly in recent years. The position of all those already on courses has been safeguarded by my right hon. Friend's proposal.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19198]

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.

Will the Prime Minister join, I am sure, all Members in the House in condemning the use of the word "nigger" by the comedian Bernard Manning, and endorse the comments of the local chief constable that that was a vile, racist performance, and that he would rather that no one among his force went to further performances by Bernard Manning? Will the Prime Minister write to Bernard Manning and remind him that such views, in the year in which we commemorate the sacrifice that our parents made to defeat Nazism, are particularly offensive?

I certainly think that everyone should avoid expressions that give offence to those who are on the receiving end of such expressions. That is true of Mr. Manning and everyone else.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the open recruitment of homosexuals into the armed forces, and the acceptance of homosexuality in the armed forces would devastate morale within our excellent service?

I have sympathy with the point put to me by my hon. Friend. I know that it is a concern shared by the chiefs of staff.

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to see the extraordinary spectacle of the victory parade by his Euro-rebels over the Government on the lunchtime news? Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us whether he has even secured the minimal guarantee from those rebels that, on a future vote of confidence—[Interruption.]

Order. Calm down—all of you.

Has the Prime Minister secured even the minimal guarantee from the Euro-rebels that, on a future vote of confidence on Europe, they will support him?

I can sense the concern in the right hon. Gentleman's voice. Perhaps he would like to tell me whether he has received the support of the 50 MPs who defied his Front Bench over Maastricht; of the 40 who defied him over European finance; on a single currency, where the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was in dispute with the deputy leader of the Labour party; and on clause IV, which half his, I think he called them, infantile MEPs want to keep. He does not, and his deputy leader does one day and does not the next. These are party matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what his position is?

There is one very big difference—I lead my party, he follows his. [Interruption.]

Order.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. This is using up very valuable time.

So the short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman has received no guarantee whatever. So is it not clear therefore that, after all his tough talk at the beginning about no unity through appeasement, he has caved in, his party is still divided and the white flag flies over Downing street?

I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman leading his hon. Friends below the Gangway. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a real difference. We have been leading in Europe. He will follow in Europe on every issue. He will follow Europe in undermining our veto, in renegotiating our rebate, in surrendering our opt-out, in signing up to the social chapter, in higher taxes, in more spending and in more red tape. His idea of the red flag is the white flag on every conceivable European issue. If he seriously thinks that he leads his party, he should look at the faces of his colleagues below the Gangway.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party has traditionally and rightly been loath to allow power to the state that could be used to limit personal freedom unduly, to harass or intrude on privacy? Does he accept that the alleged benefits of introducing identity cards would not justify the risks to civil liberties? Will he dismiss proposals for a national identity card, whether compulsory or so-called voluntary?

I am afraid that on this issue I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there are significant advantages which identity cards may offer to prevent crime and to prevent fraud. It is for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary, intends to publish a Green Paper setting out the various options that are available. We believe that on such an issue it is only right that there should be full public consultation. No option at the moment is ruled in or ruled out until we have completed that consultation period. I believe that it is right to consult. When we have consulted, we will make a decision on whether to proceed and what nature of card we may then seek to introduce.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19199]

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

Given that the level of balances held by county councils is already considerably lower than the level that the Government assume in their calculation of grants to those councils, how does the Prime Minister justify calls by himself and many of his hon. Friends that county councils should further run down their balances to make up for the Government's education cuts?

As I have indicated to the House before, perhaps when the hon. Gentleman was not here, the levels of expenditure on education have risen, not fallen. Of course, in different counties different priority is given to education. Some education authorities—Conservative Brent, for example—have found it possible to increase their spending on education by 6 per cent. Other councils have done the same. It depends on the choices that councils themselves make. I regret that many Labour councils and many Liberal Democrat councils have chosen not to give the priority to education that I would have preferred.

Will my right hon. Friend consider today the many changes that the Conservative party has brought about in education policy in the past 16 years, which have widened and diversified choice? Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Education about whether it is time to move one stage further to a national funding formula for education? Is he aware that in Derbyshire the local education authority holds back £720 per pupil compared with £570 in Nottinghamshire, and £550 in Staffordshire? If that money went directly to the schools, there would be no need for any cuts in the number of teachers in our schools. Is it not time that we started to show up the money which LEAs spend in county hall rather than in the schools in our constituencies?

I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many people in what he has just said. Many responsible education authorities are coping with this year's settlement by getting their priorities right and by ensuring that the bulk of resources go to front-line services such as schools. Many Labour education authorities are not doing that. They seem to be in the lead in financing a messy bureaucracy. I do not know the position in Labour-controlled Derbyshire, but no doubt my hon. Friend does and was correct.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19200]

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

Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on 21 March that there were two administrators for every three teachers across the country? Where did he get those fictional figures, when the Department for Education and the Welsh Office have said that it is impossible to calculate a ratio of administrative staff to teachers? When outside experts have tried to calculate a ratio, they put it at about 1:8 rather than 2:3. Will he now apologise for misleading the House inadvertently with his spurious reference to that ratio, which was a feeble effort to divert attention from his miserly decision not to fund the teachers' pay award?

The hon. Gentleman took a long time to he wrong. [Interruption]—Yes, I suggest that he has a look at the figures in "Social Trends".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a new consensus in British politics, which is based very much on Conservative principles? Does not the the Leader of the Opposition pay the Government the greatest compliment by spending most of his time trying to convince the country that when the day comes when he has a policy of his own, it will be a Tory one? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the people of this country were to support that new consensus, which was created by the Conservative party, the best thing that they could do is to vote Conservative and not for the vacuous, pale imitation on the Opposition Benches?

The right hon. Gentleman both criticises our policies and copies our policies whenever he can. I am content for him to do that. I regard imitation as a very sincere form of flattery.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19201]

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

In response to a previous question, the Prime Minister referred to high taxation. In that context, will he inform the House how much extra taxation the average family in this country is paying compared with the amount paid in April 1992?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman, and he will be pleased to know, that even after extra tax and inflation, households on average are expected to be about £250 better off this year. I can also tell him that most of the figures used by the Labour party about tax should be divided by two before one gets remotely near accuracy.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of teaching children in classes of more than 30, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be repellent for teachers to pick on some children in such classes and expel them from lessons? Is not that an appalling abdication of responsibility for the education of our children?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that removing children from classrooms where there are more than 30 pupils will appeal to very many teachers. I know that some people have suggested it. I believe that the common sense of the vast majority of teachers will reject any such notion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19202]

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

In recent debates on the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill, they have suggested that citizens advice bureaux will be important in enforcing the Bill's provisions. Is the Prime Minister aware that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has just said that it is in no position to do so? How on earth does he expect the provisions of that Bill to be enforced?

The Bill contains a wide number of provisions. It also contains the provision for the National Disability Council to advise the Government on such issues and we will take whatever advice it chooses to give us on that issue.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report from Scottish Nuclear today, which shows that the cost of generation has been reduced to 2.2p per kWh—without the nuclear levy enjoyed by Nuclear Electric? Does he feel that that suggests that, if the Government ever picked privatisation for the nuclear industry, Scottish Nuclear could do a magnificent job as a single entity?

We are very close to the completion of the nuclear review and an announcement about its conclusions will be made and a White Paper published as soon as possible. We will present the conclusions to Parliament at that time. Privatisation of the two nuclear generators before the next election is an option that is actively under consideration and so is the future of the fossil fuel levy.