To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to change the student loans scheme.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that the loans scheme has turned out to be an administrative nightmare and that it has caused a great deal of bureaucracy and hardship to students, especially since they have been removed from the safety net of social security? Is not it hard that all those measures have been placed on students at a time when they find it particularly difficult to get vacation jobs or part-time jobs in term time and when those who graduate find it increasingly difficult to get jobs to pay off the overdrafts that they have had to incur as students?

I do not agree with any of those premises. First, the scheme has been extremely well run and the loans company has met its target of getting the loans to those who have applied within 21 days in almost all cases. The majority of students have not felt obliged to take out loans as they have not thought it necessary. Those who have done so have enjoyed the benefit. The loan plus the grant is 30 per cent. higher than the grant alone two years ago. There is no evidence of significant student hardship, despite a somewhat half-baked campaign by the National Union of Students to try to suggest that there is. We have provided an access fund to the institutions to enable them to deal with the few cases of hardship that genuinely occur.

If the situation is as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) describes it, why has the number of applicants to advanced education increased and why does the number of admissions to universities and polytechnics show a substantial increase? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that student support in the United Kingdom continues to be the most generous in the western world?

I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's first question; it puzzles me, too. We had been told that the loans system would deter people who might otherwise have gone into higher education because of the so-called financial hardship that they would face. In fact, since it has been introduced, the rate at which student numbers have increased has been unprecedented and we expect it to increase by 10 per cent. again this year. All the evidence refutes the nonsense that we have heard about the impact of the student loans scheme.

My hon. Friend is right that we have the most generous system in the developed world for supporting students. I make no apology for that. It is Government policy to continue to extend opportunity for students in that way.

Why is the Secretary of State so contemptuous of the evidence about student hardship when it comes from sources such as the citizens advice bureaux and from scores of cases sent to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does the Secretary of State recognise that the access funds are in no sense a substitute for student eligibility for social security and for vacation hardship allowance and that mature students in particular have been plunged into severe hardship by the Government's policies? In the light of that, will he reconsider the abolition of vacation hardship allowance, especially as it was abolished in clear breach of undertakings given in the House that it would remain as a safety net following the abolition of social security provision?

I have looked at the evidence of so-called student hardship and I do not accept that the "scores" of cases stand up to examination. There have always been some students in serious difficulties. Mature students and those who do not receive the parental contribution towards their grant have always been a problem. It is somewhat eased for some by the student loans system. It can also be addressed by using the access funds provided by the Government. The average student is much better off under our arrangements of a combined grant and loan scheme than previously. The few that are not—those with high housing benefit—can be helped through the access funds. The vacation hardship allowance was almost unheard of and was not being demanded. When we abolished it there was scarcely any take-up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in Hampshire have now applied for and achieved grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

Four schools in Hampshire have applied for and achieved grant-maintained status. I am pleased that the parents of pupils at those schools have voted to take up this option for their schools. I hope that many more in Hampshire and, indeed, throughout the country will follow their example.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate Hardley school in my constituency which was the first in Hampshire to achieve grant-maintained status? Does my hon. Friend accept that opting out, as it is called, is a misnomer because schools which achieve grant-maintained status are opting into a new educational regime of higher morale, better educational opportunities and more money? What percentage of schools in Hampshire will have to achieve grant-maintained status for the local education authority to become redundant?

I hope that the local education authority will encourage schools to go grant maintained. There is much evidence from a recent survey that that is beneficial to schools and pupils. For example, of the schools replying to the survey, 90 per cent. reported an increase in the number of pupils applying, 65 per cent. reported more teachers in the schools and 75 per cent. reported an improved teacher-pupil ratio. That is evidence of the success of the GM policy.

rose—

The question is about Hampshire.

I know that it is about Hampshire, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister offer the House any justifycation for the provision of more money to schools in Hampshire because they happen to serve the current dogma of the present Government?

