To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding his proposals for financial delegation to schools and colleges.

There have been over 700 responses to the consultation paper on financial delegation to schools, and some 350 responses to the paper on further education.

Is the Secretary of State aware that 87 per cent, of our schools—24,000 in all—have fallen into a state of disrepair and need exceptional repairs to put them back in order? As one who is entirely honest, because he went to the same school as I did, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that his financial delegation will cure the backlog of repairs?

I believe that the building that the hon. Gentleman and I shared as schoolboys has fallen down. To be more precise, it sank into the sands of Southport, and has been partly, indeed substantially, rebuilt. That is rather wide of the question, but the hon. Gentleman will know that I have secured for next year, in the financial settlement, a substantial increase in the capital allocations for schools, amounting to an increase of some 22 per cent, in the capital allocations over this year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that delegations to schools will allow for the more efficient use of resources? It will allow parents, teachers and governing bodies to decide for themselves the priority of the school, which must be to the considerable advantage of education.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is probably agreed on both sides of the House that the delegation of budgets to governing bodies and heads should go ahead Indeed, it is going ahead very strongly at present. Practice will anticipate the provisions of the Bill in this respect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline his plans for the future of comprehensive education in England and Wales.

It is for local education authorities to consider how to organise school provision in their areas. Where proposals for changes in the existing pattern come to me for decision, I shall continue to consider them on their individual merits.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent Edinburgh university study which was commissioned by the Scottish Office and which welcomed the improvement in the standards of Scottish education, brought about by the introduction of comprehensive schools. In particular, it welcomed the increase in the number of pupils staying on beyond the statutory school leaving age and the substantial increase in the number of pupils obtaining ordinary and higher grade qualifications.

The study to which the hon. Gentleman refers by no means shows a causal link between comprehensive reorganisation and examination success. However, as the hon. Gentleman has asked me to consider setting up a study in England and Wales, he should be aware of the Welsh study, published early this year, of a community where education was comprehensive in half the area and selective in the other half. The authors found that the selective schools were superior in a range of outcomes, including reading scores and examination results. Comprehensives failed most with pupils of average and below average ability.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our proposals for comprehensive schools are entirely in keeping with the findings of the second Vatican council, which concluded that parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children should have true liberty in their choice of schools?

I am very glad to have support from the second Vatican council. I am encouraged to believe that it has pointed out in a clear way the importance of parental choice in education, which has appeared in the statute law of this country for several centuries. That is one of the main thrusts of the Bill that we shall be discussing later.

Is it not a fact that although the Minister is asked about his future plans for comprehensive education, in fact his main plan is to utterly destroy it? Why does he not say so? Why is he waging a vendetta against it? Does he not realise that if he compares selective schools and comprehensive schools within a certain area, the so-called comprehensive schools cannot possibly be comprehensive if they are at the side of a selective system?

The hon. Gentleman should refer to the Welsh study. It drew considerable comment when it was published earlier this year. It is not our intention to destroy comprehensive schools. There are many fine comprehensive schools which serve their communities and their children very well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals will be contained in the Education Reform Bill to promote greater choice in education in rural areas.

The Education Reform Bill will increase the scope for informed choice in education among all parents. It will help to raise standards in all schools, wherever they may be located.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of parents to choose in rural areas is limited, not just by artificial limits set on the size of schools—that situation will be rectified by clause 17 of the Education Reform Bill —but by the cost of travel to a favoured school, which in an area such as Lincolnshire can be as far as 10 miles away? Will my hon Friend consider the creation of rural travel education vouchers to extend freedom of choice to parents?

My hon. Friend will have to accept, as I do, that parental choice inevitably has to operate within the context of the area in which the school is situated. Even where there is only one school, for example, parents will still be able to apply to the Secretary of State for it to be withdrawn from local authority control. The advantages of the national curriculum and financial delegation will still obtain.

