asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance his Department has given to education authorities about educating young people on the dangers of AIDS.

The booklet "Children at School and Problems Related to AIDS", issued in June last year, made it clear that schools have a responsibility to provide pupils with information about AIDS and its transmission. My right hon. Friend will be issuing shortly, to all local education authorities, to teachers in schools and further education institutions and to the youth service, detailed factual information about AIDS to enable young people to be fully educated on the subject and to have their questions authoritatively answered.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Will she assure me that such guidance as is given in schools will be given in a sensitive way that reinforces the moral guidance that children should receive in the home? Does she also agree that it is objectionable that some Labour-controlled local authorities are busy promoting gay lessons, the very sort of conduct that is leading to the AIDS cases in Britain?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that there can be absolutely no justification for any sort of teaching that advocates homosexual behaviour or in any sense encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils. He is having further inquiries made most urgently of those local educational authorities which have been reported as promoting such teaching to establish the facts and to determine whether there is a case for central Government intervention. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, of course it is the Department's clear intention to ensure that information about AIDS is given as sensitively as possible and within the context of proper family life.

Does the Minister accept that it is dangerously misleading to promote the idea that AIDS is a disease of homosexuals? I commend to her the excellent document produced by the Scottish Office as a guidance for educational establishments in Scotland. Does she recognise that it is important to produce such a document and to ensure that real information is imparted to children in the schools, not least because of some of the misinformation that is still appearing in the popular press, such as the article that appeared in a popular Scottish Sunday newspaper this weekend, which stated that AIDS could not be spread through normal heterosexual intercourse?

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The disease is promulgated not merely by homosexuals. It has now become a heterosexual disease. Therefore, it is important that the correct information about this disastrous disease is given to children and parents in a way that is clearly understood and so that there is no misapprehension about the manner in which the disease can be conveyed. It is not conveyed solely through sexual behaviour. It can be conveyed through other methods.

Will my hon. Friend give guidance to teachers who, under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, find themselves in conflict with school governors, who now have the right to say whether sex education should be taught in their schools? Under previous arrangements there would have been no problem, but now there may well be a problem, especially in Roman Catholic schools.

I understand the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. It is true that, according to the new regulations under the 1986 Act, governing bodies will be able to dictate what is taught in terms of sex education to children in those schools. I reiterate, however, that we regard it as extremely important that all schools have teachers who will give clear instruction about the dangers of AIDS. This is slightly beyond the remit of simple sex education; it is more to do with health education, since it covers such matters as drug abuse.

I welcome the Minister's statement. Following the question of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), will the hon. Lady tell the House how the Secretary of State will ensure that in those schools that exercise their new right under the 1986 Act to ban sex education pupils will be made aware of the dangers of AIDS?

It is true that the governing bodies have the final say on sex education. They will be guided by the head teachers. The matter of AIDS goes slightly wider than sex education as a whole. It is important that all instruction appertaining to AIDS is taught within the context of a proper social structure and the proper social apparatus of married family life.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average pupil-teacher ratio in junior and secondary schools, respectively, at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what were the comparable totals in 1978.

The average pupil-teacher ratio within maintained primary schools in England has fallen from 23·6:1 to 22·1:1 between 1978 and 1986. For secondary schools there has been an improvement from 16·9 to 15·9. Taken together, these are the lowest figures in our history.

Are not these dramatic improvements a clear sign of the Government's full commitment to the improvement of education? Within this improving general picture, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the special problems in areas such as Southend where very high accommodation costs make it difficult to recruit the additional teachers whom the Government wish the county to employ?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The improvement shows that we are commiting substantial extra funds to the education service. There has been a record increase in the amount that I have made available for next year. I appreciate that in certain areas there are problems with the accommodation costs for teachers. I recall that my hon. Friend's county of Essex is one of those counties that are making special arrangements and offers to help with teachers' accommodation costs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to the Essex schools handbook, the basic staffing ratio in Essex is 31 children per teacher? That is creating many difficulties in the primary schools in Thurrock. They are facing great difficulties in obtaining staff and youngsters have suffered considerably, not from a strike, but simply because they have not been able to obtain one teacher to teach the class throughout the school year. Children have been subjected to a constant change of supply teachers and part-time teachers. There has been no teaching continuity and stability. This just shows the disastrous effect of the Government's policies on education in my constituency.

