asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the funding of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend announced on 14 October a 9 per cent. increase in funding for the polytechnics and colleges in 1988–89. Our expenditure plans for the universities will be announced later today.

Is the Minister aware that in unit of resource terms there has been a 20 per cent. decrease for polytechnics since the Conservative Government came to power? If the Minister values the work of the polytechnics and the increase in the number of students, why have there not been additional resources perhaps along the same lines as the increased resources for universities?

The polytechnics and colleges sector now accounts for more than half the students in higher education—more than 300,000. That is a remarkable achievement. The proposed increase of 9 per cent. this year is sufficient to allow for the expansion of access to the level of known demand and to finance the continuing programme of selective initiatives.

When will the review of student financing be completed and published?

We hope to complete the work of the review committee early next year. It remains to be decided whether and in what form that will be published.

Is the Minister aware that the formula for responsible bodies' educational provision means that access courses being run in higher education find it difficult to run on a proper basis involving tutorial and seminar provision? Are there any plans to increase the funding available for access courses?

There is a continuing growth of access courses, which we welcome. The Government are committed to increase the number of students in higher education by 50,000 by 1990, and we believe that access courses have an important role to play in that.

What representations has my hon. Friend received about the disparity of per capita funding for students in polytechnics and universities? Will he consider reviewing the funding of universities and making the sum that is now available for research in universities open for competition by all bodies of higher education on the basis of the quality of their research?

There is continuing concern about differences between the two sectors of higher education. We have to recognise that, going back to 1966 and the days of the late right hon. Member for Grimsby, Mr. Anthony Crosland, there has been a difference in mission between the two sectors. The institutions in the university sector have a research vocation and that accounts very largely for the differences in the unit of resource between the two sectors. We believe that the polytechnics and colleges have a contribution to make to research and we have recognised that fact through the programme of selective initiatives.

Will the Minister confirm that, even with the 9 per cent. extra, the unit of resouce for polytechnics will be further reduced next year and that, even on the most generous information from leaks about the money available, it will not be restored to anywhere near the total before the cuts in 1981, so that universities such as Salford and Bradford will have at least 20 per cent. fewer resources than they had in 1981?

The recurrent grant for universities for 1987–88 is up by 10 per cent. over the previous year and we have further proposals to make later today. There is continuing support for universities and polytechnics and there has been rapid expansion throughout the past seven or eight years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is able to announce any further progress towards the establishment of a pilot network of city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in relation to the proposed city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

Sponsorship for four city technology colleges has already been announced. The Kingshurst CTC will open next year and the Nottingham CTC in 1989. I am making good progress in discussions with a. number of other prospective sponsors.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in this matter. May I ask him to contact senior industrialists and get them to understand that we will not be able to provide the extremely worthwhile activities that the CTCs will be able to provide unless they come up with the money? That is the meaning of self-help. That is the way to help enterprise and to help people to be properly educated for the business world.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The encouraging thing about the CTC initiative is the way in which many companies and industrialists have come forward willing to provide money and support such as lending executives. It is a partnership between schools, industry and parents.

Is it not true that the lack of real progress in this sector is due to the fact that industry and commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and chambers of commerce do not want to be associated with the half-baked idea? Is it not true that they have less faith in the idea than in the Secretary of State himself?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is far from the truth. Many companies, large and small, have said that they wish to sponsor colleges. There are several committed sponsors. I shall be announcing some additional colleges shortly, but I am keen to secure sites. The difficulty is that some local authorities are not prepared to make empty schools available. That is a dog in the manger.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the change of control in Langbaurgh from a Labour-controlled authority to a Liberal-Labour-controlled authority, the site earmarked for the CTC on Teesside will proceed and that there will be no delay in putting that college on the map?

I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he has given over the past months to establishing a CTC on Teesside. I very much favour the establishment of a CTC on Teesside, as I do on Tyneside. We are pursuing the establishment of both colleges vigorously.