Does the Minister recall that the Audit Commission, in its response to the Government's proposals about open enrolment, said that unless the Government instituted a system to extend home-school transport costs in rural areas poorer families would effectively be inhibited from having a choice because they would not be able to meet transport costs? What does he intend to do about that, or are poorer families not supposed to have a choice?

Whether a school is in a town or the country, positive improvements in achievement will result once the Bill, to be voted upon later today, becomes law. Many provisions will bite on the school to its advantage. The dark days of poor performance against international competition are over. Nothing is going to be the same again.

Will my hon. Friend pay close attention to the problems of transport? It is a real difficulty if genuine choice is to be maintained. The choice may be between schools that are four miles or seven miles away. Parents feel strongly about that and I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House an assurance that he will look carefully at the problem.

The provision of school transport is a matter for the local education authority. Current arrangements are not affected by the Bill, except that local education authorities will have to treat pupils equally, whether they attend local education authority or grant-maintained schools.

Does the Minister recognise that some of the proposals contained in his Bill will mean that some rural schools will be under threat of closure because, to date, they have been supported by additional resources from local education authorities and that LEA planning has kept numbers at a viable level? Will he tell the House whether he will put money into those schools to ensure that they are able to be retained in those areas?

The Government recognise that many small village schools have to be retained because of the geographical isolation of the communities they serve, especially where the alternative schools would necessitate unacceptably long journeys for young children. For some years we have had the sparsity factor in the allocation of grants from Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council is wickedly proposing to try to close five rural schools near me? Is he further aware of the volume of opposition, which is growing hourly?

My hon. Friend misses no opportunity to bring to the House the case of her constituents. I can assure her that when the Lancashire education authority proposes to close schools she will be given every opportunity to bring to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State her views and those of her constituents on the proposals for closure.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any plans to reorganise university dental schools; and if he will make a statement.

A review of dental education by the University Grants Committee is now under way.

Will the Minister recognise that the review is causing concern among those involved in dental care? Will he give an assurance that there will be no closure or enforced merger of existing dental schools?

I cannot anticipate the result of the report. It will have to take into account the fact that several dental schools are already at or below the minimum size that enables the curriculum to be adequately covered by economic staffing levels. The hon. Gentleman knows that the dental manpower review has recommended a 10 per cent, cut in intake.

Would my hon. Friend care to speak to his colleagues about the number of dentists in training in Southern Ireland to see whether, under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he can achieve a cut in the numbers in training in Ireland, just as the number training in this country was cut from 4,000 to 2,600? Ultimately, all our dentists could be Irish if something is not done about this.

We have no jurisdiction in the Republic of Ireland, but I promise my hon. Friend that I shall inquire into the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the Inner London education authority's south-west quadrant review.

Representations have been received from three hon. Members and a number of parents. Since the Inner London education authority has not yet published statutory proposals for schools in the south-west quadrant, the matter remains one for the authority.

The Minister will be aware that the education committee and the authority have now made their decision and that it is on the way to his Department. Included in that decision is the proposal to amalgamate and thus end the life of the London Nautical school in my constituency. Parents, local hon. Members and, indeed, some members of the majority group in ILEA are greatly concerned that the London Nautical school might disappear. Will the Minister undertake that the decision whether to implement or to change the proposals of the education authority will be made speedily and that the London Nautical school in particular will receive favourable consideration from him and his colleagues?

Given the size of the proposals, which I have yet to receive, it may be some time before we can adjudicate upon them. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government attach considerable importance to increasing parental choice and that the extent of local support or opposition is a relevant factor in our consideration of proposals.

I note with pleasure my hon. Friend's response and I note, too, that he has rejected ILEA'S proposals in relation to the north-east quadrant. Will he take note that many parents in my constituency, and parents of children who go to school in my constituency, do not believe that tertiary education is the only way in which to deal with 16 to 19-year-olds? There is a place for sixth forms and for schools such as the London Nautical school and the William Penn school, both of which are matters of great concern.

