To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of primary school children being taught in classes of over 30 in the current academic year. [35990]

Figures for the current academic year are not available.

Figures for the current academic year are available in my constituency, because I have contacted every primary school head teacher. They show that children in 96 out of 187 primary school classes—more than 50 per cent. of them—will start the school year in classes of 30 or more. Will the Secretary of State say whether she believes that there is a link between the quality of education offered and the size of a primary school class? If she agrees that there is a link, what will she do about it—

Order. We are not in debate; this is Question Time.

I have said often enough in this House that I accept that a very large class may be difficult for a teacher to manage. The chief inspector of schools, however, consistently reports no link between class size and attainment. He also consistently reports that what matters is the quality of teaching. That is why I greatly welcome the recent conversion of Opposition Members to supporting improved standards in schools, despite their voting record of having opposed every measure to improve standards of the past 16 years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that overcrowded school premises can inhibit a school's excellence as much as overcrowded classes? Will she look with special sympathy at proposals, soon to reach her, to rebuild or expand Monk Fryston Church of England primary school in my constituency? Built for 44 children, it is now crammed with 126 of them, in more temporary classrooms than original classrooms. Will she do her best to help that marvellous school move into a more expansive phase?

My right hon. Friend has been consistently assiduous in pressing the case for a capital allocation to Monk Fryston school, and I am grateful to him. I understand that the North Yorkshire local education authority has included an element for the school in this year's capital bid. Clearly I can give my right hon. Friend no more reassurance than to say that I will judge any such bid against our criteria to ensure that resources are fairly distributed.

If it is acceptable for primary schools to have classes of more than 30, why is it not acceptable for preparatory schools—the junior equivalents of public schools—to which the rich can send their children? Why should those schools be able to have 15 in a class while numbers in the state sector are double that? Does it not show that the Government are interested only in privilege in education?

On the contrary, we believe in choice, and in choice for everyone. The Opposition believe in choice for their Front Benchers and a firm march back to the 1960s for everyone else.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in improving literacy and numeracy in schools. [45991]

Raising standards of literacy and numeracy is at the heart of our school reforms. The chief inspector of schools has confirmed that our reforms are improving the quality of education.

Does my hon. Friend agree that literacy and numeracy are still the keys to success in later life for young people? In that context, what steps does her Department propose to take further to improve standards of reading, writing and speaking English, and of adding and subtracting numbers?

My hon. Friend is right. Only last week, we set out new measures for raising standards of written and spoken English in schools and the workplace across the country. Communication skills are vital for career prospects and the Government's initiatives on spoken English qualifications emanate from discussions and consultations with a wide range of people, including business, the media, unions, voluntary bodies and educators. We are delighted that Trevor McDonald has agreed to chair the steering group and we look forward to developments in this sector.

The Minister will know that class sizes in public and preparatory schools are on average half as small as those in state schools. Will she make a connection between class sizes and achieving higher standards in numeracy and literacy?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is inviting me down a route that I should not care to follow, but the House should know that Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has confirmed that, notably, the national curriculum and testing are already helping to raise overall education standards, and we can expect a steady rise in standards as more pupils benefit from our reforms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a further statement about her plans for the expansion of nursery education. [35992]

I am delighted to announce that Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster have confirmed their decision to take part in the first phase of the voucher scheme, beginning in April 1996. Others are considering the issue and I hope to be able to add to that list in the near future.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when he has completed his consultation exercise on quality assurance he will promote a policy of good education, good quality and good value for money?

I most certainly confirm what my hon. Friend seeks. The aim of the scheme, which will apply to every local education authority from April 1997, is to ensure the quality of education delivered to pre-fives and to extend the opportunity of nursery education to all four-year-olds who do not have it.

Given the recent debate about levels of crime, does the Minister agree that a proven connection exists between high-quality, early-years education and lowering juvenile crime? If he does, would it not have been better to introduce a system of proper, high-quality, early-years education for all three and four-year-olds instead of the cumbersome and bureaucratic voucher system?

I think that I can say no to most of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am prepared to concede that one of the many elements claimed for early school education is that it may reduce subsequent delinquency.

