To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to publish his report on student finance; and if he will make a statement.

The student support review has not yet completed its work. The Government's proposals for the future of student support will be published in due course.

As women are generally lower paid than men, what steps will the Under-Secretary take to ensure that there is no discrimination against female students applying for loans under the Government's proposals?

The Government have not yet announced any proposals, so it is hard for me to comment. There has been a great deal of rather imaginative speculation in the press. We are determined that there will be no discrimination in the system of student support and that that system will promote access to higher education for everyone who is qualified for it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that I attach great importance to student loans? Is he aware that the majority of cases of hardship that come to me are caused by parents who do not meet their parental responsibilities? Therefore, if students had access to loans, they would be infinitely better off. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the repayment terms are such that the system does not turn into a reverse dowry against girls and does not disadvantage those on long courses?

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestions, but many countries have a student loan system that does not operate to the disadvantage of women. In fact, it secures greater access to higher education than does our system of grants. Only 8 per cent. of our entrants to universities come from social classes 4 and 5, which is a lower percentage than that in countries that operate student loan schemes.

Has the Minister considered the American experience of student loans? Is he aware that defaults on loans are running high—at least 20 per cent. or, perhaps, higher? The American Education Secretary, William J. Bennett, said that the defaults are now out of control. Despite trying a number of methods to recover the loans, the Americans are now talking about withholding student loan grants from institutes that cannot reduce defaults to below 20 per cent. Is that the sort of future that the Minister envisages for education

I have already said that we are considering international experience. The United Kingdom is virtually the only country that does not have a loan element. We shall learn from the mistakes of other countries. Some of them—for example, Sweden—have a low default rate, so the evidence is not as conclusive as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Does my hon. Friend agree that adults who have the vote should be fully prepared to take responsibility for financing their further education? Does he also agree that those who take loans would render themselves independent as adults, from both their parents and the Government?

We have carried out a survey of student income and expenditure, which has shown that many parents do not pay the full parental contribution. About 40 per cent. fail to do so. There is no doubt that the provision of additional resources to students would help them to secure the greater independence to which my hon. Friend referred.

Will the Minister look carefully at the American experience, particularly the indictment of the loan system in the New York Times on 8 June, which pointed out that 25 per cent. of students were now defaulting in the United States, it was costing about ․2 billion from federal funds to meet the defaults, there was pressure for checking on the credit rating of students to stop defaults, and perhaps the most damning of all, over a 10-year period, from one in three students having to depend on loans rather than grants, three in four students were having to depend on loans? Surely we should not follow the United States and make the same mistake of bringing in a loan system that will be unfortunate for students and for national finance.

We can learn a great deal from studying the experience of other countries, which have variegated systems of student support. The American experience in respect of defaults on loan payments is anomalous compared with the experience of other countries that have loan systems.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is in a position to make an assessment of the number of vacant head teacher posts; and if he will make a statement.

My Department estimates that at January 1988 approximately 300 head teacher posts were vacant. That is only slightly more than 1 per cent. of head teacher posts.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that we have a growing problem with head teachers leaving the profession, many through early retirement, and that there is great difficulty in recruiting replacements? I understand that 50 per cent. of all head teacher jobs advertised in London have to be readvertised because of the lack of suitable applicants. Even in my constituency of Carlisle, for which Cumbria is the education authority, we now have a staff turnover of 10 per cent. Will not the new Education Reform Bill, with its ideas of turning head teachers into managing directors, add to that problem? We are likely to lose many of our best and most experienced head teachers. Will the Secretary of State make available £35 million to train head teachers, as requested by the National Association of Head Teachers? Will the Secretary of State meet the head teachers union to discuss their problems?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's many questions, the interim advisory committee found no evidence of serious recruitment problems affecting head teacher posts. Certainly I have never heard that head teachers and teachers do not want to work in Cumbria —that is one of the more popular areas for teachers.

I am certain that head teachers are looking forward to the Education Reform Bill becoming an Act, because of the additional opportunities that it will provide. To what extent do premature retirements figure in head teacher vacancies? Will my right hon. Friend also say a word about indiscipline in schools? In his opinion, is that preventing recruitment?