Although the Secretary of State is clearly having great difficulty in organising the CTCs, is not the fundamental aim further to centralise education and strike a blow at the local education authorities? When that is linked to the opting-out process, is it not an all-out attempt, which could possibly fail and produce chaos, to strike a blow at local authorities, to smash them and to centralise education?

It is not a centralising measure. The interesting thing about the groups of people in the cities interested in establishing CTCs is their local links. One has seen that fact in Solihull in the west midlands, in Nottingham, in London and in several of the other areas that I am pursuing. It is not centralisation. It is the use of the vitality and energy of people at a local level.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in some areas in which the local authority is reorganising schools because of falling rolls, a CTC will completely unbalance the organisation and lead to good schools closing down because of this half-baked idea?

There is no reason for any good school in Britain to close. The cumulative effect of the changes that we will be bringing about will be to improve quality in all our schools and to encourage all schools to be better.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating and offering good wishes to the Conservative-controlled Nottingham city council, elected this year, which has just granted planning consent for such a college? Will he note the fact that that consent has been given in the teeth of the opposition of the minority Labour group on the city council, and the majority group on the county council, who seek to deny that choice and benefit to the children of Nottingham?

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been very involved in local politics in Nottingham, for the support that he has given. I am sure that future generations of children in Nottingham will benefit enormously from the CTC that will open there in 1989.

First, may I congratulate the Secretary of State on putting a brave face on his failure to attract industrial support? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his words at last year's Conservative party conference, when he said that CTCs would be non-selective? How does he reconcile those comments with the reported practice in the proposed Solihull CTC, where not only are children applying for admission being tested on a number of occasions, but their parents are being tested? Is that not conclusive evidence that CTCs will not simply be elitist but will distort intake for other schools in the same catchment area?

In the selection of children, primary teachers and head teachers will be asked to provide reports on candidates. A series of tests and interviews with parents will follow. The final selection will be carried out to ensure that the intake reflects the ability range of children of eligible age in the catchment area.

Is it not possible that some companies have not yet realised the full potential of CTCs as a means of closing the gap between industry and education? Might it not be useful if, on the basis of a clearer blueprint, which might now be available as a result of my right hon. Friend's progress with four colleges, he sought an early meeting with the CBI?

Yes, I discuss these matters not only with the CBI but with other commercial interests. I assure the House that several sponsors have come forward. One approached us last month offering £1 million for a college in the north-west and there are several others. I shall be announcing the details when we have secured specific sites.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will place in the Library a copy of those representations he has received in relation to his consultative proposals to devolve financial management to schools; and if he will make a statement.

I have placed in the Library copies of all letters received from organisations in response to this consultation paper. Without their express consent I would not wish to do the same with responses from individuals.

What responses has the Secretary of State received to his consultation document on devolved financial management in education? How many replies has he received from head teachers, who will carry the responsibility of the new arrangements that the Secretary of State is introducing? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to place in the Library an analysis of responses from head teachers?

I have placed in the Library copies of the responses of all institutions such as local education authorities, governing bodies and unions. It is appropriate that we should make all those available. However, I am not prepared to make available an individual response from a head teacher unless that head teacher gives me the power to do so and approves the move. The great majority of respondents supported the principle of greater financial delegation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that head teachers and school governing bodies are in the best position to decide how best to spend their budgets? Does he further agree that his proposals will do a great deal to ensure greater freedom and responsibility for schools and head teachers, which must be to the advantage of the nation's children?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Some 21 local education authorities have considerable experience in delegating responsibilities and budgets to head teachers. Such arrangements have worked successfully. They have been welcomed by local education authorities and head teachers, and the overall management of the schools involved has been improved. In nearly all cases savings have been made and the money saved has been spent as the head teacher wishes.

When will the Secretary of State publish proposals for financing the training of governors for their new responsibilities?