Does my hon. Friend share my regret that Essex county council appears, as a matter of policy, to have refused even to take part in the trials that we have initiated?

I have been disappointed by the response of a number of local education authorities, all of which have been invited to take part and all of which, by definition, will have four-year-olds whose parents will be unable to secure pre-school education for their child. They would have had a better chance of doing so if they had been in phase one, so I share my hon. Friend's dismay.

Given the Secretary of State's failure to involve a nationally representative cross-section of authorities in the pilot scheme and her further failure to set clear targets for access to nursery education for three and four-year-olds, will the Minister tell us which agency is being charged with looking after the voucher scheme?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, he will have to wait but a short while longer for the announcement to be made.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the chief attractions to parents of four-year-olds of the new plan to expand nursery education is that no less than £185 million of entirely new money is being added to the education budget for that? Will he confirm that there is great enthusiasm for the provision of nursery education and for the expansion of choice and diversity? Will he join me in paying tribute to the expansion of the education provision in playgroups run by the Pre-School Playgroups Association?

I willingly confirm the figure quoted by my hon. Friend and, like him, I welcome developments within the Pre-School Alliance. The large number of letters to the Department from parents who want to know why their authority is not taking part from 1996 shows that both Opposition parties are risking considerable unpopularity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of men aged (a) 55 to 59 and (b) 60 to 65 years are in employment. [35993]

At spring 1995, the proportion of men aged 55 to 59 in employment was 66.3 per cent. and 40.8 per cent. for those aged 60 to 65 years.

Does the Minister agree that the fact that one in three men in their late fifties is out of work represents a huge waste of human potential and is bad news for the economy? Is it right that so many men who are still relatively young are thrown on to a human scrapheap? Do the Government have any proposals to get Britain back to work?

The hon. Gentleman should know that all age groups have benefited from the expansion of employment opportunities under this Government and that the fastest growth has been among those over 50. Among men aged 50 to 59, 66.3 per cent. are in employment, compared with the EC average of 63 per cent. Among men aged 60 to 64, the 45 per cent. figure compares with an EC average of 31 per cent. I am continuing my campaign to assist older workers to realise their potential and to play a full part in the labour market in a way that meets their needs and those of employers. The Government are taking action today. We are not just talking about promises of legislation way into the future which will not deal with the current problem.

As someone who this very day has crossed the threshold between the two age groups mentioned in the question, my hon. Friend will understand that I am taking an increasing interest in tackling the problems of agism. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent initiative. May I suggest that it is far better to tackle the problem through her friendly persuasion rather than attempting to do so by legislation?

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday. He is only halfway there since we know that Madame Calment in France has achieved the great age of 120 years and 238 days. My hon. Friend has a long way to go.

Order. I cannot allow such long answers to questions, particularly since the hon. Lady seems to be making a statement. Questions and answers are becoming longer and we are not making the progress On which I insist. Will the hon. Lady complete her answer?

First, there is to be a new booklet aimed at recruitment agencies; secondly, advice will be given to recruitment advertising agencies; and thirdly, the undertaking of a comprehensive survey—

Order.

Does the Minister agree that unfairness and discrimination should have no place in today's world of work? Does she further agree that it is wrong to sack someone or to reject a job application solely on the ground of age? If so, why will not she take the simple step of making age discrimination in employment unlawful?

I shall not take lectures from the hon. Lady on this subject. Her policies are full of rhetoric. I have referred to three measures that I announced earlier this year, which propose positive steps to counteract the problems now, rather than talking about vague promises of what may be done in future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the kernel of her answer is the figures for other European countries? Would not the adoption of the social chapter and a national minimum wage increase the number of old people out of work in the same way as it would increase youth unemployment?

Yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many three and four-year-olds started in nursery schools this September. [35994]

Information about the number of three and four-year-olds in school is collected centrally in January. Provisional figures show that in January 1995, 52,600 three and four-year-olds were in maintained nursery schools.