There is not a great deal of convincing evidence that there are a large number of premature retirements. I reported that there were 300 head teacher vacancies in January 1988—the first time that we have collected the figures. That is against 30,000 head teacher posts, and it is a very small figure indeed.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the report that showed that many hundreds of head teachers are seeking early retirement? Is not the Government's brutal approach to salaries and conditions of service creating that problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman not creating a legacy of and bad morale in our schools that will affect the education of our children for many years to come?

I do not agree. For the first time in the history of the teaching profession head teachers of the large comprehensives in our inner cities can earn as much as£32,000 a year. There is now effective career progression for teachers, with incentive allowances. There is no doubt that that will attract many people into the profession.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these vacant headships are mainly in politically perverse LEAs?

I do not have the figures, but I am sure that there is some connection.

Has the Secretary of State noticed a recent survey by Oxford polytechnic, which showed that half the head teacher posts vacant in London and the south-east were not filled on the first advertisement and that schools had run for some time without a head teacher? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the recent comments by the National Association of Head Teachers, which has expressed its concern about the increasing burden placed on head teachers by the Education Reform Bill? The association has predicted that there will be an increase in the number of early retirements and suggested that Government action is needed to prevent head teachers from leaving the profession. In particular, the association has proposed expenditure of £35 million to establish a staff college for head teachers. Will the Government react positively to that proposal?

We shall certainly improve the quality of head teacher training. The task force, which I shall establish later in the year, will plan that. I want to involve the private sector, because private sector management training will be important. In those authorities where budgets have been delegated to heads, the heads have welcomed that move. They have found their jobs more interesting and their control of their schools better. I am sure that head teachers across the country are awaiting the implementation of our Bill.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no higher vocation than that of head teacher or deputy head teacher? Is he aware that they require reasonable sanctions with which to deal with difficult and recalcitrant pupils? Has my right hon. Friend seen last week's report by the National Association of Head Teachers, complaining that there have been no proper substitute discipline sanctions for corporal punishment since its abolition about two years ago? Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?

My hon. Friend was a deputy head teacher who decided to become a Member of Parliament, and teaching's loss is our gain. He brings great experience to the House. The power of head teachers to control disruptive behaviour is an important matter. Some head teachers feel that their powers have been undermined, and that is one reason why I have set up the Elton committee to report on the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the variability of the level of nursery education provision offered by different local authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what planned programme of expansion of educational provision for children between the ages of three and four years he expects to occur over the next three years.

The variations in education provision for the under-fives across the country reflect differences in local authorities' needs and priorities. The Government's current expenditure plans provide for the number of three and four-year-olds in nursery and primary schools to increase in line with the projected increase in their age cohorts up to 1992.

Will the Minister reflect on the statement by the Prime Minister, who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1972, called for nursery provision for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds within 10 years? Has the Minister changed his mind? Does he intend to make the necessary resources available to meet this pressing need?

Since 1979 the proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery or primary schools nationally has increased from 37 to 44 per cent. The proportion of four-year-olds in such schools now exceeds 75 per cent. compared with 55 per cent. in 1979. The proportion would be much higher if rising-fives were included.

I welcome the improvement, but does my hon. Friend agree that there are many areas where the playgroup movement makes an important contribution and that many people welcome the variation in provision and would by no means agree that universal nursery school provision is the right approach?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government regard the playgroup movement as an important form of provision for under-fives and we always encourage it.

Is there not a great and deliberate gap in the answers that the Minister is giving about nursery education? Throughout the country, and especially in the south, Tory authorities have practically no nursery education, because they want to keep the rates down. Last week members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts were in Dorset, which has virtually no nursery education, and where they have preschool playgroups which are cheaper in every way. Is it not apparent that Tory authorities are trying to educate ordinary children on the cheap, and that only in Labour areas do ordinary children go to nursery school?

The hon. Gentleman goes too far. The Opposition have plenty of ideas for spending other people's money, but not one sensible idea about how to create wealth. It is clear to me that nursery education for all would be very expensive and, furthermore, would not be appropriate for all children. How do the Opposition propose to pay for nursery education for all?