The money is allocated to Hampshire on the normal standard spending assessment basis. Grant-maintained schools rightly get money which would otherwise be spent on administration costs by Hampshire. Those grant-maintained schools are using that money effectively for the benefit of the school and, more importantly, of improving education for the pupils attending those schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responsibilities he has for the sports and arts foundation.

The Foundation for Sport and the Arts is an independent trust which decides the allocation of its own funds. Under the trust deed I appoint a Government observer and am consulted on the appointment of the chairman. In practice, I keep in close touch with the work of the foundation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Football Trust gets an extra £20 million from the 2·5 per cent. reduction in the betting levy which goes towards the safety and improvement of football grounds?

That is certainly part of the money that is made available as a result of the far-sighted decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. When one adds to that the £40 million or so from the trust, my hon. Friends at least will recognise that the Government can lay claim to spending more money on sport than any party has done for many years.

Is not the Minister somewhat ashamed of himself? Despite the various amounts that come from the Foundation for Sports and the Arts—given at the whim of the trustees in a haphazard fashion—they do not compensate in any way for the £60 million cut in real grant from the Government since 1986. What answer will the Minister give to the chairman of the Sports Council, who described the recent cuts as a kick in the teeth?

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber; he should be on the Opposition Front Bench as their spokesman for sport, as my shadow is not here. Perhaps something should be read into that.

This year the increase in grant to the Sports Council is 4·4 per cent., which is more than the rate of inflation and equivalent year on year to what we have pledged ourselves to provide. I repeat that if one adds to that the £40 million from the foundation, the £20 million a year for football and the 1 million that I found for the champion coaching scheme, it is clear that our commitment to sport is greater than anyone's.

I spoke to the chairman of the Sports Council this morning and pointed out that the increase in grant is in excess of inflation. Therefore, his comment was wrong.

Does the Minister understand that, despite what he has just said, there is still considerable apprehension that the Government will use the existence of the foundation as an excuse for not funding sport properly? The Minister is aware that the Sports Council's plan did not represent a standstill, but involved the development and expansion of all its activities. That is why the settlement of 4·4 per cent. is rightly described as a kick in the teeth.

It is extraordinary that even though the Government found an extra £40 million for sport in the last Budget, which is near enough double the expenditure on sport year on year, Opposition Members criticise us and suggest that we are not providing the necessary resources for sport. The first tranche of money from the foundation of £3·7 million—[Interruption.] Do stop interrupting.

Order. I am supposed to say that. Can we get on?

I was referring to the hon. Member for Blackburn (M r. Straw). He is supposed to believe in discipline in our schools, but his behaviour is singularly ill-disciplined. As a public school boy, he should know better.

I have sought to demonstrate that the claim of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is fatuous, because we are spending much more money on sport than in the past.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's charter for sport is about more interference, more committees, more regional committees and, most of all, more costs? Will sport be subject to Beckett's law? Will it be a top priority, a priority, or what? Does not that contrast with the Conservative policy of reducing the betting levy by 2·5 per cent., which has given £100 million to sport and increased the Sports Council grant to £50 million—

Order. Let us have a question please.

Does not it mean that we are the party of hot money, not hot air?

I can do no better than to draw the attention of the House to this statement in Labour's charter for sport:

"We will … review the composition and powers of the Sports Council … to free them from political bias".

However, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is supposed to be the shadow spokesman on this subject, suggested that Labour would encourage a greater ministerial role in the Sports Council. May we know which is which?

Does my hon. Friend accept that much as many of us welcome the sports and arts foundation, we would infinitely prefer to have a national lottery, which would produce far more money for sport and the arts?

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that there are a number of views on this subject. My views are well known., but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the educational funding for Derbyshire county council.

Councils' current spending on all services next year should be 7·2 per cent. higher than this year, but it is for Derbyshire to decide its level of spending and priorities between services. Capital spending in schools, supported by annual guidelines, is set to rise from £472 million this year to £524 million next year, an increase of 11 per cent. Derbyshire's allocation will be announced before Christmas.