Does the Minister accept that many parents of three and four-year-olds would like their children to be in nursery school, but are denied places? Did not even Lady Thatcher, back in 1972, commit the Conservative party to providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds? Is not it a tragedy that, 23 years later, that has not been achieved? The Government are producing a smokescreen of vouchers to cover up the fact that they are not prepared to carry out even Lady Thatcher's commitment.

The hon. Gentleman echoes others on the Opposition Benches in not being keen on parental choice, but that is no surprise to us. The answer to the substance of his question is: let us get universal provision for four-year-olds up and running properly, after which we can consider other aspects. The hon. Gentleman and his party are very free with spending commitments from time to time. The Government have made a firm commitment on four-year-olds and we will stick by it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that within one day of the announcement of the voucher scheme, Liberal-controlled Dorset county council arbitrarily said that it wanted nothing to do with it? Since then it has been havering in its decision. Will he undertake to give the council as long as possible to decide one way or the other? If it does not decide to join the pilot scheme, when my hon. Friend comes to Dorset on 27 October will he lay the blame fairly and squarely on the council for not consulting governors and head teachers?

As my hon. Friend and the House know, because of the current legislative position the Government were required to ask for volunteers. Provided that my hon. Friend races from the Chamber at the appropriate time, contacts his local authority and makes it clear that it must act quickly, it could still be brought into phase one. It will, like all other authorities, be brought into phase two, but that will be too late for the parents of four-year-olds in the coming year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Teachers' Pensions Agency. [35995]

We invited expressions of interest in June for a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme. We are now considering whether to invite certain companies to tender for a contract. We expect to inform the House of our conclusions shortly.

Does the Minister accept that if privatisation of the agency's functions goes ahead, it will not only threaten one of Darlington's key employers but will undermine the impartial pensions service currently received by more than 1 million teachers in this country? Will he explain to the House why, despite meeting all the targets set for them by Ministers, hard-working staff at the agency were denied the right to bid against private competitors to run the service? What assurances can he now give both the staff at the agency and those directly employed by his Department in Darlington about their future job prospects?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, considerable discussions have been held, including those that I had with staff, and I fully understand that uncertainty is alarming some members of staff. In fairness, as I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises, whether or not we finally decide that the scheme could be contractorised, there will still be—even in the public sector if it remains in the public sector—a need to find further efficiency savings.

I applaud the Minister for seeking savings on behalf of the taxpayer, but I remind him that the superannuation scheme is highly complex. It would be prudent if we were at least to allow the work force an opportunity to meet targets and to provide the service in competition with the private sector.

My hon. Friend's concerns—no doubt some of his constituents work at the agency—are well noted. As I made clear in my main answer, although at this stage I cannot announce whether we shall move out to the private sector, it should be stressed for the benefit of the House and for those who are expressing concern that the Darlington office has considerable attractions. We are advised that existing staff would transfer to any future contractor under legislation, and there would self-evidently be an advantage of continuity if another private sector body were brought in to administer the scheme from the same site.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the Government are doing to encourage links between schools and industry. [35996]

The Government continue to promote a wide range of activities, both departmentally and with other organisations, aimed at developing closer links between schools and industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the support that British Aerospace gives schools in my part of Lancashire sets an example that should be followed by other firms? Will she do all that she can to encourage other firms to do precisely that?

I am aware that British Aerospace, in backing the setting up of technology colleges, is giving a great deal of support to this area of educational work. Although I am absolutely delighted by British Aerospace's commitment, 200 industrial sponsors are backing 101 technology colleges and six language colleges which have been approved. Their support amounts to £11 million of sponsorship.

Has the Minister looked at the recent health and safety statistics on accidents at work, which show an increase in accidents in manufacturing industry among school-age children? When will the Government act to enforce the law to end the scandal of 1.5 million school-age children working illegally in Britain?

The Government cannot condone any kind of illegal practices in employment. If the hon. Lady would like to send me details, they will be looked at.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers benefit just as much as pupils from links with industry?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. More than 160,000 teachers have taken industry placements since 1989.

Given that both schools and colleges are involved in providing academic and vocational training, does the Minister agree that we need a new partnership—not competition—between schools, colleges of further education, training and enterprise councils and industry so that they can provide the best quality of training for 16 to 18-year-olds in a highly competitive job environment? If extra resources are necessary to deliver that partnership, will she make them available?