I note my hon. Friend's fervour on the matter. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers each proposal on its merits. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), my right hon. Friend was not satisfied that the proposal relating to Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Islington offered good value for the considerable capital costs involved, or that it did enough to tackle the problem of surplus capacity in secondary schools in those areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money is being spent per pupil in 1987 in primary and secondary schools, as compared with the sum spent in January 1979.

Based on a provisional distribution by sector of estimated total current spending by local authorities, an average of £1,115 was spent on each primary and secondary pupil in England in 1986–87, which is 30 per cent, more in real terms than in 1978–79.

I warmly welcome those figures. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that international experience, recent independent research, Her Majesty's inspectors' reports and the experience in some parts of ILEA have all confirmed the falsehood of the assertion that there is an automatic relationship between spending more money and achieving higher educational standards? Will he also confirm that what is really important is a national curriculum, with unequivocal benchmarks, which are sensitively assessed, which give parents the confidence that they need in the educational system and make that system more responsive?

I answer yes on all counts. For too long the debate on the future of education in this country has been focused solely on what goes into a school. Our proposals in the Education Reform Bill will focus on what comes out of a school. Therefore, quality control will be an important vehicle in measuring delivery.

Would the Minister care to comment on certain figures that I obtained from the Library? During 1979–80, using 1986 prices, over £9 billion was spent. It was not until 1986–87 that more money was spent. In 1978–79 the average amount spent per pupil was over £1,100. It was not until 1986–87 that the figure went up to £1,300. That per pupil increase can be accounted for by falling rolls. There was no real increase in education spending until 1986–87.

I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. Conservative and Labour authorities are spending more. We must establish whether expenditure is gaining results and reflects value for money.

How much money per pupil is spent by ILEA on secondary education? How does it compare with what is spent by shire counties? Does my hon. Friend consider that the quality of education in London justifies the differential?

No, I do not. I note that an article in today's Daily Mailstates:

"It costs more to educate a teenager at an inner London comprehensive school than the fees at some of the city's private schools."

The Prime Minister herself has boasted of an increase in spending per pupil between 1979 and 1986. How does the Under-Secretary of State square that boast with the fact that, in real terms, the Government have cut their Exchequer contribution to the nation's education by 20 per cent, over those eight years?

The financing of local government through the rate support grant settlement is designed to make local authorities more accountable for their spending on services generally. It ill-behoves Opposition Members to condemn what we have done when we have achieved so much more in education in the past few years.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that Barnet has the best A-level results of any authority in the country and that ILEA, which spends much more than Barnet, has among the worst results?

I confirm what my hon. Friend said. By comparison, Barnet makes other authorities seem so much worse.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement on the progress towards establishing city technology colleges.

Sponsorships for four city technology colleges have already been announced. The Kingshurst CTC will open next year, and the Nottingham CTC in 1989. We are making good progress in discussions with a number of other prospective sponsors.

How does the Minister account for the fact that, after such a long time, she can produce only such a microscopically small list of achievements? Does she attribute that to the unpopularity of the idea with business and parents, or to its total irrelevance?

It may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the initiative was announced just over a year ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have four city technology colleges on the stocks. More city technology colleges will be commenced in the near future. We shall certainly make announcements about them in the not too distant future.

Did my hon. Friend see the article in last Friday's edition of The Timesby Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of Westminster school? He said that there were some disturbing implications in the sort of syllabus that would be in order at Kingshurst CTC. Will she confirm that we are looking for high standards at that school?

We are most certainly looking for high standards at Kingshurst and, with the appointment of Mrs. Valerie Bragg, I am confident that we shall achieve them.

Is the Minister aware that any attempt to establish a CTC in Knowsley by scurrying around with officials like thieves in the night would be extremely ill-received by the population at large, teaching staff and parents in the area?

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know that the local education authority approached the Department to see whether it would be possible for us to visit the area to help set up a CTC.