As I have already said, we shall be bringing forward proposals for the training of head teachers and governors. I recognise that extra training will be needed for governors, who are taking on new responsibilities, and for head teachers, in financial management skills.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals to improve professional standards in education; and if he will make a statement.

All our policies are directed towards improving professional standards in education.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the damage done to education by the theories of Fred Jarvis and his NUT brothers, which equate teaching with manual, unskilled industrial occupations? Is my hon. Friend surprised at the number of good teachers who are leaving unions? Will she do everything in her power to encourage good leadership for the vast majority of responsible and good teachers that we have?

My hon. Friend is right to say that some of the union leaders have not been tremendously helpful in promoting our proposals, but he will be glad to know that many individual teachers have responded to our proposals in writing. When the legislation is introduced, they will be greatly encouraged to see that their worries have been answered.

To have high standards, is there not a need for high morale in the profession? Are the Government not guilty of creating low morale—indeed, smouldering resentment—among teachers? If they want better standards, what will they do to improve the morale of teachers?

The Government are anxious to know exactly what teachers say about our proposals. Many of the responses have been helpful, especially on the curriculum proposals, which are directly related to their professional responsibilities. In addition, during the past year the Government have made substantial inroads into the pay and conditions of service for teachers and many of them now believe that their morale is on the way back.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the teaching profession, among parents and in all sections of the community about the statistic published yesterday that only 38 per cent. of children over the age of 13 have religious education in their schools? Does this not lead to serious indiscipline among many children, who do not have a proper understanding of morals? Will my hon. Friend support moves to put religious education into the core curriculum?

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that in our proposals we shall secure the position cif religious education and instruction in schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will set up an inquiry into the state of school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will set up an inquiry into the state of school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has already undertaken a sample survey of county and voluntary controlled schools in England. The report is being published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. Schools in Scotland are, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is the Minister aware that that survey estimates that it will cost about £2 billion to £3 billion to repair and refurbish school buildings to a decent standard? Is he further aware that the report on the survey was completed in April 1986? Is his failure to publish until today the result of incompetence, or embarrassment?

The hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost is right. The figures available to me show a capital cost of about £2 billion. The report was published today—the hon. Gentleman should have thanked me for it — because we decided to give extra time to local authorities which had some difficulty in making their returns, and accordingly we set a later deadline.

Does the Minister recognise the problems that are created for the education of our children because of the many substandard school premises? When capital allocations for next year's programme are made later this year, will he ensure that sufficient money is made available to Lancashire county council and other authorities which have serious problems that must be tackled urgently?

The hon. Gentleman is a regular supplicant on behalf of his authority. He should stay around and listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement later this afternoon.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the condition of school buildings in my constituency, and the shortage of science equipment in some of the science laboratories in those schools, owes more to the policies being pursued by the Lib-Lab-controlled Humberside county council, which is the education authority, than to the policies being pursued by the Government?

My hon. Friend pitches his question correctly. Much of the responsibility for the state of our school stock rests with the last Labour Government.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are spare school buildings in Wolverhampton and that they might be used for a CTC, as is much desired by the newly Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton council?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have noted that question. Responsibility for school stock, empty places, proposals for change and the availability of stock rests with the local education authority, which must make proposals to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's record on school buildings is one of appalling neglect, which was confirmed by Her Majesty's inspectors' report earlier this year, showing that 1·5 million children—one fifth of all school children—were being taught in classrooms so bad as to have an adverse effect upon their education? As his own report estimates that up to £3,150 million will be required to bring schools up to standard, at the present rate of plans how many years will schools and children have to wait?

Since the report was commissioned we have spent a considerable amount of money on capital projects. Again, I urge the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to wait for the Chancellor's statement this afternoon. However, I should point out that any claim that the responsibility for the state of school stock rests entirely with the Government is wrong. The hon. Gentleman must also take some responsibility for when his party was in government.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has had from directors of polytechnics to his proposed reform of polytechnic control and organisation.