Will the Minister confirm that in the summer he met a group from Derbyshire county council who asked for £140 million, spread over the next three years, to get rid of all outstanding repairs and make necessary improvements? After 12 years of Tory rule, little toddlers must still run across playgrounds to get to outside toilets. We have the citizens charter, the parents charter and every charter under the sun. When will the Government put their money where their mouth is?

I confirm that Councillor Young came to the Department in July with five hours' worth of videos showing how Derbyshire had been running down its schools. I allocated Derbyshire £21 million this year, the fourth highest allocation of any education authority in England. I now understand that Derbyshire is planning to siphon off £5·5 million of capital spending to pay for extra redundancy and personnel costs at county hall.

Might the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) want more money for Derbyshire so that it can employ more people such as his brother, who is employed as a personnel liaison officer for Toyota, his sister-in-law, who is employed in the county publicity department—[Interruption.]—and such as another sister-in-law, who is employed in the education department? The hon. Gentleman is always talking about jobs for the boys. Should not that include brothers and sisters as well?

Derbyshire not only employs some pretty odd people, but it makes some rather odd choices. This year, Derbyshire has chosen to cut music and swimming while spending over £5 million keeping school meals at 1981 prices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the staffing levels and the conditions of schools in Greater Manchester.

In January 1991, the 10 local education authorities in Greater Manchester reported 230 full-time permanent posts unfilled, a vacancy rate of I per cent. below the national vacancy rate of 1·5 per cent. Vacancy figures in September showed a significant improvement, with only 15 vacancies reported for the whole of Greater Manchester at the start of the school year.

I am not surprised that the Minister failed to mention the condition of schools in Greater Manchester. Will he confirm that in every year and for every authority recently in Greater Manchester, the amount of money that the Government have allowed them to spend on capital projects has been way behind what they have needed, with the result that there is now a backlog of repairs and maintenance? Is he aware that one head teacher recently told me that not only do they have to teach in unsavoury conditions, but they are now having to teach in unsafe conditions? The Government are putting the health and safety of children at school at risk. What will the Minister do to make sure that that state of affairs does not continue?

For the 10 councils in the Greater Manchester area, I increased capital guidelines from £32·6 million last year to £41·6 million this year. I shall be annou0ncing the individual allocations for next year before Christmas.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the worst-ever cuts in education took place in 1976 under a Labour Government? Will he further confirm that the 11 per cent. increase in the autumn statement is bound to be helpful?

Yes, the 11 per cent. increase for school buildings next year is a good outcome, given that the level of inflation is only about 4 per cent. and given the drop in construction prices. Trafford education authority has received about £13 million in the past two years to help it reorganise and improve its schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to visit Leeds university and Leeds polytechnic to discuss funding for higher education.

I will be visiting Leeds polytechnic to open the Higher Education for Capability office on 27 November. This is a joint project of the polytechnic and the university.

Is the Minister aware that at Leeds university top-quality alpha-grade research in technical and scientific subjects can no longer be funded? Will he give an assurance that in future research at Leeds polytechnic will be funded under the new joint proposals? Is he aware that such cuts in academic research will prove to be economic short termism with vengeance?

Our policy is that high-quality research should be supported in departments of universities and polytechnics, wherever they may be. The Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will embark jointly on a new research and assessment exercise next year. As a consequence, up-to-date ratings of quality will be made, department by department, across the spectrum of higher education. Every department that scores highly in those assessments will benefit accordingly. That is a thoroughly fair system.

Will the Minister make absolutely certain that the funding councils use up-to-date figures? Universities such as Lancaster are going steadily and rapidly up the poll and are doing very well indeed. However, the 1988 criteria are not as good as current ideas, so it is important that the universities that are forging ahead should be encouraged.