I assure the hon. Lady that I visited various schools in Essex about a fortnight ago and I was impressed by the standard of performance that I saw. I very much regret that, during the past 18 months, disruption has occurred in many schools because of strike action, which has acted against the interests of education. I deplore the possible resumption of such action.

What will be the impact on pupil-teacher ratios of the recently announced increases in pay and the changes in salary structure? Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of this opportunity to appeal to teachers not to continue with any further disruptive action?

My pay proposals will improve the pay and career prospects of all teachers. I deplore the fact that leaders of some teachers' unions are threatening further disruption and stoppages in our classrooms. It is a sad fact that the only time when the leaders of the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers seem to agree is when they unite for disruption and unite against the education of our children.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to reintroduce selection at 11-plus years.

I have no plans to compel local education authorities to reintroduce grammar schools. It is for LEAs, in the first instance, to consider how to organise school provision in their areas.

I am surprised by the Secretary of State's answer. We know that he has told the press that through an expansion of the city technology colleges he is planning to reintroduce selection at 11 years. Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House? Has he not learnt that selection at 11 years, which he might think is popular with parents, is not popular with the majority who are not selected? The problem with our secondary school system is that it expects to fail too many children. Dividing them into sheep and goats at 11 years is no part of the answer.

I am surprised that the hon. Lady has tabled this question because she represents a city which is Labour controlled—Birmingham—which still believes in selective schools. Birmingham maintains eight grammar schools, and I am glad to say that I have no proposals before me from Labour-controlled Birmingham to abolish them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether or not we have selection at 11-plus, children's education will be severly damaged if teachers resume strikes? Does he not feel that the time has come for teachers to put their action behind them and look forward to negotiating a replacement for Burnham, which is the way they should go?

As I said in reply to an earlier question, I deplore the fact that some of the leaders of the teacher's unions are again talking of disruption. I do not believe that teachers, generally, will respond to such an irresponsible call to inflict further worry upon parents, especially working parents, who will yet again be victimised if there is disruption in our schools and the children are sent home.

When we hear the Prime Minister's rhetoric about the reintroduction of grammar schools, when we listen to the Secretary of State on bench marks and see that he is attempting to introduce city technology colleges, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there are many who fear that there is a secret item in the Conservative party manifesto, which is the wholesale re-introduction of selective education? Will he categorically deny that?

I have read what purports to be the Liberal party's education policy in its document — there is nothing secret in it, because there is nothing in it at all. As far as I can see, the policy of the Liberal party and the SDP is to support the Labour party in abolishing grammar schools, though I believe that the Liberals in the city of Plymouth will vote to keep their grammar schools.

Yes or no? Answer the question.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I am trying to improve the standards of quality of all schools.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that one of the most depressing things about education policy is the way in which our opponents seek to misrepresent what we are trying to do? Would it not be sensible for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to ask her neighbour, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), for a copy of his Ruskin College speech of 1976. where he spoke of the need for core curriculum, national standards of performance and an enhanced and strengthened inspectorate to maintain those standards? Is that not exactly what we are seeking to do with our bench marks and targets of attainment?

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) is in his place, and I pay tribute to the fact that he started this great debate in 1976.

He was torpedoed by Shirley Williams.

Yes, he was not helped by his then Secretary of State, who has now joined the SDP. The right hon. Gentleman started on this road. I am glad to say that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman recently said that there would be agreement between us, and I dare say on both sides of the House, to move towards a national curriculum with the various bench marks and tests.

Core curriculum.

Core curriculum, yes. I hope that that will be achieved by a measure of agreement and consensus throughout the country.

The Secretary of State is right to say that the Labour party has been in favour of a core curriculum for a number of years. Will he tell the House who is speaking for the Government on grammar schools? Is it the Prime Minister, who suggested last weekend that grammar schools should be reintroduced, or is it the Secretary of State, who has remembered that bringing back grammar schools would mean bringing back the 11-plus? Is it his policy to reintroduce more grammar schools, or does he want to bring back selection by stealth?

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has now given support to my proposals for a national curriculum.

We have been in favour of a core curriculum for years. Look at the record.

If the hon. Gentleman had been in favour of the core curriculum he could have talked about it before I did, but he did not.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to seek to stop the brain drain from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom.