I shall not make any promises today on extra public expenditure, but the hon. Gentleman is right. There should be a productive partnership between training and enterprise councils, colleges and schools in given areas. Occasionally that spills over into extremely fierce competition, which usually results in benefits for the young people involved, but a careful eye must be kept on it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has undertaken on the effect of class size on education standards. [35998]

We continue to monitor research on Ofsted evidence in this area.

The Minister has given a very unsatisfactory reply. May I draw her attention to the comments of Duncan Graham, the former chairman and chief executive of the National Curriculum Council, who is reported in the press as saying that

"the national curriculum could not be delivered properly in classes of more than 35 and children in groups of 40 and over were 'getting a raw deal"?

Classes are not too large to deliver the national curriculum effectively. That is not only my view but that of the chief inspector. Clearly, the national curriculum is now slimmer than it was when Mr. Graham was chairman of the National Curriculum Council. I repeat that the quality of teaching depends on the quality of teachers, not class size.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's education reforms have done much to improve the quality and standard of state education? Does she agree, however, that an increase in class sizes may jeopardise those reforms? May I therefore ask her to redouble her efforts to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to fund in full the next teachers' pay award?

My hon. Friend is an inspiration and support, as always. He will know that at this time of year it is normal for members of the Cabinet to be engaged in vigorous debate.

It sounds as though we have another convert on our hands.

It really is time that Labour Members stopped perpetuating the fiction that they are remotely interested in raising standards in our schools. They have consistently opposed every standard-raising measure that has gone through the House. The opposition of Labour Members to choice, diversity of provision and excellence is well known and well documented; so is their principal motivation of class envy. All those factors are well illustrated in their desire to end the assisted places scheme, which provides real opportunities for children from poorer families. Sadly, the Labour party is the enemy of aspiration.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite all the huffing and puffing by the Labour party, pupil-teacher ratios have fallen substantially—from 19:1 to 18:1—since it was in office, that over the same period the number of support staff in our schools has vastly increased, and that how classes are organised within that ratio is entirely a matter for the head teacher?

My hon. Friend is right, as always. Class size statistics tell us nothing about how teachers now work and how pupils learn.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, irrespective of class sizes, the class teacher's ability to identify through early assessment the special needs of individual children, and the provision of individual help, will play a major part in raising standards?

Indeed, assessment and testing at all stages throughout a pupil's career are extremely important, and our nursery initiative will enable us to examine carefully what children can achieve when they reach primary school.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Education Select Committee visited Japan it found that in some subjects standards were higher than in this country, yet that class sizes were invariably much higher than in this country? Does she not conclude from that evidence that it is the quality of teaching and the involvement of parents that dictates achievement and outcome, and that those are the areas that we should address most aggressively?

Yes, I am happy that the Select Committee's visit to Japan confirmed my conviction that it is the quality of teaching that matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the level of school budgets in 1996–97. [35999]

Funding for schools in 1996–97 is currently under consideration in the public expenditure survey. As part of that process, my right hon. Friend has received the views of the local authority associations and other interested parties.

Will the Minister listen carefully, especially to the views of parents? Does he understand their concerns and will he respond positively to them? Does he realise that parents in, say, Nottinghamshire are alarmed that there are 350 fewer teachers in schools this term than last term, and that there are real worries that there will be 2,300 fewer teachers in the east midlands next year? Should we not invest in education and the future rather than cutting expenditure?

I am not surprised that parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have expressed alarm at their county council's conduct of local education matters. I should have thought that they would want to examine carefully his county's disposition of surplus school places, for example, as well as the priority that it has or has not given to education, and the extent of its non-education expenditure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is urging parents to ask their county councillors searching questions about how far the council reflects those parents' needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that size is not everything, and that what is done with an education budget can be just as important? Is he aware that in Japan less than 4 per cent. of public expenditure goes to education, compared with more than 5 per cent. in this country, so there is no necessary link between how much is spent on education and what is achieved with the money?