Does my hon. Friend accept that variation in the provision of nursery education is to be welcomed and that the content of the curriculum is more important than the definitive form of the provision? Does he accept, however, that there are considerable misgivings about the number of four-year-olds who are being taught in primary schools and for whom the timetable and curriculum are wholly inappropriate to their years'' Will he consider that point?

The admission of under-fives to reception classes is at the discretion of local education authorities. It is important that the provision for those pupils should be appropriately and adequately resourced. The Government are aware that the presence of significant numbers of four-year-olds can give rise to problems in some areas and, through the agency of Her Majesty's inspectors, we are closely monitoring the situation.

Surely the Minister is not disagreeing with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who favours—or favoured—nursery education for all. The Minister spoke about costs. In the past 10 years, however, total public spending on child care services, including local authority nurseries, has hardly increased, despite the increase in the numbers of women going out to work and the increasing demands for provision reflected in survey after survey. Surely the truth is that the Government have no targets, no standards and no concern for the needs of the under-fives. The Minister apparently has no comment to make about the vastly differing provision available in the LEAs. What does he have to say about Labour Hounslow which provides 64 per cent. of its children with nursery education, and about Gloucestershire, which provides no nursery education?

Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to be brief and to ask a question?

It is a simple question. Why do the Government continue to ignore the needs of the under-fives?

I remind the hon. Lady that the Government plan to provide for an increase of about 5 per cent. between now and 1992 in expenditure for the education of the under-fives. That is on top of a 25 per cent. increase in expenditure over the past five years.

I reject the Opposition's criticisms, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is increasing awareness of the importance of pre-school education for children, not least so that they can take advantage of the improved teaching standards that the Government are bringing about in primary and secondary education? Will the Government therefore plan for an extension of nursery education for all children?

The Government have always accepted that some pre-school experience is beneficial for the under-fives, both at the time and later, but this sector must compete with others for the resources that are available. However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent assessment he has made of the effects of his proposals for the funding of education in London, following abolition of the Inner London education authority, on the quality of education in London and the south-east.

From 1990 LEAs in London will, under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill, be financed in the same way as other authorities in England. Our education policy in inner London is to improve the quality and increase the accountability of the education service.

Is it not incongruous that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Minister who is responsible for these matters, should be begging me to go to the Inner London education authority to secure funds for the Merchant Navy college, Greenhithe, which is in his constituency, when he is cutting the money for ILEA and promoting its abolition? Can we not, on a more bipartisan basis, find some way forward whereby the future of this college, this national facility, can be safeguarded?

When the hon. Gentleman talks about a bipartisan policy, that is the time to count the spoons.

Answer the question.

I am about to answer it. I know that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) takes a great interest in the future of the Merchant Navy college in Dartford. The future of the college is a matter for ILEA, and I understand that ILEA has been reviewing its future for many months. That is a quite separate question from the transfer of responsibilities to the boroughs. I understand that ILEA will be taking a decision shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that when the Inner London education authority takes an interest in the Merchant Navy college in Dartford, all of a sudden it wishes to abolish it? Does he not consider that it is more than a coincidence that that abolition by ILEA, a Labour-controlled authority, should be in the constituency of one of the Education Ministers?

As I have already said, I am rather on the sidelines, because it is a further education college. Therefore, it does not come to me in my role as the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that ILEA has been looking at the future of the college for a very considerable time, and it is for ILEA to decide whether it wishes to retain it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the financing and future arrangements for the transfer of ILEA to the London boroughs is a matter of great importance? That is why, despite the fact that we profoundly disagree with the policy, Labour London boroughs, in the interests of the children of London, are co-operating with a will to secure an orderly transfer. Does the Secretary of State accept that he needs to measure up to his responsibilities? Since the service could not cope with cuts during the transfer, when does he intend to guarantee the finances of ILEA? If it is important to him, can he explain why twice as many civil servants are working on the education of a few hundred children in city technology colleges as are working on a transfer of education that affects 270,000 children in London?

