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

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will undertake a pilot project in the 1993–94 academic year to test further the most appropriate way of delivering key stage 3 English in the national curriculum.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on progress in introducing English tests in secondary schools.

Tests provide vital information about children's progress. This is nowhere more important than in English, which is the bedrock of the curriculum.

The preparation of the 1993 English tests by the School Examinations and Assessment Council has been scrupulous. The tests have been tried out in hundreds of schools over the past two and half years. SEAC itself has responded to teachers' concerns by providing all the information that teachers need about the tests in January—a good five months before they are taken.

The tests will go ahead as planned; anything less would be to let down pupils who have been following the national curriculum in English for the past three years.

The Secretary of State clearly does not realise the anger and despair that he is causing in local schools by pressing ahead with key stage 3. Will he not today announce the postponement of the tests for at least one year and pick up the phone and talk to some of the teachers in my Constituency at local schools such as Oakwood and Parrswood about the total lack of preparation time that they have been given? There has also been a complete lack of consultation on the adequacy of the tests, which are inadequate in relationship to the national curriculum. The Secretary of State should today call for a postponement, not for his sake or for my sake, but for the sake of our children's education.

Over the past two and a half years the tests have been piloted in more than 500 schools, involving more than 45,000 children. There are two separate issues. First, the tests are new, and all new tests cause problems with people who have not conducted them before; there are alleged teething problems, and I respect the views of teachers, including secondary school heads, who are always interested in getting the tests right.

Secondly, there is a totally separate agenda characterised by the National Union of Teachers which, in its "Anti-SATs News", states that it wishes to undermine the whole of the Government's testing regime. It states: The boycott of the Key Stage 3 English tests is the first step on this road.

Given the Secretary of State's well-known reluctance to listen to anyone with misgivings about the direction of his education policy, may I ask to whom he listened when he decided to change the national curriculum for English well before the time it was due for review and against the recommendations of the report of Warwick university?

The National Curriculum Council—professional advisers to the Secretary of State in England—felt that the English curriculum needed a review and that there should be much more concentration on the basics in the English curriculum. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that the English national curriculum and the testing regime run as smoothly as possible. There are more than 4 million adult illiterates in this country, and the number has been rising since the 1960s—hence the critical importance of the testing: we need a benchmark against which to judge children's improved performance.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said. Is it not vital to introduce proper testing to reduce the number of illiterates in Britain, which is one of the most serious problems that we face? Will he recognise, however, that some head teachers in my Constituency who support the principle of testing are concerned at the relatively rapid speed with which the English tests have been introduced? Is there not a case for a dry run this year, as was done with the maths and science tests last year?

Those are the kind of arguments that were put forward by head teachers, a great number of whom I have met in recent months to discuss those and other issues. In the run-up to the first ever proper tests in English for children aged seven in 1991 there were the same kind of fears and inhibitions, but the tests went ahead. They have given us a benchmark and have shown that, while between 1991 and 1992 the performance of children in English improved, lamentably, about one quarter of our children are still not performing adequately in English. We must begin to ensure that all our children get a fair deal, and testing is critical in that process.

Will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically representations made to him by schools that have suddenly had to buy additional books for key stage 3 for which they had not budgeted?

I know the particular problems in Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend has been an assiduous promoter of the interests of schools in his county and his Constituency. This year, there has been about £15 million additional support for books. Every time there is a new syllabus—it is the same with GCSE and A-level—there can be additional demands. That is why I urge all local authorities to delegate as much of their budget as possible to schools, because less money spent on bureaucrats equals more money spent on books.

Will the Secretary of State correct his statement a few minutes ago that the tests have been piloted in hundreds of schools? Is it not a fact that the University of Cambridge local examinations syndicate obtained the contract for the tests last summer and that the tests have been piloted in only 32 schools involving pupils of the wrong age—15-year-olds and not 14-year-olds? Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and realise that it is not just in Bedfordshire that schools face financial problems as a result of the imposition of the tests? What does he intend to do about the fact that some of the books on the recommended list are out of print? Will he acknowledge that he cannot say that he respects teachers, parents and governors and then always refuse to listen to them?

No, and if the hon. Lady goes on like that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be putting in claims for damages for passive boring. The key stage 3 English tests have been prepared with more care and over a longer period than any other public examination.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting those teachers and their organisations who have set aside the idea of a boycott because they feel that that is not the right way forward? Does he agree that a boycott goes against the whole idea of teachers' professional standards and is not the right way to conduct a debate on this or any other issue?

Any boycott would do great damage to the teaching profession. Head teachers, whom I met as recently as last Friday in a group to discuss just this issue, all said that they did not wish to see any boycotting of the tests. However, I happen to know from the evidence that I put before the House a moment or two ago that the NUT now wishes to go completely against testing. I happen to think that that is becoming Labour party policy as well.