The Government are determined to maintain healthy and successful institutions of higher education in this country. Increases totalling more than £150 million are being provided for current expenditure in 1987–88 by universities and advanced further education institutions. Further additional funding, rising to over £70 million in 1989–90 has been offered to universities once satisfactory new arrangements have been agreed covering pay structure and performance appraisal.

Has the Minister had time to study the many articles on this subject in the press and media, particularly the article in The Guardian, which highlighted the low morale among academics due to cutbacks, freezing of posts, and lack of promotion for specialists? Does he not think that that is an indictment of the Government's policy? Is he not ashamed of the rather backhanded compliment paid to us by the United States as it draws expertise in arts and social sciences from this country to the United States? Does he not agree that shortly we will need not only a save British science campaign, but a save British arts and social sciences campaign as well?

I have done rather better than read The Guardian. I have talked to quite a few academics. They say to me in private, and some of them say in public, that the Government are doing the right thing in two major directions. The first is to recognise the inevitability of concentrating resources, particularly in science, in those departments which will become centres of excellence and well equipped. Secondly, they are wholeheartedly in favour of what the Government are trying to do in reforming the whole structure of academic salaries so as to produce a generation of scientists who will have promotion prospects and the right level of pay and who will be attracted to the new centres of excellence that we shall put in place.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at universities such as Birmingham and Aston the brain drain will continue because they are perplexed by the fact that they are doing just what this country needs people to do, which is produce technological graduates, but their grant keeps being cut? What does one have to do to get justice? What more does one have to do to please the Government when one is doing the right thing?

My hon. Friend talked about cuts in grant. Let me remind him of the overall facts. The money available for science in this country is being increased from three directions. First, there is an increase this year of £95 million in the funds for universities, and some of that, through the dual funding system, will go into science. Secondly, the Government are making available, conditional on restructuring, £40 million to improve the morale of scientific academics through higher pay.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) asked about Birmingham.

I shall come to Birmingham if the hon. Gentleman will wait.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that when he is talking to academics he should talk also to those heads of department in science and engineering subjects, who say that the morale of the profession is lower than at any time that they can remember, and that the flood of people leaving the profession is not just a matter of quantity, but of quality, because top level engineers and scientists are going to the United States? Will he do something about the overall funding of universities and departments, which has gone down and down during the past eight years? This has been happening not only during the past year, but for the past eight years. When will the Under-Secretary of State do something about morale in our universities?

As I might have suspected, the hon. Gentleman would have done better to listen to my previous reply, which would have given him, in advance, the answer to his question. We have increased funding and we have made money available for what could be considerable increases in salaries. However, that money is conditional on certain reforms which scientists and academics know are long overdue, but which were avoided by the Labour party when it was in power.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the arrangements for further education in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters in 1987 from hon. Members and from local authorities about further education in the north-west. In December I met a delegation from Bolton, including hon. Members, about the possible designation of Bolton institute of higher education as an additional polytechnic.

In view of the importance of advanced further education to local industry, will my hon. Friend ensure that colleges and polytechnics in the north-west obtain adequate funding for next year?

We shall do better than that. I have noticed that among the general increases in funding that the Government have provided, no less than 9 per cent. has gone to polytechnics and colleges in the north-west. I am glad to add that the increase for the Bolton institute of higher education, for which I know my hon. Friend has a particular affection, totals no less than 17 per cent. Having visited that college, I should say that that increase is well earned.

Will the Under-Secretary of State accept that increasing fees reduces the number of students?

The simple answer to that question is to consider the statistics. Whether Opposition Members like it or not, we are living through the biggest expansion of higher education in this country since the legendary Robbins era. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised that piddling question shows that he is avoiding the essential fact of that expansion.

Does my hon. Friend believe that arrangements for further education in the north-west are enhanced by the conduct of the Associated Examining Board, which recently announced that, for A-levels, for example, the proper use of the English language, the ability to spell and the correct use of syntax were not important for passing examinations? Does he agree that that is ridiculous?

I am glad not to have formal responsibility for schools, or I might be tempted to say exactly what I think about the views of the AEB.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on recent progress in the review of student grants.

The review group is meeting regularly. It has received written evidence from about 100 organisations, seven of which have been invited to give oral evidence. Questionnaires have been sent to 17 foreign countries, seeking information on how their students are financed. I have visited America and plan to visit France, Germany and Sweden. To assist the review group in its work my Department is commissioning an independent survey of student's income and expenditure. I would expect the review to be completed this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any new system must hold the balance fairly between the responsibilities of taxpayers, parents and students, but must also ensure that access to higher education is not made more difficult for those who come from low income backgrounds?