The hon. Gentleman asks me how many of my civil servants are working in the unit. I gave him the reply to that question in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that many other civil servants in other parts of my Department, at middle management and senior management level, are concerned with ILEA. I am very pleased that since the decision of the House of Lords all individual London Labour boroughs have visited my Department's unit. It is quite clear that, constructively, and apparently with some relish in many cases, they are planning to become local education authorities in 1990, when the boroughs will inherit all the schools and colleges as going concerns and will have the resources to maintain them.

HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)?"—The House may be assured that I would rather have a leadership election in my party than no leader at all, as in the Labour party. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us return to the question.

Will the Secretary of State say what estimates, if any, he has made of the extra costs to be imposed on London ratepayers because of the appointment of chief education officers and senior officers, some at £40,000 a year, in every London borough, and why he believes that that will reduce the cost of education in London, about which he has complained so much?

We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. Clearly he is keeping the education portfolio warm, just in case matters do not work out.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now received a copy of the inquiry report concerning events at Burnage school, Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

I have now received a copy of the full Burnage inquiry report and of the legal advice Manchester city council has received. I am considering the implications of those documents carefully.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is vital that all schools promote racial harmony and tolerance, the anti-racist, doctrinaire policies adopted by the Burnage school in Manchester and by some Labour local authorities elsewhere are in danger of alienating the vast majority of parents and pupils, and thus of being counter-productive?

What happened at the Burnage school was a very tragic episode, and anyone who reads the report cannot help but be moved by the tragic sequence of events. I agree that good race relations are not best served by the clumsy application of anti-racist policies. Mutual respect and tolerance must be the key pillars of any race relations policy.

I hope that when the Secretary of State has considered the documents, he will publish them in the Library, so that everyone can read the report, and so that the unwarranted criticism of the school which has been made yet again in the House by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), can be put in its place. We may then have an opportunity to congratulate the school on the efforts that have been made over the past two years, and to congratulate the staff, governors and parents on their invaluable work in trying to enhance the school. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way forward is to recognise the valuable work done by Manchester city council on race relations policies and their implementation in Manchester schools? I hope that he will support such policies and provide adequate resources to ensure that they are continued and extended in Manchester and throughout the country.

The hon. Gentleman asks me to publish the report, but it raises complex legal matters on which I am still receiving advice. I must bear in mind that the inquiry was not the same as the judicial public inquiry held in the case of the Zeebrugge and King's Cross disasters. It is not a question of a cover-up, but of where the public interest lies in relation to the rights of those individuals named in the report. I must take careful legal advice on that point.

I remind my right hon. Friend that pernicious policies of reverse discrimination are wide-spread. When the local authority for Colton Hills schools in Wolverhampton wished to introduce the teaching of Punjabi to all children on a compulsory basis, and when some of the parents——

Order. The question concerns Burnage school in Manchester.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is about the principle there.

Order. With great respect, it is about events at Burnage school.

Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that such events may recur elsewhere, for such policies are being opposed in many schools? When parents protest, they are rudely and roundly described as racist, in a way that is counter-productive.

Some of the report's conclusions comment on the application of anti-racist policies. However, the incidents mentioned there relate very much to Burnage school. There are other schools in the Manchester area where similar policies have been pursued, but not with such tragic consequences. I make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that there is no place in our schools for any manifestation of racial antagonism or intolerance. We are pursuing a range of measures to overcome racial disharmony.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the progress of the working parties established in relation to the national curriculum.

My right hon. Friend is expecting final reports from the mathematics and science working groups by the end of this month. These reports, together with my right hon. Friend's comments, will be published in due course. Working groups for English and for design and technology were set up on 29 April. The English working group has been asked to report on the primary stages by 30 September and on the secondary stages by 30 April next year. Interim and final reports of the design and technology working group are to be submitted by 31 October and 30 April respectively.

To avoid any confusion about the teaching of history as part of the curriculum, will the Minister make it clear whether she supports the Secretary of State's view that the teaching of history is an integral part of the curriculum foundation course, or whether she supports the Prime Minister's view, expressed in the Oxford university magazine last year, that the teaching of history is a luxury?