The Minister will know that the Government have deliberately excluded their pet CTCs from the state curriculum. Do they not have even that much faith in their own convictions?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. CTCs will be encouraged to follow the national curriculum, but they will have time allocated to them to pursue technology and science, which is what we expect from them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the term "city technology college" is rather ambiguous? Might it not equally be used to describe Eton college, which teaches the technology of the City to would-be market makers and commodity dealers? Could that not be what the Old Etonian who tabled the question had in mind?

Sadly, I am unable to read the mind of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I believe that the name city technology college is excellent and that it will attract many parents, as is the case at Kingshurst.

Now that it is clear that the Government have failed to sell the scheme to industrialists, will the Minister say what criteria will be used in the only CTC that is off the ground and running — that in Solihull — to assess parents? We know that they are to be tested if their children are to gain a place there. What will happen if the child passes the test and the parents fail? Does the Department have a view about whether the parent or the child should attend the college?

The hon. Gentleman displays much ignorance. A substantial number of industrialists—more since June — have expressed an interest in the idea of CTCs. It is with confidence that we shall establish the full 20 CTCs in the not too distant future. Children in comprehensive schools are being interviewed with their parents, as we have always made it clear that we want commitment from both. They should attend because CTCs provide the type of education that they want. At Solihull we now have more than 300 applicants for 180 places.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library copies of the representations which he has received in response to the White Paper "Higher Education — Meeting the Challenge".

There have been wide-ranging discussions surrounding the White Paper since its publication in April and there is no simple record. However, copies of organisations' responses to the three associated consultative documents are already in the Library.

I am grateful to the Minister for his kindness. As the proposed criteria for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council funding include a requirement that at least 55 per cent, of a college's students should be in the advanced further education category, and since many major mixed economy colleges will not qualify because of policies which they have deliberately pursued and have been encouraged to pursue, can the Minister assure the House that they will continue to receive adequate local authority funding, or does he intend that higher education should be hived off and become academically isolated and privatised?

It is certainly not the intention that higher education should be hived off. We believe that it is desirable that there should continue to be mixed economy colleges, and we shall look to local authorities to continue to support them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are a great many people in higher education who do not see the point of creating two funding bodies — one for polytechnics and colleges and one for universities — which match each other? Can we not reconsider and have one funding body for the whole of higher education?

My hon. Friend asks a fundamental question. We must go back to the speech by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1966 about the different missions of the different institutions in the so-called binary system. We do not believe that it is right at this stage, when polytechnics and colleges are emerging into a new sector, to terminate the arrangement.

Is the Minister satisfied with the efficient management of the higher education system in Wales as it applies to his Department? The Welsh Office is in charge of higher education — with the exception of the University of Wales—but no structure exists within the proposed Universities Funding Council system for separate consideration of the funding of the University of Wales. Such a structure exists in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The representation of Welsh higher education institutions within the structure of the UFC is under consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be able to say something about it in due course.

Does the Minister agree that one of the best parts of the White Paper was the Government's commitment to greater access to education for adults? Will he say how much money the Government will put up to make it easier for adults to gain access to education? How will he co-ordinate the provision for adults returning to education between FE and HE colleges, polytechnics and universities? Do we not need a national co-ordinating body to allocate resources and courses for adults returning to education, or is it the Government's intention to apply competition so that these institutions compete for students and resources?

The Government's commitment to this matter is plain. There has been an increase of 160,000 students in the system since 1979, an 8 per cent. increase in UGC funding—following a 10·2 increase last year— and a 9 per cent. increase in funding for polytechnics and colleges this year. That is ample evidence of the Government's commitment to achieving their target.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for how long he will be prepared to receive representations about the proposed Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The consultation process that we embarked on in the summer was designed to inform the drafting of the Education Reform Bill. We shall continue to take account of comments received during the Bill's passage through Parliament, and after that as we get to its detailed implementation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on stimulating a long and unprecedented consultation and debate on the Education Reform Bill proposals before and during the general election, throughout the teachers' holidays — which are intended not only for teacher relaxation but for study—and throughout the autumn. For the benefit of Opposition Members, will he confirm that that consultation and debate will continue until the Bill becomes law and thereafter?