I can only endorse both those sentiments. I should like to add that although I am entirely against attempting to import ready-made systems from abroad, I was deeply impressed in the United States by the overall acceptance by parents, students and institutions that there is a tripartite responsibility for the maintenance of students, shared by taxpayers, parents and students.

Does the Minister agree that the experience of America is of a considerable number of students who must spend part of their time working in industry, stores or shops, and the rest of their time worrying about how they will ever repay the loans that they have had to take out to finance their education?

The hon. Gentleman has touched on several problems. First, he must remember that my review is not considering charging students for their educational fees, so even if we adopt a loan system there is no remote possibility of students having the same burden of debt as they have in the United States. Secondly, it is often Opposition Members and the educational community who sing the praises of the American system, which, besides having loans, somehow provides greater access than we do. That contradiction should be reconciled by the critics of loans.

When my hon. Friend was in the United States, did he note the pride that most American universities have over the greater access to their higher education system for poor and working-class families than we have with our present grant system?

I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that question. It is a myth, which again is cultivated by the Opposition, that access to higher education is determined by the present rate of grant. The fact is—we are not denying it—that the value of the grant has decreased in recent years and at the same time access has exploded to levels which can only be compared with the Robbins period. Access is determined, not by grants, but by the quality of schools. The Labour party is now the party of low standards in schools—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. A child does not stand much of a chance of gaining entry into higher education if he has had the misfortune to be educated in Brent.

Is the Minister aware of the atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety among students, which is caused not only by the continuing delay of the report, but by the rumours of a loan system, the reduction in grants to universities, which could affect their course, and the Select Committee's report, which strongly supports the case of students for a proper grant system? Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot believe that all that is conducive to students making the best use of their time at university?

First, we have increased the student grant rate this year by 3·75 per cent., which is fully in line with the projected rate of inflation. I take the hon. Gentleman's point in so far as there are students who, for various reasons, are having a thin time. That is why we are having a review of the problems. Secondly, I share his point about the efficient use of our higher education system. We have rather a good higher education system, partly because it is efficient, and nothing that I shall recommend will damage it.

Does my hon. Friend accept the unanimous view of the Select Committee that the retail prices index is no real measure of student expenditure and needs, and that a completely new student index needs to be produced to give a proper measure of student expenditure?

As I said in my initial reply, the review group, of which I am chairman, is commissioning an independent survey of student income and expenditure, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the fact that we are looking in detail at student expenditure does not mean that we are undertaking to underwrite that expenditure. The Government must take some cognisance of the strong financial pressures coming from perhaps even more deserving areas.

Will the Minister confirm that the Select Committee found considerable hardship among students and that it recommended that this year's grant increase should be well above the rate of inflation? Will he further confirm that he argued for the minimum increase to make it easy to introduce loans? Will he make it clear that the loans proposal will involve students in receiving part grant and part loan—about half and halt?

First, the Government are very grateful for the timely Select Committee report on student grants. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Committee's terms of reference were restricted to considering the present grants system and not to finding an alternative element of funding. As the hon. Gentleman is so bold today, I draw his attention to his considerable reticence and evasiveness when I asked him in Committee whether he supported the National Union of Students in its call for a tripling of Government grants to the phenomenal figure of £1·5 billion. It will be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman will be as evasive today, and I should also like to know what is the position or positions of the alliance on that estimate?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals for the greater independence of maintained schools from central and local government.

Schools are getting increased autonomy under the new Education Act. As it is being implemented, I shall be considering proposals for further measures to strengthen the effectiveness of schools.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the greater independence of schools is a greater ability to get rid of bad teachers and much greater responsibility, authority and independence for the good teachers, in particular head teachers, in those schools? Will he introduce proposals in this direction?

At the very heart of my proposals is the head teacher. I want to improve the power and ability of the head teacher, who is absolutly critical to the success of a school. Under the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act that was passed last year, local authorities are no longer able to foist, without more ado, their choice of head teacher on a school without the agreement of the governing body. That is a major step forward. I wish to re-emphasise the importance that we attach to increasing the authority of a school's head teacher.