As always, my hon. Friend is eloquent in championing the university in her constituency—and rightly so. The new research assessment exercise has been brought forward in anticipation of ending the binary line and bringing together the polytechnics and universities in one sector. As a result of the exercise to be carried out during 1992, the assessments of research quality will be based on the most up-to-date data.

When the Minister discusses higher education funding at Leeds, will he confirm that it is Government policy to increase basic funding in line with the increase in student numbers? Given the pressures on laboratories, libraries, teaching and student accommodation, and the real cut in capital funding in this year's autumn statement, what is the Government's policy on capital expenditure?

I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that our policy on capital expenditure is to encourage and enable higher education institutions to invest, as they need to do, to accommodate the dramatic increase in student numbers as well as provide facilities for the research of remarkable quality which takes place in so many of our universities. Capital funding available from the polytechnics has increased by 50 per cent. since 1989–90, when the PCFC sector was established. I am pleased that, in the new settlement that has just been announced, we have secured an extra £9 million of capital funding for the higher education institutions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to receive a report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

The senior chief inspector's annual report is being prepared now and will be submitted to me on completion.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever the merits of Her Majesty's inspectors being involved in the advocacy of method, their function of providing independent and publicised reports on the quality of education has never been in question? If he wishes to make an adjustment, would not it be more sensible to detach their role from advocacy of method and confine it solely to inspection? Is not his solution of private consultants to be engaged by competitive schools asking for trouble, because it creates an automatic conflict of interest and renders their reports suspect by definition?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman appears to be slightly confused about what we are doing. First, I accept that the inspectors' production of an annual report and other reports on our schools is extremely valuable, as they base their advice on the inspections that they carry out. The Education (Schools) Bill will continue that. Indeed, we strengthen the independence of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in producing those reports by detaching him, to a much greater degree than in the past, from my Department. Secondly, the new role for HMI will be to monitor the quality of all those inspectors who will carry out the new inspections in individual schools throughout the country and to give, for the first time, reports to every parent about those schools.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman dismisses that. Does he think that we should employ 5,000 HMIs to carry out inspections, or does he prefer the Labour party's solution—that only local councils should be allowed to inspect schools? We are giving Her Majesty's inspectorate a key role in monitoring the quality of those permitted to carry out that public service.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole purpose of the reforms is to increase the number of inspections in schools, not reduce them, and that the monitoring and regulation of the new system will be such that it would not be in the professional interest of any inspector to try to fiddle a report?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Last year Her Majesty's inspectors produced and published about 150 reports on individual schools and, usually, no parent saw the reports. Our arrangements will lead to about 6,000 inspections each year, and each parent will receive, without requesting it, a straightforward description of the inspection. We state that the teams of inspectors should be monitored and approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate. The new, independent Her Majesty's inspectorate will have the duty of giving a little lion stamp to those inspectors and ensuring that they are up to the mark.

Flow can the Secretary of State conceivably claim that Her Majesty's inspectorate is to be strengthened when its numbers are to be cut by two thirds and it is to be subject to clear and specific direction from the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the privatisation of the inspectorate inherent in the Education (Schools) Bill goes far further than that presaged in the schools charter and includes, under the guise of additional inspectors, the substitution of private money-making firms to do the work currently carried out, not just by local inspectors but by the chief inspector of schools?

I have carried out several privatisations in my time in commercial and industrial departments, and my understanding of the word privatisation is that one takes something currently managed in the public sector and transfers it to the private sector—the last such transfer in which I was engaged involved British Steel. In this case, Her Majesty's inspectorate is not being transferred and its role will remain the same except that as a public organisation it will be made more independent of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman's complaints are based solely on the fact that the total number of staff in the inspectorate are to be reduced. The Labour party judges such matters only on the number of employees and trade union members on the books, which is not the test that we shall apply. We shall give Her Majesty's inspectorate powers and duties and the number of staff that the chief inspector and I think are required to fulfil those roles.