Most directors have warmly welcomed the proposed changes. The Committee of Directors of Polytechnics is planning positively for the new arrangements.

The overwhelming support for those changes is welcome news to us, as it must be to polytechnic directors. The funding of polytechnics will increase next year by about £64·5 million, which is an increase of about 9 per cent. It will enable greater access to higher education, which will continue a trend, because last year the increase was about 6·5 per cent. better than target. Does that not show that polytechnics are continuing to fulfil a real role in ensuring that people have access to higher education?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Congratulations to the polytechnics are in order. As I said earlier, polytechnics and colleges are now the largest sector of higher education in this country, with about 300,000 students. From my visits around the country, I am learning just how dynamic and energetic the polytechnics are.

Will the Minister tell us why the Polytechnic of Wales was excluded from the proposals that were made for polytechnics in England, and what exactly is meant by the offer of corporate status for the polytechnic and other institutes of higher education in Wales?

That question is still being considered by the Government. Obviously, it is a matter that the hon. Gentleman should take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a warm welcome for the proposals from the Slough college of further education, which will be free from local education authority control? Is he further aware that there is some concern about the present funding arrangements in respect of part-time students? Will he undertake to consider that matter in his further development of the proposals?

We are anxious to encourage part-time students. Their numbers are growing and they form an increasing proportion of the numbers in universities and polytechnics. The issue is kept under annual review in the public expenditure round and I agree with my hon. Friend that it deserves serious attention.

How can the Minister justify a separate funding body for universities and polytechnics in the Government's new proposals for the funding of higher education? Is it not high time that there was one body to fund the whole of higher education?

As I recall, the concept of the binary system originated under a Labour Government. It reflected a just appreciation of the existence of different possible missions for institutions in higher education. There is a difference of mission and one of historical background, and those are reflected in the Government's proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on Her Majesty's inspectors' 1987 annual report; and if he will make a statement.

I have received one letter, from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), which raised various issues in the context of Her Majesty's inspector's report, but have received no other specific representations.

Does the Secretary of State accept the report of his inspectorate and, if so, what does he intend to do about the shortcomings in teacher and library provision, but most of all in accommodation in schools? All those shortcomings are prevalent in Clwyd, which is a Tory-Independent council.

May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the phrases that were used in the report about provision, because he asked me about provision in schools. The report states:

"unsatisfactory standards of provision are often more related to ineffective deployment of people and resources than to shortages of the resources themselves."

"in many visits books were found to be ignored even though adequate stocks existed."

Is it not a fact that the HMI report also referred to improved standards of teaching, better standards in the classroom and parental appreciation for the wider curriculum and opportunities that this Government have brought about?

I am naturally pleased that in eight out of 10 of the classes observed the pupil response to the education provided was satisfactory or better, but that leaves no room for complacency. Throughout the country, in all our schools, for all our pupils—whatever their ability—the object of all our reforms is to improve the basic quality of education.

Does the Secretary of State recall that right from the foundations of our system of public education Her Majesty's inspectors have been wholly independent? In view of the stories that have been told and the speeches that have been made on this topic in the past two years, will the Secretary of State now tell the House that he has no plans to change the status of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to something other than what it has historically and properly received?

I absolutely confirm that one of the great strengths of the education system is the independence of the inspectorate. Although I am responsible for "pay and rations" the inspectorate publishes its reports independently of submitting them to me. It offers independent advice and I believe that that is one of the strengths of the system.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the biggest single difficulty found by the inspectors in those classes judged to be unsatisfactory was that children were not being stretched, and that, of course, leads, among other things, to disciplinary problems. Would it be fair to say that one of the difficulties of the present moment is that education authorities find it hard to let teachers go away for long periods for training? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend make it easier for teachers to teach themselves at home with the aid of distance learning and other techniques that have proved successful in other professions?