It is perfectly clear from the way in which the Education Reform Bill is formulated that history is regarded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, by the Government, as one of our foundation subjects. Therefore, history will be taught within the foundation subjects in all schools as and when the working party reports to us.

Will my hon. Friend proceed at a leisurely pace on the setting up of the working group on foreign languages, since it is not immediately clear from where the staff to teach that discipline are to come?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of my hon. Friend's comments on that matter. It is our intention ultimately to set up a working group on the teaching of foreign languages, and the supply of teachers will form part of our considerations when the working groups have reported and the national curriculum is introduced into our schools.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that some of the working parties consider health education? Will they support the view of the Minister for Health that anti-smoking campaigns should be pursued in schools? If so, will the Minister consider what will happen in city technology colleges? Will the Government make sure that the basic curriculum is followed there as well as in other schools?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will fund the city technology colleges when he is satisfied that the core and foundation subjects are being satisfactorily taught as part of their curriculum. We expect health education to be part of the schools' curriculum outside the core and foundation subjects, and also part of the cross-curricula themes, of which we would expect the science working group in particular to take note.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he is taking to ensure that head teachers and governors are adequately trained for their expanded duties under the Education Reform Bill.

We propose to give priority within the local education authority training grant scheme to training which will support heads and senior teachers in implementing the initiatives introduced in our Bill. My right hon. Friend has also recently announced proposals to establish a task force for management training. We further propose that education support grants should be available in 1989–90 on £5 million of expenditure on the training of school and college governors, and £25 million of expenditure to ensure that head teachers and governors are properly supported during the introduction of financial delegation to our schools.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Education Reform Bill opens new perspectives for head teachers and gives school governors a proper job to do for the first time? Does he further agree that the training opportunities that he has outlined today, and the Government's publicity campaign, may and should alert many more people in all walks of life, including business, to the opportunities that they will have to influence education at the level of the individual school?

Yes, Sir. To that end, over 3·5 million copies of "Shouldn't you become a school governor?" and nearly 750,000 copies of "School governors—a new role" have been distributed. The leaflets have been widely welcomed and there is continuing demand for them, especially from schools. The opportunities ahead are exciting.

Will the Minister recognise that many people who are concerned about education are worried that head teachers, rather than being involved in education, will increasingly become business managers, and feel that this will be detrimental to the education of our children? Can he give an assurance that we will be able to find governors who are able to give the time that is necessary to deal with the new responsibilities that will be laid upon governors? It is not all about training. We need people who are able to give the time that is necessary as well.

In the context of the first part of the question posed by the hon. Member, I believe that the reverse is the case. All our provisions, especially financial delegation, will allow head teachers to devote more time to the improvement of education in their schools, rather than constantly banging on the doors of the education office to get minor things done which are time-consuming. With regard to the second part of the question, it is incumbent on all of us in this Chamber, and many outside, to ensure a supply of highly motivated, enthusiastic individuals who are ready to serve as school governors, irrespective of the source from which they might come.

Does my hon. Friend agree that before one can train school governors one has to find them, that one of the most effective ways of finding them is by increasing the use of volunteers at all levels within the schools, and that people can graduate from being volunteers helping the school to being school governors? Will he undertake to look very seriously at the possibility of expanding the use of volunteers to assist in the education of our children? [Interruption.]

They have sacked all the governors in Kent.

And they have sacked all the governors in Staffordshire.

If I am allowed to answer the question, I should like to point out that the reforms upon which we have embarked are giving governors more say in the management of their schools. This should make the role of a school governor, and school government, much more attractive to many people who have previously not considered it. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) goes on about the county of Kent. I ask him to address his interest to what has taken place in the county of Staffordshire.

If the Minister has a moment, may I ask whether it will not mean a massive increase in expenditure to train these heads and governors, with no educational advantage? Head teachers and governors in my constituency of Bradford, South are desperately pressing for money from the Government to increase the number of buildings. As the Minister knows, there are 500 temporary classrooms. All this training will not get round the enormous problem of making sure that there are adequate premises, which is the Government's responsibility. When will they face it and provide money to replace some of the 500 temporary classrooms in my constituency and elsewhere in Bradford?