Will Her Majesty's chief inspector report on the case of Kings school, Winchester, which was denied grant-maintained status as a direct result of the local authority using public funds to wage a campaign against it?

I do not think that Her Majesty's inspectorate can look at that case. A parental ballot was carried out on grant-maintained status and the parents decided to vote against the application for that status. I agree with my hon. Friend that Hampshire county council waged an extremely vigorous campaign against the proposal. I do not agree that Hampshire presented the case fairly, and I keep trying to obtain undertakings from Hampshire county council that, even if it cannot support Government policy, it might at least present a more detached account of the case to parents when grant-maintained options are on the table.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proposed per capita capital spending per pupil in 1991–92 at (a) Gateshead city technology college and (b) all secondary schools in the borough of Sunderland.

My right hon. and learned Friend's planned capital contribution to Emmanuel college, Gateshead in 1991–92 is £259,000. The funding agreement with the CTC allows for 300 pupils in 1991–92. The Department does not hold figures for the proposed capital expenditure on secondary schools in the borough of Sunderland in 1991–92.

I am not surprised that the Minister declines to give us the figures because is not the truth that about 60 to 80 times the amount of money is being spent per capita on students at the city technology college than is spent on pupils at secondary schools in Sunderland and surrounding boroughs? Can the Minister point to any country apart from South Africa where such large sums are spent on a small elite group at the expense of the majority?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from—perhaps from the same Labour party briefing on which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) relies. The hon. Member for Blackburn produces wholly fictitious figures which compare the new building costs for new schools or for the conversion of schools to CTCs over a period of three years with the capital expenditure borrowing guidelines for 14 authorities in one year. That shows that he has not reached level 1 in mathematics, and nor has the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the criteria for student grant eligibility.

The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations are reviewed annually. Extending them to a substantially wider range of courses or students would, however, require primary legislation. We have no present plans for that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many local education authorities, not least in London, it is a prerequisite for a discretionary award that a student lives for at least three years within the borough concerned? Will he give at least gentle guidance to LEAs suggesting that it is not reasonable for students to be excluded from discretionary grants merely because their parents have moved home? Or will he try to find some other way of funding such students?

The regulations do not impose any specific requirements on how local education authorities should treat people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom when considering their applications for discretionary awards. It is for each LEA to construct its own policies in respect of discretionary awards. "Discretionary" means what it says: it is not our policy to intervene or even to lean gently on authorities in this matter.

Does the Minister accept that it is no good being eligible for a mandatory award if it is then not paid? What steps is he taking to ensure that this year local authorities such as Southwark, which a week or two ago had paid less than one fifth of its mandatory grant cheques to eligible students, pay up, so as to minimise student hardship? And what will he do to ensure that in future years the system pays up at the beginning of the year, not a third of the way through it or later?

We have a student support system as generous as any in the world, but under long-established arrangements local education authorities administer the award system, and students depend absolutely on those authorities playing their part. We have substantially increased resources for students, providing more money for more of them. It is a disgrace if students are in difficulty on account of administrative failures by local education authorities. I have already made my views clear: officials have written to every education authority about which we have received evidence of a failure to carry out its statutory duties—and we will continue to pursue the matter vigorously.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the problem that some mature students, particularly women with home commitments, have to take their degree courses in the form of part-time courses and that they are therefore not eligible for mandatory grant? Will he look into that?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the changing pattern of higher education. There has been a dramatic expansion of participation, and there are more mature and part-time students and more people working their way towards qualifications on the basis of credit accumulation and transfer. We shall keep our administrative and financial systems under review in the light of these trends.

Does the Minister accept that a local authority such as Bradford, which tries to provide a wide range of discretionary awards, is inevitably limited by the amount of money that it can give? If central Government provided more assistance, the Minister may rest assured that such LEAs would provide more students with the opportunity of further and higher education through the application of discretionary awards.