My hon. Friend is right; none of us is sizeist. The point is how effectively the money is used. There is no proven demonstrable correlation between the amount spent per pupil anywhere in the country and the educational outcomes achieved. My hon. Friend has done well to undermine and expose the glib assertion that there is necessarily a causal connection between the amount spent and educational outcomes.

In that case, will the Minister promise the parents of Rotherham, who have seen 104 teachers sacked because of last year's education round, that spending money on education does not matter? He would not dare to come to my constituency and tell teachers and parents that class sizes, educational attainment and sacking teachers does not count. The only teacher whom they want sacked is the ex-teacher sitting beside him.

I have been to many constituencies up and down the country and said exactly that to many people, and I will continue to do so whenever I have the opportunity. [Interruption.]

Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his colleague, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should be asking those questions of those responsible for spending the money in the area. If it has been necessary—if regrettable—to sack teachers, the hon. Gentleman's questions should be put to the local education authority that has made the decisions. The authority must be accountable to parents for the expenditure in its area.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's announcement last year of a 1 per cent. increase in education spend was converted by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council into a reduction of 5.5 per cent? Is it not the worst-possible trouble-stirring for Labour to say to schools that there will be a further cut of 8 per cent. in 1996–97 before the Budget at the end of November and before the rate support grant settlement?

Yes. My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. LEAs must be accountable for their decisions in their localities. If the authorities are prepared to play politics in the classroom and to make cheap political points by sacking teachers or by misleading parents and electors, I am sure that my hon. Friend and all my colleagues will continue to expose such practices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of educational attainment on levels of pay received later in life. [36000]

High levels of educational achievement are vital to promote economic growth and personal development. The evidence is that earnings are higher for the better qualified both on qualification and throughout life.

Does the Minister accept that most of those who get the chance of going to university, and therefore have the chance to earn more in later life, will pay back for their education by higher taxation? Will the Government therefore scrap the discredited and despised student loans?

I am delighted that someone has emerged from the undergrowth on the Opposition Benches to make a plea for higher taxation. If there were more honesty from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, we would get further in the political debate. The student loans scheme is working extraordinarily well. It has been well taken up and has been welcomed by students, more and more of whom are entering and leaving higher education every year.

Is it not the case that students currently going into higher education—the ratio is one in three today, compared with one in eight under Labour—are benefiting from the education funds that have been recycled through the repayment of the grants of the generation who went before? Are not those very students, who under Labour would not have entered higher education, now benefiting?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. The evidence shows that a large number of young people are now enjoying the benefits of higher education, while many more are enjoying excellent education post-16 in our further education colleges and sixth forms. Even more young people are taking part in modern apprenticeships and the many other training and educational opportunities that the Government are giving them. We will take no lectures from Opposition Members on the quality and breadth of what is being provided to young people and to those in learning throughout their lives in our various institutions of learning.

Does the Minister appreciate that the Government's policy of encouraging low pay in Britain is leading to a growth in the number of jobs requiring few skills or educational qualifications? Does he agree that Britain is worryingly backward when compared with our competitor countries in the skills level of the work force and in the percentage of young people in higher education? Is not the Government's policy of encouraging low pay and low skills blighting the life opportunities of British workers and damaging the economic position and the future of the British economy?

I recognise nothing in what the hon. Lady has said. We do not support the Opposition's policy of no pay. The figures prove that countries which have a statutory minimum wage—particularly some of our partners on the European mainland—have much higher overall unemployment, and unemployment of young people in particular, than this country. The lesson is quite clear; if one imposes a minimum pay rate on the labour market, a lot of people will be thrown out of work and will end up with no pay, not low pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next plans to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss training. [36001]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met John Monks on 30 August, and I will be meeting him on 8 November 1995.

Is the Minister aware that today one in five vacancies cannot be filled because of skills shortages? Will he therefore accept the advice of both the Confederation of British Industry and the Engineering Employers Federation that the voluntary levy system has failed and that he needs to get together with all partners in industry to improve training levels?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his ideas from. Both the CBI and the engineering employers are whole-heartedly against the reintroduction of a levy. Only the Labour party persists in believing that it knows better than business how to invest in training. The voluntary approach that the Government have followed has delivered greater volumes of expenditure on training, much better focused training and a much better qualified work force than there ever was under the previous Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36019]

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.