That is an interesting idea. I believe that my hon. Friend will be aware that we are now spending more than ever before in our history on in-service training—more than £200 million in special, specific grant this year. I echo something that my hon. Friend said, and that is that the constant comment that I find in the inspectors' reports is that far too many people in the system, teachers and parents, have far too low expectations of what can be achieved by children. I agree with my hon. Friend that if children can be stretched to their fullest ability they usually give much more.

While the Minister may not yet have received many letters on this subject, does he not agree that there is widespread concern that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report said that sub-standard accommodation was affecting the quality of pupils' work in a fifth of the classes seen? Will he confirm that there are known examples of school buildings—highlighted by the report—where local authorities have acknowledged potential dangers to children, but have not had the money to d o anything about them? Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to those problems rather than introduce so-called reforms that only he and the Prime Minister seem to want?

The hon. Lady must await the statement by the Chancellor this afternoon on other matters—public expenditure and education. I publish the reports, whereas the Labour party produced expenditure reports every year from 1974 and never published one. I can understand why the Labour party will not talk about the management of resources in our schools when it made such a mess of managing the economy.

Bearing in mind that the inspectors' report highlighted the quality and efficiency of any given school and bearing in mind that nothing is more important for the quality of a school than the quality and efficiency of the head teacher, will my right hon. Friend give serious thought to further ways of improving the ability of head teachers to manage and direct their schools? Will he give thought to the possibility of a staff college for head teachers?

The latter idea has many attractions. My hon. Friend will be aware from the pay settlement for this year that we have increased the differentials for deputy and head teachers and have asked the Interim Advisory Committee to look again at the question of differentials.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will place in the Library a copy of those representations he has received in relation to his consultative paper, "Admission of Pupils to Maintained Schools"; and if he will make a statement.

Copies of all letters received from organisations in response to this consultation paper have been placed in the Library. Without their express consent we would not feel entitled to do the same with responses from individuals.

Will the team on the Government Front Bench demonstrate the quality for which they are most renowned in the nation—their humility—and apologise, not only to the House, but to parents, teachers and the nation for the amount of time that was allowed for consultation on the proposals? Will they do a courtesy to the House by allowing a genuine and full analysis of the responses to all those consultations rather than trying to fob us off again? Will the—

Order. Only one question, please.

rose—

Order. Time is getting on. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two questions.

Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

I think that I can remember the question. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we received in excess of 14,000 responses to our consultation documents. The responses from those organisations which it is possible to publish are in the Library, but we have maintained the view that without the permission of the people who have written individual letters it is not possible for us to publish them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that far from any further delay from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) or anyone else, we want urgent action to improve choice for parents? There is no justification for artificially restricting admission to good schools to protect inadequate ones.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People are waiting urgently for action to obtain better and greater parental choice for their children.

Since an analysis of the responses has already been prepared by Department of Education and Science officials for Ministers, why are Ministers now keeping it from the House? Is it that they are scared to reveal that, overwhelmingly, the responses not only from Labour authorities but from Conservative authorities and parents' organisations indicate opposition to these damaging and dangerous proposals?

The view of the majority of respondents on the principle of open enrolment was that parental choice should be met. Within the responses that we had comments were not expressed in such a way as to make it possible for me to say precisely how many respondents were for or against the proposals, or any particular aspect of those proposals.

While I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about open enrolment, may I ask whether she is aware that many Conservative Members believe that we ought to have an experiment with education vouchers?

I am not advocating an experiment with education vouchers at present. We are advocating many proposals which we believe will all lead directly to great improvements in the educational system for children in the maintained sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with the University Grants Committee.

My right hon. Friend saw the chairman of the University Grants Committee last week, when they discussed university funding.

Did the Secretary of State discuss with the UGC the contents of his recent speech at London university, when he said that universities would have to look for alternative sources of funding rather than relying on the Government, who apparently seem to be abandoning their responsibility for funding higher education? Would the Minister care to elaborate on his statement, particularly in view of the speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) at Aberdeen university recently, when he said that the Government and the UGC were directly responsible for the crisis facing universities?