The hon. Gentleman would do well to go back to Bradford and ask the authority one or two questions. The assumption on education spending that underlies the revenue support grant to local authorities this year allowed for increased spending on discretionary awards of 15 per cent. in 1991–92. If authorities are failing to increase their spending on discretionary awards commensurately, that is their decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to assure himself of the adequacy of the funding arrangements for local management of smaller primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

Local education authorities have considerable flexibility to provide additional assistance to small primary schools, through the small school protection factor, but it is for each authority to devise its own scheme and to choose its priorities within that scheme in the light of local needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be regrettable if the objectives of local school management could not be met because of inadequate funding? Is he aware that there are problems not only in respect of teachers' salaries, actual as opposed to average, but in respect of responsibility for the funding of the older village primary schools which predominate in rural areas? There is a clash here between the local authority and the governors.

Yes, that is an important point which was impressed on me when I recently visited Cornwall. The Cornwall scheme protects small primary schools with fewer than 12 staff by paying most of the difference between average salary costs at the school and the average salary costs across the local education authority area.

Does the Minister realise that many small primary schools are now under enormous pressure in terms of delivering the full curriculum because they do not have the additional resources to enable them to employ the staff to teach it? Will the Government stop pressurising authorities to cease supporting small primary schools through additional support across the county? That pressure is making the future of many rural primary schools very unpredictable.

There is no such pressure. Three years after the Act was passed, the hon. Lady still does not seem to understand that local management of schools funds the pupils and not the teachers. It is open to any local education authority to tilt its scheme towards primary schools and I have been encouraging local education authorities, where appropriate, to revise their schemes with precisely that aim.

Is my hon. Friend aware that despite the success of local management of schools, staff are still very worried that experienced older teachers who qualify for the higher salary scales will be discarded in favour of less experienced younger staff?

That is precisely why we allow local education authorities the flexibility to devise schemes to accommodate the particular circumstances of small schools and those with very high inherited salary costs.

The Minister is right to commend Cornwall county council for its efforts to help small primary schools. Nevertheless, the problem of average teacher costs strikes hard in rural areas that have many small schools. That problem will increase, thereby penalising schools with the most experienced and loyal teaching staffs. Will he go some way towards reviewing the process?

Yes, we shall be reviewing the teaching cost issue in 1993. Cornwall still has much to do to meet our requirement of 85 per cent. delegation to school budgets. It has not yet reached that target and I urge it to re-examine its spending allocations to make sure that it does. I was struck by the fact that Cornwall seems to be overspending on roads and underspending on its schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to expand the adult education service; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's proposals for transferring further education colleges to a new independent sector are designed to increase the number of people studying at those colleges and to improve opportunities for all in further education.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's total commitment to adult education and its comparative cheapness in providing excellent courses for so many people? In particular, will he confirm that the Government see leisure courses and non-vocational courses as being equal in value to vocational courses and will they ensure funding for all?

I can readily confirm to my hon. Friend, to whose long-held interest in education I pay tribute, that we are committed to continuing to fund adult education of all kinds—vocational, leisure, basic education and English as a second language. The increased recent trend of more adults studying in their own community is greatly welcomed and is exactly what the White Paper seeks to underline.

Is it not clear from Government statements that the future of the adult education service is at great risk? Will the Minister give a commitment that the present adult education programme will be built upon and secured, or are the Government pulling the ladder away from thousands of our fellow citizens who have prospered from adult education in the past?

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Labour party is trying to do nothing other than promote scare stories so as deliberately to frighten people who have traditionally relied on adult education courses. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are determined to sustain adult education, to extend it and to ensure that it is properly based in the local community. The hon. Gentleman should admit that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average amount of money being held back by local education authorities in England and Wales, per pupil, under the system of local management of schools.