Even in the light of the recent record fall in reported crime, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great welcome that there will be throughout the country for the additional 5,000 police officers approved last week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of what the Lord Chief Justice might say, long prison sentences which become short as a result of automatic remission undermine people's sense of justice and do not act as a sufficient deterrent to the criminal?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's strategy to fight crime. The threat of a long prison sentence deters criminals from committing crime. That is not just my view and that of the Home Secretary. That is the view of the police as well. I welcome the fall in crime over the past two and a half years, but we wish to see it fall a good deal further. That is what lay behind our announcements last week.

The Prime Minister will know that the Home Secretary has denied any involvement in the operational matters of the Prison Service, including the Parkhurst breakout. Can he therefore confirm the following facts: that, so far from this being true, the Home Secretary personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended immediately; that when Mr. Lewis objected as it was an operational matter, the Home Secretary threatened to instruct him to do it; that when Mr. Lewis further objected, the Home Secretary told the operational director of the Prison Service by fax that he would announce it in the House of Commons that day and duly did announce it in his statement to the House? Is that true or is it false?

The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for the actions of the Home Office and for the actions of the governor. He appointed Mr. Lewis to run the Prison Service. The criticisms over the past few days by the Learmont report have been directed at the director of prisons and not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I believe that the Home Secretary has acted entirely properly throughout this affair.

I am afraid that the Prime Minister has not answered the factual question. The Home Secretary is sitting a couple of places along. The Prime Minister can ask him whether it is true now. I put certain specific facts in relation to the pressure on Mr. Lewis in respect of the removal of the governor of Parkhurst. Are those facts true or are they false?

I have made it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt that whatever action my right hon. and learned Friend took was entirely proper and within his remit as Home Secretary answerable to this House.

If the facts are true, it was not within his remit as it was an operational matter. That is precisely the issue. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Mr. Lewis has also said this morning that the Home Secretary personally interfered in prison visits, in searches and in disciplinary awards and that there has been greater political interference than at any point in time in the service history? Is it not the case that we do not have a Government governing the country? We have a group of Ministers who will play games with these issues, who take credit when things are going right and refuse to take credit when things are going wrong. That is not a responsible Government for Britain.

We noticed the careful lead-up to the pre-prepared soundbite, as we do each Tuesday and Thursday. My right hon. and learned Friend discharges properly his responsibilities to this House and this country. Were he not to do so, the Leader of the Opposition would say, "Why does the Home Secretary not take an interest in matters that are relevant to the good conduct of the prison service?" But he is not responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. He is responsible to this House and answerable to this House, and he must take actions in the interests of the Prison Service. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend has done, and he has my full support in having done it.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the proposal that British Telecom should be able to wire up schools to the super-highway in return for carrying television signals? Is he aware that that would run contrary to the well-settled framework for those matters, and would be to the considerable advantage of British Telecom and the considerable disadvantage of the cable companies which have invested a great deal in the procedure so far?

Yes, I am aware of that. Many schools are already being cabled up for precisely those advantages. If the Opposition, who occasionally like to claim credit for the information super-highway, were to examine what was happening—if they took their heads out of the sand and put them in the holes in the road—they would see that it was already being built.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36020]

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

Which has done more damage to the Government: the irresponsibility of the Defence Secretary last week or the Home Secretary's unwillingness to accept responsibility this week?

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was expressing the fears of many people, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe, about the more ambitious federalist plans for the future of the European Union. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that his party's policy is that the British armed forces should be commanded by qualified majority vote elsewhere, let him say so.