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that Government expenditure on universities last year increased by 10 per cent. and that there has been a substantial real terms increase since 1979. On external funding, it is notable that non-UGC earnings of universities have risen from one eighth of their current grant in 1979 to one fifth today. That is a substantial improvement. In regard to Scottish universities, already in the four months that I have been in office I have visited three of the eight Scottish universities and seen the splendid work that they are doing. The UGC pursues a national policy and does not discriminate on the basis of different regions.

Did my right hon. Friend, during the discussions with the University Grants Committee, have the opportunity to point out that the committee could give good advice to the polytechnics and institutes of higher education — namely, that the Government's policy to free them from local education authority control would allow them to develop more towards the university model, and thus benefit education in this country?

We believe that autonomy is of benefit to all institutions of higher education, and we see the changes being made in relation to polytechnics and colleges as a major step towards that development.

How can the Secretary of State reconcile his claim that the universities are benefiting when Aberdeen university, which is based in the oil capital of Europe, is now faced with the prospect of closing no fewer than six departments? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the sense of outrage in the north and north-east of Scotland over that proposal? When the matter comes before the UGC on the 16th of this month, will he pay particular attention to the matter of Aberdeen university and try to reverse the position?

The hon. Lady should recognise that it would do no service to the Scottish universities to judge them by different criteria from those applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The same criteria are being applied to all such institutions, and they have been applied to Aberdeen university with the results that the hon. Lady has described.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the UGC, will he raise the subject of the appalling incidents that took place at Liverpool university on 16 October last, when the visiting speaker, Mr. Ray Honeyford, was abused, spat upon and not allowed to speak, by so-called anti-racists? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was precisely that sort of Stalinist abuse of free speech that the Education Act 1986 was intended to prevent? What assurances will he seek from Liverpool university that such incidents will not occur again?

Some of us believe that the only serious threat to academic freedom in this country comes from within some of the universities and other educational institutions. That is why the Government legislated to ensure freedom of speech in such institutions. I ask my hon. Friend to write to me with details of the episode that he mentioned, so that I can investigate it further.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures the Government are taking to improve standards of pupil behaviour and discipline in schools; and if he will make a statement.

The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 strengthens the authority of head teachers and governing bodies—which in future will include more parents—by giving them direct responsibility for maintaining discipline. Her Majesty's Inspectorate's recently published report on good behaviour and discipline has given schools guidance on best practice.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous support from parents for the strengthening of moral and religious education in schools, and its potential for improving pupil behaviour? Does she agree that not only should religious education be included in the core curriculum, as was suggested earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), but that, as with academic subjects before the hidden curriculum, specific benchmarks should be included in the national curriculum proposals?

My hon. Friend is right. There is indeed considerable support among parents for moral and religious education in schools, and we hope that our proposals will clearly set the curriculum as a whole within that context.

Will the Minister confirm the views of many teachers that the main problem with 15 and 16-yearolds in regard to school discipline is that, however hard they work, they face a future with no prospect of finding employment when they leave? Is not one of the many dreadful legacies of the present Government their creatiom in many parts of the country of a generation with no hope?

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Government have provided full YTS schemes for two years for pupils leaving school. Such schemes provide them with the opportunity of adequate training, which I hope will take them into good jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he gave the delegates from Suffolk county council in July on removing surplus places in schools in non-metropolitan areas: and if he will make a statement.

I received the delegates on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I advised them that in the light of the fall in school rolls my right hon. Friend expects local education authorities to consider the scope for rationalisation of school provision in all areas; and that in formulating proposals he expects local education authorities to bear in mind the advice in the Department's circular 3/87.