I am absolutely horrified by the question posed by the hon. Member. I know that he has been out of the House of Commons for some time, and will undoubtedly be so again, and I must point out to him that our capital programme is much improved and that most of what he said is both rubbish and irrelevant. Secondly, the reforms on which we have embarked will encourage a more positive attitude from those who are, and those who wish to become, school governors under these reforms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to introduce open enrolment in schools.

From September 1990 all secondary schools will have to be prepared to admit as many pupils as they can accommodate. Many admissions authorities should be ready to respond to parental demand before that date and we shall give them every encouragement to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this policy of open enrolment in schools has been widely welcomed by parents in south Buckinghamshire because of the increased choice that it will give them? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that there is no slippage in this programme? Could it not be brought forward to 1989?

We considered the question of timing during our deliberations, especially in Committee. It is clear to us that this policy can be adopted by schools and local authorities now. Many local authorities follow a policy of open enrolment, much to the satisfaction of parents in the communities that they serve. Because we recogniseed that open enrolment would pose an administrative problem and place further demands upon local education authorities and governors, we decided to introduce it from September 1990.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the financing of city technology colleges.

Overall planned expenditure on the city technology colleges programme is £86 million in the present public expenditure planning period. To date more than£20 million has been pledged by sponsors towards the capital costs of establishing CTCs. The normal running costs of CTCs will be met by Exchequer grant.

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State still believes that the substantial cost of CTCs should be borne by the private sector, especially since he made that speech to the Conservative conference last year? Also, if there is to be fairness, what contribution is he prepared to make to state-maintained schools in those areas where CTCs are being set up? What funds will be available for state-maintained schools to advance their science and technology teaching?

In the first place, this is the greatest amount of money ever pledged from the private sector to support schools. Private sector money is most welcome to support my right hon. Friend's inspired initiative in setting up these new schools for children who live in deprived urban areas. The Labour and Alliance parties could have assisted in the initiative had they been more willing as local authorities to give planning permission so that buildings that are no longer required could have been used for this extraordinarily good initiative, to enable children to gain from the education that their parents want for them.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House take time today to consider the grave security implications arising from three letters by Airey Neave to a former active officer in MI5, recruiting that officer to do freelance work for the Conservative party, updating disinformation and propaganda exercises against the Labour Government? Will he set up an inquiry to consider how it was that Airey Neave knew that this individual had been working for MI5, how he knew how to contact him, and how he was aware of the existence of that black propaganda exercise if he was not involved in it?

The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with this subject. I have nothing to add to the many answers that have been given on the subject already.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister our congratulations on the leading role that she has taken in the economic summit on the important subjects of the world economy, drugs, and terrorism? Does he agree that under her stewardship Britain is now recognised as a world leader and not the sick man of Europe, as we were known under the Labour Administration?

It is clear that under the Prime Minister and this Government Britain plays a leading role in world affairs. The value of the sound and sensible policies that we have pursued has been recognised throughout the world. Only on the Opposition Benches do hon. Members; cling to out-dated and unworkable policies.

Do the consequences of the policies of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking include the revised estimate for the balance of payments deficit for the first quarter and the anticipated £10 billion deficit for this year, despite massive oil revenues?

The 1987 current deficit is less than half of 1 per cent. of the GDP, compared with 3 to 4 per cent. during the mid-1970s. The cumulative surplus of £211 billion from 1980 to 1987 compares with a deficit of over £5 billion from 1975 to 1979.

It would only be confirming with the right hon. Gentleman's customary fairness to set the massive oil revenues against the figure that he now produces. As he cannot be content with the possibility of a £10 billion balance of payments deficit and a £20 billion trade deficit, will he tell us what the Government intend to do to close those gaps?

The economy has come through major fluctuations in the price of oil without crisis and, because of our sound economic policies, the prospects remain excellent. The stock of United Kingdom overseas assets at the end of 1987 were provisionally estimated at £90 billion, or 21 per cent. of GDP. Our invisible surpluses are the largest in the world.