Across the 97 local education authorities operating local management of schools, the average amount of the potential schools budget retained centrally is £260 per pupil.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the tyranny that controls education in Nottinghamshire holds back £10 or more for each and every child above that national average, that it is somewhere around two thirds of the way down the merit table for putting resources where they belong—at the school—and sits on about £3 million at the centre, which is the same as holding back £5,000 for every school in the county? Does that not prove that we need the parents charter? Will my hon. Friend ensure that every parent in the county gets one?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that Nottinghamshire holds back nearly £43 million and that its total administrative costs are 4·4 per cent. of the schools' budget—twice as high, for example, as those in Northamptonshire.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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.

Now that the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside has focused attention on the issue of Scotland once again, and with the continuing difficulties in establishing a democratic local administration in Ulster, will the Prime Minister consider initiating consultations with other parliamentary parties with a view to reaching agreement on common structures of government throughout the United Kingdom?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, given all the difficulties in Northern Ireland and the historical perspective there. It is precisely to deal with those problems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having so many discussions over the past year.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the good producer price figures issued today? Do not these support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the economy is beginning to turn around?

I saw the producer price figures issued this morning, and they are good news. They show a continuing collapse in inflation and that can only help the competitiveness of industry and thereafter the growth of the economy and the creation of jobs.

Given that the Prime Minister correctly said last night that Maastricht will be an important stage on the road to even closer European union, what does he say today to those of his right hon. Friends who say that he has already gone far enough down the road to political and monetary union and, in their words, we should stay where we are?

I have made it clear over recent months, and am happy to repeat today, that we are seeking an agreement at Maastricht that will be acceptable to the House and will enable Europe to move forward together. That is true on economic and monetary union and on political union. There is some way to go before I could sign the political union treaty that is before us. There are still matters to be agreed on the monetary union treaty, but in both cases we are making progress.

The Prime Minister says that he recognises, in his words, the

"potential impact on our influence and prosperity were we to take a different decision from our principal competitors".

In saying that, is he recognising that isolation would mean the sacrifice of influence that is essential to the vital interests of the British people—[Interruption.]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Will the Prime Minister take this advice:

"We have nothing to gain by sitting on the margins … while others frame new structures without us"?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Conservative Government have been the leader in Europe for the past 12 years. The single market would not have come about but for this Conservative Government. The change in rebates would not have come about without the Conservative Government. The Fontainebleau abatement would not have come about without the Conservative Government. We propose to remain within the centre of the Community, framing the future of the Community in the interests of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.

So now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer my first question; what does he have to say to those of his right hon. Friends who say that he has gone far enough and should stay where he is?

I answered that question some moments ago.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the massive increase in health spending that the Government recently announced, which shows beyond doubt the Government's commitment to the principles of the national health service? Does he agree that that is in stark contrast to the contributions that have been made by Opposition Members, who have nothing to offer the NHS but smears and attacks on staff and patients, and on the care that patients receive? Will he give the House some positive information about the success of the reforms that the Government are making, which will save the NHS for the year 2000?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There has been yet another substantial increase in resources for the NHS, and that will enable a continuing reduction in waiting lists and better service for all those who use the NHS. Trusts are effective and efficient and they are the future. Increasingly, they are proving that.

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of the vote that will take place on Thursday to think again about Scotland? Does he realise that the real potential danger to the Union of Scotland with Britain lies not with the separatists but with his Government's refusal to listen to the voice of the people of Scotland? So I ask him again: will he listen and will he think again?

The right hon. Gentleman sounds from what he has just said as though he is a separatist. I can tell him frankly that the Government are not separatist. The Government remain fully committed to the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £24 billion programme for public housing over the next three years detailed by the Department of the Environment yesterday? Will he join me also in condemning the inefficiency of Labour councils, whose failure to collect rents and fill empty properties is a major barrier to the provision of homes for the homeless?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As people can see throughout the country, the reality is that Labour authorities leave houses empty even when people are in need of them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Cowley workers, the trade unions and the management on the launch today of the excellent and new Cowley-designed and Cowley-built Rover 800? Will he explain why, at the hands of his high-tax Government, the car will face total sales taxation of 27·3 per cent., when its BMW competitor faces tax in its domestic market of only 14 per cent? Is it not time that he started backing the British car industry in the way that the Germans support theirs?