Is my hon. Friend aware that to follow those procedures in Suffolk alone would mean taking out 3,500 primary places and 7,600 secondary places? That could only mean massive school closures. In the light of that, and in the light of the Government's open enrolment policy, how will he further advise Suffolk county council?

At the moment Suffolk county council is responsible for the maintenance and provision of schools in its local education authority area. Proposals to close schools are never arrived at easily, but are always dealt with by the Department of Education and Science in a quasi-judicial sense. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has proposals with him at the moment and it would not be right for me to comment upon them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to extend the provision of pre-five education; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's plans for expenditure on education allow for provision attributable to under-fives to continue broadly at today's levels. It is for local education authorities to determine the scale and nature of such provision in the areas that they serve.

The Minister must realise that three out of every five children are denied nursery education. The record of Tory education authorities is abysmal. Nine out of 10 worst providers are Tory-controlled councils, and the best top 10 are Labour-controlled councils. Will the Minister provide extra resources for nursery education so that the Prime Minister's promise in 1972 that the vast majority of children would get nursery education can be realised?

The hon. Gentleman may like to know that most local education authorities are now increasing provision. Currently, 43 per cent. of all three and four-year-olds are in nursery or primary classes, compared with only 37 per cent. in 1979. This is the highest proportion ever.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why in the last Parliament members of her Cabinet voted against a measure to introduce free TV licences for pensioners? Can she also tell the House why her Government can always find time to help the City but never money to help British pensioners?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is not Government policy to give free television licences to pensioners. Such free licences would have to be paid for by increasing the cost of licences for the rest of the population and that would not be fair in any way. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the City raises about £7 billion a year for our balance of payments.

rose—

Order. May I appeal to the House to give the Prime Minister and hon. Members who ask questions a fair hearing?

As life returns to normal in the southeast will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to show her appreciation to the local authorities, the voluntary services, the emergency services and all those involved in helping the south-east return to normal? In particular, will she say a word of praise to the many people who have helped each other in their considerable difficulties?

I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation and offer a word of thanks — I believe on behalf of the whole House — to all those authorities and workers about whom my hon. Friend spoke.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister's last answer and should like to include, of course, the electricity workers.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there will have to be a very considerable programme for new power stations between now and the year 2000. There is a need for new stations because of increased demand and to replace old ones. That, in any event, will require a great deal of finance and a certain amount of money will have to be spent on the distribution system. The right hon. Gentleman is also aware of the amount that needs to be spent for environmental reasons on some of the coal-fired power stations. All that will constitute a massive amount of capital expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will fix a rate of return for the electricity industry, and it is up to

Does the Prime Minister not realise that those obligations for power stations and other services as well as the clearing of debts have already been accounted for in the estimates made by the electricity industry? Is it not obvious that the only reason that the Prime Minister could advance for changing the financial targets of the industry is to ensure that privatisation is an even bigger giveaway and that those who buy that new private monopoly will make even greater gains? That may be very sweet for those who buy electricity shares, but it will be very sour for those who have to buy their electricity.

This year the electricity industry plans to achieve a current cost rate of return of something just under 2·5 per cent. That is not adequate to fund the investment programmes and the rate will have to be increased. That would be true whether the industry remained in the public sector or was privatised. In fact, one power station has been ordered since the Government have been in office. Sizewell B is the first of approximately 10 stations that will be needed. The money will have to be found, and that is something like £40 billion.

The United States privatised electricity system has not ordered a new power station for more than two decades. Is that the future that we have to look forward to? Will the Prime Minister also acquaint herself with the plan for electricity development right to the end of the century and acknowledge that it states that the only reason for changing the estimates would be if the Government changed the financial targets? That is exactly the kind of treachery that we will see this afternoon.

All the estimates show that by the mid-1990s we shall need considerably more power stations. Indeed, we will need up to 10 by the end of the century. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that those stations have to be built and the money has to be found.