I first spoke of the national curriculum over a year ago, and I spoke to the Select Committee in April of this year. These issues have been before the country for some considerable time, and during the formal period of consultation we received 17,000 responses to the various consultation documents, including 8,500 on the national curriculum.

Is the Secretary of State aware that representations are coming in practically every day — certainly in my constituency — including one this morning from the elected board of governors of Fitton Hill junior school, who are saying that the speed at which he is trying to implement so many drastic changes in education is likely to cause instability in the education service?

Throughout the centuries complaint has been made of many of my predecessors when they have tried to instigate education reform. We intend to take into account the various representations that are made as the Bill goes through the House. Many of the details of the Bill will depend on secondary legislation, and there will be further consultation on that as well.

Has my right hon. Friend learnt from representations that have been made on behalf of the classics, home economics and many other subjects the importance of non-foundation subjects in differentiating individual schools? Will he consider bringing forward proposals so that individual schools may emphasise their distinctive and different educational interests and attainments?

Some representations that we received on the national curriculum dealt specifically with this point and wanted greater flexibility in the curriculum. I can assure the House that that is what we shall have. I shall be setting out our proposals in that regard in my speech later this afternoon.

If the Education Reform Bill becomes law, what opportunities will be afforded to independent schools to opt into the maintained sector?

On independent schools, may I make it clear that they are to be registered and when inspectors inspect them they will want to see that they conform broadly to the national curriculum. Many independent schools already have a curriculum very close to the national curriculum.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to replace the system of parental contribution in higher education.

The Government are currently reviewing the whole system of financial support for undergraduate students and plans to publish their proposals by the middle of next year.

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is quite wrong that the grant payable to an adult student somewhat past the age of majority should be dependent on his pedigree rather than on his personal circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join any individual or institution who would wish to take this injustice to the European Court of Human Rights? I know that my hon. Friend is a committed and enthusiastic European, so if not, will he say why not?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am afraid that I could not personally associate myself with such an initiative.

Can the Minister guarantee that students starting next September and the September after that will not have loans imposed on them?

I am afraid that I cannot anticipate in any way the results of the review. If we were to introduce any system of loans it would be necessary to introduce legislation. That would have certain effects on timing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received on the subject of the opting out proposals in the Education Bill.

I have received over 900 written responses to my recent consultation paper, from a wide range of sources, together with a variety of less formal representations.

The representations are encouraging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Bill becomes law the inquiries will increase substantially and, furthermore, that pupils will at last be educated according to the wishes of their parents?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that this will prove to be a very popular measure and will implement the very phrase in his question, which he drew from the Education Act 1944.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the main objection to the opting-out proposals is not that they will increase parental choice or break the local education authority monopoly on education, but that they will reintroduce the possibility of selection by ability?

I want to make it clear to the hon. Lady that when schools decide to opt out the Bill makes it clear that the character of the school will have to remain the same and the admissions policy will have to be agreed. The policy which the remnants of her party are putting forward represents a considerable extension of opting out. I think that the three of them in that party have now become experts in opting out.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any further plans to encourage commercially run industrial firms to maintain a close interest in schools in their locality; and if he will make a statement.

My colleagues and I miss no opportunity to encourage these links. A particularly valuable opening arises from the requirement on most schools from next September to have representation of the business community on their governing bodies. I hope that people will seize it.

After years of bemoaning, with justification, the way in which young people are equipped for commerce and industry, is it not true that my right hon. Friend is presenting business with a great opportunity to do something about this?

It is absolutely true that my right hon. Friend is doing precisely that. It is also true that last month at its conference the CBI announced the creation of a new education task force that will look at ways of developing links between schools and industry. I hope that both initiatives will prove very successful.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when it is anticipated that a date will be announced for the opening of the Teesside city technology college in Langbaurgh.

There has been considerable interest in the establishment of a CTC on Teesside. A number of possible sites have been suggested and are being examined. It is too soon to announce the date of opening.