Is the Secretary of State aware that when the reorganisation of the maintained sector takes place there will be considerable antipathy towards the maintenance of controlled and aided schools in the denominational sector? Will he consider the position in Leeds, where reorganisation will take place because of falling schools rolls, to ensure that the denominational schools within the maintained sector are treated fairly?

Church schools and voluntary-aided schools have a much greater degree of independence. They own their own property and employ their own staff. I wish to make it clear that I want to see much greater control given to the governing bodies and head teachers over their own budgets. That will be the thrust of our policy after we are returned to office at the next election.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of head teachers in the country welcome the opportunity to have more control, together with their governors, over the way in which cash is spent within schools, and to cut down on the form-filling bureaucracy, of which many complain at the moment? Does he agree that it might be a good idea, in the long term, to establish some form of staff college to help with the training of head teachers in management and associated skills?

I am attracted by such a proposal and I shall have something to say about that later in the year. On the question of the power of schools, already the budget of a secondary school, which is about £1·5 million to £2 million, has been handed over to the school and governing body. Several schools in Cambridgeshire and Solihull have adopted that practice, and I want it to be extended right across the country.

Does the Secretary of State think that local government has any role to play in education?

Local authorities will continue to be the main providers and will continue to have the responsibilities that flow from that. Just as the hon. Gentleman has become a convert to the national curriculum, so I am sure that he will become a convert to financial delegation to the schools.

In securing the very desirable objective of greater independence for maintained schools, will my right hon. Friend consider whether there may not be an awkward contradiction between policies of extending financial devolution and parental choice and the policy of imposing a national curriculum?

As schools obtain greater independence in the control of their finances, they will also conform to a national curriculum that will be inspected by an enlarged inspectorate. I do not envisage any conflict between the two roles, as both are aimed at improving the quality of education in our schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the capital allocations made to local education authorities for 1987–88.

We have received 210 such representations, including those referring to allocations for capital work at voluntary-aided and special agreement schools.

In view of the plentiful evidence that Her Majesty's inspectors of schools has given the Minister and her colleagues about the decaying state of school buildings, the massive backlog of repairs and the problems with having them carried out and about the absence of maintenance in many schools, what evidence does she adduce that capital allocations for schools are adequate?

Local authorities are aware that they can put in their bids for capital allocations on the criteria that are set out by the Department, and I believe that that is what they do. They are also aware that they can use their capital receipts to top up expenditure on educational buildings. They are further aware that, within the five blocks of capital allocations, they can move between the various blocks to meet priorities. In the end, it is a decision for local authorities.

Does my hon. Friend accept that all the arbitrary distinctions made by central Government between revenue and capital expenditure, the distinction made in education is one of the most damaging? Will she assure us that, in the discussions about allocation of school budgets and greater independence therein, that particular distinction will be considered with care?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I think that he heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refer to financial delegation for schools and state his belief that that is something towards which we should work.

Does the Minister realise that there would be less pressure on capital allocations if school buildings were maintained in a state of good repair? If we wanted a logo for the state of some of the buildings in East Anglia, it would be a rotting window frame. Does the hon. Lady agree that no saving is made through the neglect of maintenance and repair, because in the end remedial works cost a great deal more?

Some £400 million a year is spent on the maintenance of school buildings. It is for local authorities to ensure that their schools are properly maintained. Indeed, they have been able to do that over the past few years. As a member of a local authority, I made clear decisions about the repair and maintenance of schools in my authority, and consequently we did not suffer from the same sort of problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire has failed to apply for funds in accordance with the Government's priorities, and by so doing has lost £4 million for this coming year?

For the information of my hon. Friend and the House, I shall put on the record what has happened in Lancashire. The authority has claimed that it did not know, and could not have known, the amount available or the predicted outcome of its submission. It is true that the authority could not possibly have known what the total Government allocation would be, but it is not true that the authority did not know the priorities of the Department in allocating capital resources. Indeed, last year, 1986–87, it asked for £5 million committed expenditure for the coming year. As it happens, its submission was for £2·8 million, which it was then allocated. It cannot, therefore, be part of the Department's responsibility if the other £2 million, for which the authority did not ask, was not given.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of young people aged 16-plus years have remained in full-time education in each of the last five years.

The percentages of 16-year-olds in England remaining in full-time education in the five years from 1981–82 have been 48 per cent., 51 per cent., 48 per cent., 47 per cent. and 47 per cent. respectively.