Conservatives welcome the decision to expand the assisted places scheme. Will my right hon. Friend compare our policies of maximising parental choice with those of the Opposition, which would destroy the city technology colleges, grammar schools, the assisted places scheme and grant-maintained schools in the interests of equality, justice and social engineering?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We seek excellence in education and choice for all parents in the interests of their children. I very much regret that the Opposition—except perhaps the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—oppose the assisted places scheme.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36021]

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

Does the Prime Minister share the fear that has been expressed that the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office later this afternoon will lead to commercial motives overriding the public interest in making official information more freely available to the general public, as it is in other countries? Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is clearly in a privatised HMSO's interest to resist free electronic access to Government publications protected by Government copyright? How does that square with the Government's commitment to a freedom of information policy and to extending the information technology revolution to the rest of the country?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is answering a question later on this afternoon. I do not wish comment in detail on the substance of his question but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the needs of Parliament and other customers are satisfied for openness, for improved access to information technology, for value for money, for flexibility and for security of supply. The record of privatisation over recent years is that it has improved, not damaged, service.

My right hon. Friend will have heard this morning of another terrorist bombing in Paris. Will he use this opportunity today to reaffirm his Government's policy on border controls and to make sure that they are never loosened so that terrorists may not get easy access to this country?

I am happy to confirm the Government's policy on border controls. We need those border controls. We intend to keep them, and they are not negotiable.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36022]

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

Can we now hear it straight from the Prime Minister: just how bad do things have to get at the Home Office to require a ministerial resignation?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Learmont report, and after he has done so he will be better informed and he will know that the criticisms were directed not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary but at the Prison Service. My right hon. and learned Friend acted properly in those circumstances.

Given that a report has been issued today by the Labour party—the blueprint for the dismemberment of the United Kingdom—could my right hon. Friend tell the House how it could be possible if there were a Parliament in Scotland, that a party with a majority in the United Kingdom but not in the majority in England could govern England?

I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the document that has been published today but I am certainly aware that one was scheduled to be published today and I am aware of the policies of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party on the subject of devolution in Scotland. There is no doubt whatsoever that those policies, if carried out as at present intended, would have a very damaging effect on the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Although the leader of the Labour party shouts something at me across the Dispatch Box, it was he who referred to the tartan tax—an extra £6 a week, which he seems to think is an accountancy detail.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36023]

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

Given the widespread public concern expressed over the summer, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity, particularly before the Commonwealth conference next month, of condemning the French nuclear tests in the south Pacific?

No, I will not.

The Prime Minister spoke with the Home Secretary last week in the Winter Gardens at Blackpool where the subject of closed circuit televisions to deal with law and order was raised. Is he aware that in Cleethorpes we have a Winter Gardens, but we do not yet have closed circuit television. The Minister of State was unable to accede to my request earlier this year. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and the people of Cleethorpes that this time round Cleethorpes will be considered for closed circuit television in the high street and on the sea front where we have a problem with the youths and yobs who cause such distress to our retired people in Cleethorpes?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be provision for a further 10,000 such closed circuit television cameras over the next three years and I have no doubt, as we consider where those should be, that my hon. Friend may from time to time mention the particular concerns of Cleethorpes.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36024]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that there have been angry reactions throughout the country to reports that overseas aid is to be cut by 12 per cent. over two years? Does he not care that such cuts would have a catastrophic effect on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world? Is he aware that 79 per cent. of the British people find such cuts repugnant when they will be used for tax cuts in the run-up to the general election?

As the hon. Lady knows, at something more than £2.2 billion, we have the fifth largest overseas aid programme in the world. It is not only one of the largest aid programmes in the world but, as the hon. Lady herself has acknowledged in the past, one of the best. I assure the hon. Lady that, after my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget, we shall continue to have a highly effective aid programme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concept of fundholding is right at the core of the success of our reforms in the health service? Has he noticed that doctors who are fundholders have, in the past two days, roundly attacked Labour's proposals for the sham that they are and have said that they will destroy the very success that we have created? Will my right hon. Friend now take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to fundholding status and to point out the disastrous concept of Labour policy?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The report by the GPs sets out what we have said consistently about fundholding—that our reforms are benefiting patients and delivering to them the service that they deserve. If the Labour party seriously intended to turn the clock back and to abolish fundholding, it would create chaos and confusion, and would damage the service for patients. The fact of the matter is that Labour is more concerned about political gestures than about care for the patient, and that has always been the case.