With the possible exception of London, would it not be the height of political and bureaucratic masochism to run two systems of local authority finance simultaneously? Could we please have our community charge in one chunk?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the many representations that he has received and how best to meet them, if that is possible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November 1987.

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

rose—

Where is the hon. Gentlemans tee shirt?

It is underneath my shirt.

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman knows far more about sharks than I do.

Will my right hon. Friend send a message of appreciation to the French agencies of government today reflecting the seizure of the vessel containing arms over the weekend, showing, as it does, the increase in international co-operation in the unremitting fight against terrorism, from wherever it may occur?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will wish to join in congratulating the French authorities on the successful seizure of this large shipment of arms. Their action has undoubtedly saved many lives in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and I am sure that we would all wish to send a message of appreciation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November.

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

I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that many children in Wales are taught through the medium of Welsh. Will she give an assurance that our inherited language will have equal status with English in a core curriculum in Wales?

I do not think that I could give an assurance that it will have equal status with English in a core curriculum. There will, of course, be plenty of facilities for teaching and learning Welsh for those who wish to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her decision to appoint a counsellor or ombudsman for the security service will be widely welcomed within the organisations, but will she consider widening his responsibilities, thus enabling him to attend the regular directorate meetings of the security service with the status of a non-executive director?

No. The appointment was of a staff counsellor in accordance with a promise that I made to the House, and it has now been made. It is a counselling management appointment and it should not be widened.

Is it not a matter of regret that the Prime Minister chose to make her announcement about a staff counsellor by a written answer, thus preventing clarificatory questions and the widening of the issue, because there are other issues that should be discussed? Does her phrase

"anxieties relating to the work of the service."

The reply means exactly what it says. It was partly in response to people such as the right hon. Gentleman that we decided to appoint the staff counsellor. He will deal with complaints from those employed by the security service. In the first place, those will be dealt with by ordinary line management, but if anyone working for the security services feels that that is not sufficient he can go to the staff counsellor, who will be available to hear all complaints. A report would then be made to the heads of the services and the appropriate Secretary of State.

In view of the recent admission of failure on the part of the first-class post and the threatened disruption of the Christmas post, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the Post Office monopoly?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the Post Office and the threat that there may not be a sufficient service for the Christmas post, but I hope that that will not come about. As my hon. Friend says, it is true that we have powers to suspend the monopoly for letters. We would be prepared to use those powers should the need arise, but we do not believe that it has arisen yet.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the CBI's overwhelming rejection of her business and poll tax proposals, which it does not believe will lead to greater accountability or to a clearer relationship between local spending and decision-making? If her political friends and all major professional bodies reject that tax system, and if those who are asked to impose it do so with reluctance, why is she inflicting it on a population that incresingly rejects it?

My understanding is that the CBI does not want rates, either. It wants rates to be cut considerably because it does not want to have to pay such a large proportion to local authorities. It wants to diminish its rates bill because it wants to cut its costs. The Government have tried to do everything possible to cut the costs that fall on companies from either central or local government. The community charge will help to cut costs for many businesses.

Will my right hon. Friend please add books to the list of items on which she has said her Government do not intend to impose value added tax?

As my hon. Friend knows, I really cannot trespass on my right hon. Friend's the Chancellor's statement. I am sure that he will make a most excellent Autumn Statement and rise to the occasion, as he always does. It will be good for both the short-term and long-teen interests of Britain.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that I, no doubt like many other hon. Members, have constituents with fuel bills to the tune of £300 outstanding? Some of those families have an income of as little as £80 per week. Will the right hon. Lady consider the serious problem of fuel poverty that the high tariffs for electricity and gas are causing those families?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the heating additions to supplementary benefit under this Government have risen enormously and now amount to more than £400 million. He is further aware that the big increases in electricity prices took place under Labour Governments. In cash terms they were of the order of 27 per cent., then 48 per cent., followed by 18 per cent. in domestic electricity. Prices have fallen by 16 per cent. in real terms under the last five years of this Government.