This is very disappointing, because the site at Langbaurgh was earmarked first. If the Government are putting CTCs in areas of greatest need in order to improve inner cities, Solihill does not seem to me to have quite the same priority as Langbaurgh. I hope that my hon. Friend will review her answer and come back with an early date.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that we are doing our best to make sure that Teesside has a CTC as soon as possible, so that his constituency and the parents of children there will be able to benefit from it.

In response to an earlier question about CTCs the Minister told us that she was keen that they should follow the national curriculum. If she is so keen, why was that not put in the Bill?

For the hon. Lady's information, the recommendation is that all the CTCs should follow the broad plans of the national curriculum and have plenty of opportunity within the time that is not so allocated to pursue those parts of technology and science that are important to them. They will have greater scope in their freedom to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to change the procedures concerning school closures; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Does my hon. Friend think it right that some schools should be under almost continuous threat of closure? Is he aware that Waterhouses and Warslow middle schools in my constituency, both of which were opened a mere seven years ago, are under threat of closure for the second time? Is that fair? What chance have those schools ever had?

How a local education authority reacts to a situation in which it may have to take schools out of use is a matter for the local education authority. My hon. Friend can make his point during the objection process to proposals that affect the future of a school or schools.

Will schools that are threatened with closure be able to opt out?

A school that is threatened with closure can apply to be considered for grant-maintained status alongside the proposals to close. We shall, of course, consider the application to opt out first before we decide on the second course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received about his proposals to allow schools to opt out of local education authorities' jurisdiction.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).

When considering whether a school should be grant-maintained, will my right hon. Friend take into account the effect of that on other schools, which may be efficient and popular, in the same area?

In the process of opting out there will be time for the publication and advertisement of details, and the procedures under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 will have to be followed. I have no doubt that the other schools in the area, and the LEA, will make representations to me or the holder of my office.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us think that the schools that will opt out will be those in the posher areas, and perhaps those that are concerned with racial prejudice? Is he also aware that some of us who had no choice at any time in our education consider that we were fortunate when we look over on the other side of the House?

I do not know how much further the hon. Gentleman would have gone if his parents had had greater choice in his education. I would only say to him that he is wrong to believe that it is only the schools in what he describes as the posher areas that will be interested in grant-maintained status. I think that all schools will be interested, and schools in our inner cities will welcome the opportunity, which they do not have now, for the parents and governing bodies, if they are so interested, to have a greater say in determining the education of their children, and, in many cases, improving it substantially.

During the consultation period on opting out, what representation did my right hon. Friend receive from his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

I do not recall receiving any representations from my right hon. Friend on these matters. I know that he follows education matters closely and I am sure that we look forward to his contribution later today.

The Secretary of State knows all about that, because he was the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary.

From the word go I have clearly said that when a school opts out and becomes grant-maintained, for five years from the date of application there will be no change in its admission policy, but after that time, if a school wishes to change its character, it can submit proposals under the procedures in sections 12 and 13 of the 1980 Act. However, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that comprehensive schools will necessarily want to become grammar schools. A grammar school may well want to become a comprehensive school and a comprehensive may well want to move closer to being a CTC.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding his proposals for a national curriculum.

The most recent count informs me that as at 27 November we had received 9,300 responses dealing with the national curriculum, out of a total of some 18,500 for all the consultative papers. Of the 9,300, about 5,000 had been received by 30 September.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to those organisations, such as trade unions, which are very quick to make representations, there exists a huge silent majority of parents who may not have made representations but who are passionately concerned with the quality of education in our schools, and that it is the existence of that silent majority that ensures that the Government's proposals for a national curriculum will be very widely welcomed?

It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has observed, that there are large numbers of people who do not write in in response to consultation documents. There are many people who have spoken to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends in wide and general support of our proposals for a national curriculum because they see it as an opportunity to improve educational choice and to procure the advancement of their children in schools.

To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.