Is the Minister aware that the staying-on rate in my constituency is well below the national figures that she has just given? Does she agree that the reason for that is the financial pressure on young people in the poorer regions who, because they seek financial independence as well as support for the family, are forced to abandon education in their search for paid training, employment or welfare benefits? Is it not time that a system of allowances such as that proposed by the Labour party was introduced to encourage 16 and 17-year-olds to stay on at school?

I do not agree that there is any need for some kind of educational maintenance allowance —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—as has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman, because the number of 16-year-olds who are remaining in education and training has reached 90 per cent. of the numbers in that age group. I really do not believe that what he suggests would be a very great advance. I might also say that very few other countries would agree with that proposition.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that her original figures did not refer to the several hundred thousand children who are now able to participate in the two-year youth training scheme, which offers relevant and practical training to many who failed to respond to full-time education?

My hon. Friend is correct. The number of young people who are actually participating in the YTS is up to 90 per cent. of the total figures. Before the introduction of the YTS there were not anything like so many young people participating in further education.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the Congo. I attended a service of thanksgiving for the life and work of Sir Edward Youde, former Governor of Hong Kong. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Does the right hon. Lady agree with her Attorney-General that it would be "an unwarranted encroachment" into British sovereignty to allow American trade inspectors to inspect the books of British firms partaking of American technology? Does she agree with her Secretary of State for Defence that there would not be any unacceptable extra-territorial claims? Is it not about time that we told the United States Government what to do with their re-export controls, or is the Prime Minister content merely to fill the role of President Reagan's—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poodle".] —poodle?

We have made abundantly clear our views on extra-territorial jurisdiction. I think that the hon. Gentleman might be referring to some reports that have been published in the press about extra-territoriality, AWACS and United States export controls. It is not correct to say that the documents under discussion with the United States authorities have conceded that the United States has jurisdiction over United Kingdom companies, either in the case of the purchase of AWACS or United States-United Kingdom trade in general. In fact the reverse is true, with the proposed memorandum of understanding making it clear that for the defence articles of services forming the AWACS system—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister.

The proposed memorandum of understanding makes it clear that, for the defence articles of services forming the AWACS system, the control of exports from the United Kingdom will be enforced exclusively by the United Kingdom Government.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today during her busy schedule to consider the recent excellent manufacturing output figures, the best for seven years? Is it any wonder that even David Blunkett is predicting a third Tory term?

The latest figures on manufacturing output are excellent and show the increasing success of manufacturing industry, especially in export volume. I am glad to get extra support, from whatever source.

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence made a welcome statement to the effect that he does not believe that the case is made for any deployment of star wars and that the narrow interpretation of the ABM treaty is the wise one to stick to. Is that also the Prime Minister's own precise view, and does she believe that the narrow interpretation of the treaty forbids testing, development and deployment of star wars technology?

The actual interpretation of the ABM treaty is for the two signatories to that treaty, because only they have full notes of the negotiating record, which, of course, will say what the words were intended to mean. We do not have them. We are anxious for the United States to consult Europe if it is going to any accepted change within the treaty, because that will have side effects for the arms control negotiations, in which we have, of course, a considerable interest.

That is a rather different impression from the one given by the right hon. Lady's Secretary of State for Defence yesterday. While we naturally would welcome consultations on this vital issue, what trust can he put by the Prime Minister or anybody else in such consultations when last Wednesday the head of the United States arms control agency, Mr. Adelman, said that European allies had no business giving advice on interpretation because, to use his words, they have "no qualifications" to do so. Are those the words of somone who wants to consult, or of someone who does not mind insulting?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to or understood my first reply. The fact is that there are only two signatories to this treaty, the Soviet Union and the United States. Only those two signatories have the negotiating record. Only they, therefore, can do the precise interpretation, as it was intended when they signed that treaty. If they change what has hitherto been understood to be the interpretation, yes, we do ask for consultation, because that has a considerable effect upon the arms control negotiations that are taking place in Geneva; arms control negotiations which, I might remind the right hon. Gentleman, deal with Soviet Union superiority in intercontinental ballistic missiles, Soviet Union superiority in medium-range missiles, Soviet Union superiority in short-range missiles, Soviet Union superiority in conventional weapons and Soviet Union superiority in chemical weapons. Therefore, it is absolutely right that President Reagan considers SDI. Thank goodness people considered nuclear research before the last world war.