The hon. Gentleman can certainly be certain that I congratulate Rover on its splendid new product, and I hope that it will be immensely successful. As an owner of Rover cars for many years, I am sure that it will be. Rover and other car manufacturers are now so successful that they are exporting to Japan and elsewhere.

Can my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to congratulate the management and staff of Rover on the fact that over the past 12 months not one single minute of production time has been lost through industrial disputes? Will he contrast that excellent achievement under Conservative trade union law with the undoubted industrial chaos that would result in the unlikely event of the Labour party's returning to government?

What my hon. Friend has said is certainly the case at Rover, but it has also been the case throughout industry during the past year, when there was the lowest number of strikes for more than 45 years. I welcome that very much. Of course, if we were to revert to legalising secondary action, flying pickets and the other actions that the Opposition propose, I do not doubt that strikes would return.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

What has the Prime Minister to say about the comments of the last Conservative leader of Lambeth council, who in a letter published in The Guardian on Saturday said[Interruption.] I want to quote it, and he said, "The Government is failing in its treatment of the mentally ill"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No quoting."]

Order. The hon. Lady can paraphrase, and she is doing so.

Conservative Members do not want to hear what a former Conservative leader has to say. He said that the Government were out of touch with homelessness and with the hopelessness of large sections of society, and that they had forfeited their right to govern.

I have not seen the remarks quoted by the hon. Lady, and neither have I seen the context in which they were put or what else was said. However, I say to the hon. Lady and to the alleged author of that statement that, frankly, I disagree. As a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, I am well aware of the immense amount of work and care that has gone into the care of the disabled. As a former Lambeth housing chairman, I do not take lectures from anyone in Lambeth about housing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he carries the support of the vast majority in this House and in the country in his refusal to rule out a single currency on our terms at some future time? In displaying the consistency of involvement and leadership in the Conservative party with regard to Europe, is he not finally giving this country the role that it lost with the empire?

We must consider the longstanding interests of this country when we make decisions on the treaties, and that is what I will do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Tuesday 12 November.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the rely that I gave some moments ago.

As crime in London increased yet again last year—by 13 per cent.—has the Prime Minister read the comment by police commander David Stevens that the police are not responsible for crime any more than doctors are responsible for disease, and that crime is an indicator of economic and social malaise? As the Conservative party has been in power for 12½ years, who does the Prime Minister think is responsible for the economic and social malaise?

Crime prevention begins in the home and in the treatment of people from an early age. On the questions of prevention and punishment of crime, the Government have taken committed and sustained action for more than a decade. That includes providing a strong and effective police force. We are spending 67 per cent. more, over and above inflation, than in 1979. No Government could have done more against crime than we have, and no future Government would be able to do more than we will.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of community charge or council tax depends partly on the efficiency of the local council and partly on the proportion of local government spending which is required to be raised by local taxation? Does he further agree that if that proportion were to be raised to 20 per cent., overnight every household bill would rise by 50 per cent? Is he not astonished that that is the Labour party's proposal?

No, I am not astonished because, two years after announcing its local government plans, the Labour party still does not know how they would work. My hon. Friend makes some pertinent points. We will make sure that local tax bills are restrained and, where councils are extravagant, unlike the Labour party, which would let extravagance run wild to the cost of the local taxpayer with no let or hindrance, we will cap them.

Mr. Sillars—question 9.

Where is he?

I call Mr. Dennis Turner.

Has the Prime Minister one shred of sympathy for Britain's beer drinkers? Prices have increased way beyond the rate of inflation and the Government's legislation to check monopolies is a complete fiasco. When will the Government do something to protect the British beer drinker?

With regard to having sympathy for them, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am one of them.