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, including one with The Prime Minister of Denmark.

What advice will The Prime Minister give to Gaynor Price-Rowlands, the intensive care nurse who is featured in the Todaynewspaper, who, after five years of training, is earning £7,600 on the National Health Service and who says that she could earn £5,000 more per annum in the private sector?

First, I would say that nurses, including paediatric nurses in intensive care, are earning far more under this Government than they were under the last Labour Government. [HON. MEMBER: "Answer"].

Order. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to answer.

Their earnings have risen by an extra 30 per cent, in real terms. Secondly, I would say that the very scheme that was criticised a few days ago from the Opposition Benches means that nurses working in key specialties such as intensive care stand to benefit from the proposals currently being considered in the nursing and midwifery negotiating council. For the first time the new structure will recognise—[Interruption.]

What is the right hon. Lady's advice?

Order. It is very bad form to shout like that.

Answer the question.

Let us get the facts first — I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like them. For the first time, that structure will recognise the increasing clinical skills of nurses, midwives and health visitors and those with specialist qualifications. Do not listen to the Opposition is the advice that I would give to the nurses. Listen to the party which has provided more for the nurses and which will provide an improved structure.

To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of reading reports in today's national press that the cost of educating children in the Inner London education authority is much the same as that of educating children in independent schools? Given the quality of education that comes from ILEA, does she agree that more funds and more resources do not equal better education? Does she further agree that the Education Reform Bill, which will be debated today, is the real signpost forward?

I agree that the Inner London education authority is notorious for its extravagance, but not famous for the results that it obtains for children within its care. The Education Reform Bill will give London boroughs the chance to opt out of ILEA and also give any school the chance to opt out of ILEA or those boroughs. The Bill will therefore provide more choice and opportunity.

When Britain's real interest rates are among the highest of all the developed countries, and when the pound is rising to levels that inflict serious disadvantages on our exporters, why will the Government not use their power to bring about a significant cut in interest rates?

We shall reduce interest rates when it is prudent to do so. Any announcement will be made in the customary way, adopted by all Governments, through the Bank of England, but only when it is prudent to do so.

Will The Prime Minister tell me what is prudent about imposing unnecessary cost burdens on British producers and British households? What is prudent about ensuring that the pound stays at a level that will make our export performance less advanced than it otherwise could be? Under The Prime Minister, British exports have risen by 30 per cent, and imports by 75 per cent. Is that the trend that The Prime Minister wants to see continue?

Our financial policy has stood the test of eight years. It has a soundness and success that is envied by other countries and it has led to a higher standard of living than any standard previously enjoyed in this country. I find it somewhat ironic to hear about industrial costs from the right hon. Gentleman, when his Government put on a national insurance surcharge which we had to take off.

One thing that can certainly be said about The Prime Minister's financial policy is that no one knows what it currently is. Is The Prime Minister talking about the medium-term financial strategy, which has now been utterly abandoned? Is she talking about M3, the money measure, which has now been utterly abandoned, or is she talking about not intervening in the currency markets when her Government are spending billions of pounds trying to save the dollar? If The Prime Minister wants to be consistent in her belief that there should not be burdens on British industry, why does she not cut interest rates now?

I have given the right hon. Gentleman the answer to his first question. If he does not know what our financial and economic policy is, he must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

In view of yesterday's deeply deplorable French hostage deal, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today of re-affirming the Government's longstanding policy of not doing such deals with terrorists or their sponsors? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such deals virtually guarantee that more hostages will be taken in future?

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that treating with terrorists only leads to more kidnappings and violence. That is why we will not do that. The best defence against terrorists is to make it clear that we will never give in to their demands. That has been, and will continue to be, our policy.

When The Prime Minister goes to the European summit in Copenhagen next week will she raise this matter, as the European Community is supposed to have a common policy in this respect?

The matter is bound to come up at the European summit later this week. I shall reiterate our policy then. I believe that our policy is the best and the only policy to defeat terrorists.

To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.