In that case, and as it is so vital, will the Prime Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State for Defence or she will have sight of that negotiating record before they tender further advice, which we all hope will be influential on the United States'attitude towards the deployment of star wars technology?

No, Mr. Speaker. The point of asking for consultation is to know the effect upon arms control negotiations. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to look at the face of the treaty he will discover that where there are new ABM systems

"based on other physical principles"—[Interruption.]

"In order to insure fulfilment of the obligation not to deploy ABM systems and their components except as provided in Article III of the Treaty, the Parties agree that in the event ABM systems based on other physical principles"

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the security services and the police on preventing a convicted IRA terrorist from entering this country through the port of Liverpool last week? At the same time, will she condemn the official Opposition, who in the same week voted against the extension of the prevention of terrorism legislation, under which that self-same protection was afforded to citizens of this country?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 helps the police to apprehend terrorists and therefore to protect the people of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Last week the Opposition voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. On the same day they voted against clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which would enable appeals to made against sentences, so as to have tougher sentences, and also against clause 30, which will increase to life imprisonment the maximum penalty for possession of a firearm with criminal intent. It was a bad day for law and order when the official Opposition voted against three measures like that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

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

Why does the Prime Minister appear to be reneging on the position taken by herself and her Government in favour of the original narrow interpretation of the ABM treaty? Will she assure the House that in her discussions with the American Administration this Administration will be urging the President not to imperil nuclear disarmament prospects by pressing ahead with the Disneyland delusions of star wars?

If it comes to deployment, that was covered by the four points that I agreed with President Reagan at Camp David some time ago. But we are not talking about deployment at the moment. We are talking about how far the research can go under the terms of the treaty. For that there are two interpretations. I must make it absolutely clear that in terms of common sense there is no point in talking about possible deployment until it is known whether something is feasible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister comment on the fate of construction workers in south Wales, who are now daily travelling up the M4 to get work in construction in London, where there is a shortage of labour, for which they are being paid £70 a week, and then returning to south Wales, where there are 20,000 unemployed construction workers? Does she not think that this is an indication of her Government's failure to have an effective regional employment policy?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been an excellent regional policy for Wales. He will also be aware that unemployment in Wales is falling. I hope that he will endorse and welcome that.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that on the question of the interpretation of the ABM treaty she will not be advised by such supporters of unilateral nuclear disarmament as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will not be advised by those who support unilateral nuclear disarmament in any event.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

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

I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for that reply. May I ask her whether, in the course of her very busy day, she can find a few minutes to have a look at the problem of Fascist entryism into the Conservative party, as illustrated by the National Fronter, who is the chairman of a constituency Conservative association not far from here, and the Tory students at Aberystwyth, who held a celebration on the anniversary of the coming to power, not of the right hon. Lady, but of a certain Adolf Hitler?

The hon. Gentleman must be hard put to it to find a question about politics for which I am responsible. With regard to his particular question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster deals with these things in his own inimitable style.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average sentence for rape at this time is three and a half years and the average time served in rape cases is 20 months? As the leader of the party of law and order, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are fighting for minimum sentences and for the right to appeal against any absurdly lenient sentence? Does she appreciate that clause 29 does not go far enough, in that it does not make it possible to appeal in a specific case to protect the woman raped, who is stained for life?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is our task to see that sufficiently severe maximum sentences are available to the judges, which they are. At present the Lord Chief Justice has given guidelines which say that there have to be heavy custodial sentences for all crimes of violence. Under clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill we are trying to ensure that there is a further way to appeal, not against that particular sentence, but against that kind of sentence by going to the Court of Appeal so that it can pronounce upon it in open court. That in itself is a considerable step forward.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the problems facing British agriculture are caused by our membership of the Common Market, and particularly the common agricultural policy? Further, does the right hon. Lady agree that the surpluses in western Europe are not created by our agriculture? Why should our farm workers and farmers therefore be made redundant? Is it not high time that we moved as quickly as possible to low-input agriculture that is more labour-intensive, more environmentally sound, under our control and not under the control of Brussels?

As the hon. Lady is aware, our farmers contribute considerably to the surpluses. Enormous amounts are in intervention. I entirely accept that we must pursue a policy throughout Europe that brings supply and demand more into balance.