On a rather more important security matter, will my right hon. Friend find time today to go down to GCHQ and find the Government's top code breakers and cryptologists and ask them to provide an English translation of the incomprehensible gibberish that appeard in this morning's Independent, under the headline "Labour's defence policy: Neil Kinnock explains"?

I have the greatest admiration for the effectiveness of our security system, but I do not believe that the people concerned could understand the gibberish coming from the Labour party.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to distance himself and the Government from the statement that was made in another place last week suggesting that lotteries should be produced as an inducement to people to pay their poll tax early, in a lump sum? Does he agree that such a blatant bribe will be anathema to many people, and that in Scotland it is nothing more than a bribe, or, at best, a gimmick that would in the end benefit only the well off?

I am not one of those who are very enthusiastic about lotteries. I believe that the community charge introduced in Scotland is a much fairer tax than we have had before and will be seen to be a much better basis of paying for local government than heretofore.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), will my right hon. Friend do all he can tonight to secure the successful passage of the motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties, because I, and no doubt the whole House, need good research from the Labour party so that it can explain the differences between its defence policy at the general election, last week, this week and no doubt next week?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but he has set an ambitious target in seeking to follow all the variations in policy proposed by the Labour party. I fear that even the significant increase in financial assistance to Opposition parties which I have proposed and which I hope my hon. Friends will support would not be sufficient to enable them to explain all their policies.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister how she reconciles the policies of two of her Ministers? One of them has urged a smoking ban on all teachers to ensure that at least half the children who might take up smoking will not do so, and the other is accepting money from British-American Tobacco for the establishment of a school when the chairman of that company says he would expect that the school would not have in it any anti-smoking campaigns.

The Government's policy on smoking is well known. Health warnings are clearly given, with the support of the Government. British-American Tobacco is a company with a wide range of interests, and the Government welcome its support for education.

In the light of the Government's magnificent lead in tackling international drug trafficking, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the Government plan to support the international day of action against drug misuse and illicit trafficking, which was approved by all members of the United Nations last November and will take place on Monday?

The Government attach high priority to international co-operation against drug misuse. The international day of action against drug misuse has been re-scheduled for Monday 27 June. The Government's anti-drug strategy is kept under review by a ministerial group on drug misuse, and it will meet on that day to take stock of progress and to make plans for future action.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

When the Prime Minister returns from her journey abroad, will the right hon. Gentleman please refer to her for her personal attention the plight of children with special needs who are being educated in special schools throughout the country? Will he especially ask her to look into the reason why, with the cuts in the Health Service and the mix-up in the Department of Education and Science, thousands are unable to walk or to use their facilities as they cannot get the physiotherapy that they need? Since April thousands more have lost the free school meals that they should have. Why are these resources being taken away from the children who need them most?

The Government have provided substantially more funds for the disabled and for education than in the past. It is up to local authorities to decide how best to spend their resources.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very encouraging to hear the words of Mr. Hammond, the leader of the EETPU, extolling modern work practices? Does he also agree that it is rather depressing that the Trades Union Congress and leading unions do not appear to share Mr. Hammond's views?

I am certain that among the millions of our citizens who are members of trades unions many want to see Britain prosper, work practices improve and outdated practices disappear. It is a pity that some trade union leaders do not seem to reflect the views of their members. Mr. Hammond is reflecting his members' views.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House be honest with the House and the people about supporting the private Member's Bill concerning ports in Yorkshire? Will he admit that it is related to the privatisation of the electricity industry? Why do the Government not be honest about the thing and let people know?

Private Bills come before the House under the general direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government's position on the Bill will be made clear in the speech made by the Minister in the debate, and I look forward to listening to it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Last night the Government intended that the House should debate regulations that would increase the price of concessionary television licences for old-age pensioners from 5p to £5 and reduce the number of old-age pensioners who could qualify for such licences. How do the Government justify such a mean attack on old-age pensioners?

I have agreed through the usual channels that the order that was unfortunately lost last night will be retabled on the Order Paper to enable the hon. Gentleman and others to make their points on another occasion. The point at issue was that the original arrangemens, which had worked for a long time, fell foul of some legal decisions, and the Government propose to put forward what they believe to be an equitable solution in a difficult area.