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

Many hon. Members and many thousands of people throughout the country who have been campaigning for Anna Chertkova, who has been imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital in Russia for 13 years simply for being a Christian, will share my delight at the recent announcement that she is likely to be released in January. When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Gorbachev, will she thank him for the progress in Anna's case so far? Will she also urge him to ensure that the release takes place?

I share my hon. Friend's hope that Mrs. Chertkova will be released. I am aware that a number of people have been released since I went to Moscow and indeed before that—[Interruption.]I am surprised that Opposition Members find this a laughing matter.

Has The Prime Minister had an opportunity to read Saturday's edition of the Leicester Mercury,in which it was announced that £240,000 of Government money would be spent on a private hospital in Leicester? Is she as appalled as I am at that misuse of public money?

The money spent on the National Health Service has gone up enormously—[Interruption.]It is paid for, not by Governments, but by the great British taxpayer. The average family now pays £1,500 each year to the National Health Service. Any extra money that goes into private health does not take up beds in the Health Service, but adds to health care in this country.

To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.

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

When my right hon. Friend shortly meets Mr. Gorbachev, will she reaffirm that the existence of Britain's independent nuclear strategic deterrent is not up for negotiation in any wider talks that may follow on from the intermediate nuclear forces treaty? Does she agree that it is one thing for the United States and the USSR to talk about 50 per cent, reductions in their strategic weaponry, but quite another for us to consider abandoning totally our last remaining nuclear deterrent?

We shall keep our independent nuclear deterrent. It is not part of the present negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point. As I have had occasion to point out in the past, when we modernise our nuclear deterrent with Trident it will be a smaller proportion of Soviet nuclear forces than Polaris was in 1970, and that will be the case even after the 50 per cent, reductions in Soviet nuclear forces.

To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.

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

Does The Prime Minister think that it is fair that student nurses should have to pay 37 per cent, of their salaries towards rent before they qualify for housing benefit, and in respect of the poll tax for student nurses, does The Prime Minister consider them to be students or nurses?

I replied to that question either at the last Question Time or the Question Time before. However, I shall do so again. Students on grants are treated differently from those who, during their training, receive pay for their work. Nurses come into the latter category, and all who receive pay for their work are treated in the normal way and will make the normal contribution, subject to the normal reliefs, towards paying for local government.

Will my right hon. Friend consider today the implications of the extradition legislation that is at present before the Irish Parliament? Is it not in direct conflict with the European convention? Does it not represent a unilateral breaking of an agreement that has existed between our countries since 1965? Does not the application of the prime facie rule to United Kingdom warrants alone make us the least favoured nation in Europe in that regard? What possible justification can there be for the Irish Government, who profess to want better relations with us, taking such action?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Irish Government have taken a decision to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. However, they have unfortunately taken some further steps which we believe could make it much more difficult to secure extradition than in the recent past. We regret that, notwithstanding our representations, the Irish Government are taking additional measures that could make extradition more difficult. It is proposed to give a role to the Irish Attorney-General, whereby he must satisfy himself as to the intention to prosecute the fugitive and as to the sufficiency of the evidence. We are naturally concerned about the compatibility of that with the continuation of the viable extradition arrangements between the two countries.

Is The Prime Minister aware that there is great public concern in Northern Ireland over the fact that the Southern Ireland Government are not now fully committed to the extradition of terrorists for so-called political crimes? Is she also aware the members of that Southern Ireland Government have recently said that they are not happy about legislation which they say is unacceptable, unworkable and unconstitutional? Will The Prime Minister assure the people of Northern Ireland that her Government have not gone soft on the principle of extradition from the Republic, given the war situation that exists in the Province?

I hope that I have made it clear that there is a risk that extradition could become more difficult because of the new measures taken by the Irish Republic and that they would be a step backwards from the existing arrangements under which no application is made to a judicial authority for a warrant without there being a firm intention to prosecute based on sufficiency of evidence. Therefore, we are surprised that a need is perceived for any further procedural step.