To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new plans he has to attract more mathematics and physics graduates into teaching.

We have had in place for more than two years an action programme to attract more mathematics and physics graduates into initial teacher training. It has reversed the earlier trend of decline in recruitment. This action programme continues. We monitor recruitment trends closely and we will not hesitate to take further action should it be necessary.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the considerable concern felt by industry and commerce about the number of school leavers going to university to study mathematics and physics? Will he assure the House that he will examine carefully every proposal from industrialists to ensure that our education system produces more actuaries than artists and more physicists than philosophers?

I am glad that my hon. Friend did not refer to an avalanche of accountants or a surfeit of solicitors. I have a great deal of sympathy with his point. What matters is that we have an adequate supply of teachers who are qualified to teach mathematics and physics to advanced level so that the admission tutors of universities can be pleased with the quality of applicants for places.

Does the Minister recognise that when our bright young graduates see all the rewards that are paid to so-called yuppies in the City it is no wonder that they decide not to become mathematics and physics teachers? Does not the solution lie in the Government's hands—to ensure that these teachers are properly rewarded on a scale commensurate with their role in society and their importance to the nation?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last sentence. Our success in attracting appropriately qualified teachers will be a function of two factors; first, the overall level of teachers' pay, which has risen by an average 31 per cent. since March 1986, and by 13 per cent. in real terms—a major achievement. Secondly, an able, newly qualified mathematics or physics teacher can expect, because of the shortage, a rapid rise in promotion and pay. He or she also has the additional opportunity to tap into incentive allowances of between £800 and £4,000 a year, so the framework already exists.

Bearing in mind the effect that the present shortage is bound to have and is having on the quality of young people entering engineering and science courses, and concerns expressed by the CBI and the headmasters' conference, among others, will my hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage the entry and re-entry of people into this profession and not even rule out possible differential payments in grants and salaries?

The question of flexibility is one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will consider in due course with all those who advise him. We must look very hard at the fact that 400,000 teachers are employed, but that there are 400,000 qualified teachers in what is referred to as the pool of inactive teachers—another unfortunate acronym, the PITS. It is that particular category of teachers currently outside the service that we must closely examine when considering incentives to return to the profession, particularly in the shortage subjects.

I offer our congratulations to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on his transfer.

"a major argument is brewing up about whether we should be aiming to produce more teachers, in order to maintain staff-student ratios at their existing high point,"

I may tell the hon. Member that we treat this question very seriously and it is a matter of concern, for the reasons which my hon. Friends have already adduced. As to recruitment and entry into the profession, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that in terms of training applications, there was a 10 per cent. reduction in mathematics applicants and a 12 per cent. reduction in physics applicants. By the same token, recruitment into the profession last year was up by 33 per cent. in mathematics and by 49 per cent. in physics. Nevertheless, it is the question of applications that we must address.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his plans to bring forward changes in the system of student financial support with effect for the academic year 1989–90.

We announced last Friday that, subject to parliamentary approval, mandatory awards to students will be increased by 5 per cent. in the 1989–90 academic year.

Even that award will not make up for the decline of more than 20 per cent. in student awards since the 1970s. How are we to evaluate that against the background of the recommendation of the Minister responsible for higher education, vouchsafed to journalists, that eight named universities should be able to charge an extra £500 in teaching fees? Is that another example of journalists getting it all wrong, or is that the real agenda?

My proposals for changes in student maintenance will be announced shortly. I deplore the fact that discussion documents were leaked. There is a great debate on the funding of higher education, both here and overseas. There is also a growing desire among institutions for greater independence. The Government have no proposals for students in receipt of mandatory awards to contribute part of their tuition fees, but higher education institutions have a legal right to charge tuition fees, and to prevent their doing so would require legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that ours is the most generous system of student support in the Western world and that every other developed country has some form of student loans system? In those countries there is greater participation from all backgrounds in higher education than there is in this country. If we want increased participation in, and access to, higher education, would it not make sense to introduce some form of top-up loan scheme in addition to basic student grants?

My hon. Friend has anticipated somewhat a statement that I shall shortly be making concerning student maintenance support. My hon. Friend fired three target rounds: we do have the most generous system of student support in the world; we do spend a larger proportion of our gross national product on higher education than any other country in Europe; and yet we still have relatively low levels of access. The proposals that I shall shortly announce will try to address that problem.

How will the Secretary of State address the central problem that far too few 16-year-olds stay in full-time education? Any proposals on student grants should address that problem. In my constituency, 24 per cent. of those who get good O-levels or GCSEs do not stay on in education, and all the Government's proposals to increase fees and for loans send one message to that group of youngsters—that education is expensive and that it is not for them. How will the Secretary of State address that problem, particularly when he continues to cut the grant each year?

We are uprating the grant next year by the forecast rate of inflation for the last quarter of next year. I encourage youngsters to stay on at 16 and 18, and this is probably the case across our political spectrum. I am glad to say—the hon. Gentleman should recognise this—that there are 200,000 extra students in higher education than there were when we came into office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on progress in introducing the national curriculum.

In accordance with my right hon. Friend's declared timetable, work on the core subjects—mathematics, science and English—is now well advanced. Work on the other foundation subjects will follow. We intend to introduce the national curriculum progressively from autumn 1989 onwards.

Does my hon. Friend recall from correspondence that head teachers in rural schools in my constituency are worried that the introduction of the national curriculum will be adversely affected by the new rules on charging for educational visits and expeditions? Will she confirm that it cannot have been any intention of Ministers to reduce educational opportunities in that way?

The Government's new proposals on charging will not affect either the principle of free education in our schools or the national curriculum or other curricular subjects. However, there have been some considerable misunderstandings about the Government's new charging proposals. Before the Education Reform Act was passed, some authorities were charging for some activities in schools. Those authorities were taken to court and the court ruled against them. The local authorities then asked the Department of Education and Science to clarify the situation and after considerable consultation on the Education Reform Act we have attempted to fall in with what local authority associations suggested to us on charging for activities in schools. There are three general rules: first, charges for board and lodgings may be made; secondly, charges for any activities that take place wholly or mainly out of school hours may be made; thirdly, indivdual music lessons may be charged for. For other visits to theatres or museums during school hours, parents may be asked to make voluntary contributions. If the parents so decide—they have a choice about whether to do so—those activities can continue.

Does the Minister recall the Secretary of State giving a guarantee that testing at 11 would not become a means of reintroducing the 11-plus through the back door? How is that compatible with the system in the borough of Trafford, which still has grammar schools and the 11-plus? It is important that we have a proper answer to that.

Any school that currently administers the 11-plus as part of its admissions policy will be able to continue to do so. That will not cut across the assessment processes that will be part and parcel of the introduction of the national curriculum, where all children will be assessed at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16. The tests that are taken at 11, 14 and 16 will be aggregated and published.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many teachers now welcome the national curriculum, but that there is some anxiety among professionals about the amount of time available for training teachers in their new duties, particularly those who also have to carry out teaching responsibilities in the smaller schools?

Yes. My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced two extra days to allow teachers to complete adequate in-service training for the introduction of the national curriculum.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has instructed the research councils to increase their planned future expenditure on environmental research since 27 September.

There is no need for the Government to instruct the Natural Environment Research Council to spend money in this way. That is its job. The council will, of course, benefit from its share of the substantial increase in the science budget which was announced last Tuesday. This will be decided by my right hon. Friend, after he has considered the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

With 95 per cent. of the earth's circulating carbon within the biological feedback processes in the oceans, why is the Natural Environment Research Council £1 million short of funding for the Discovery cruise in the north Atlantic next year?

There are two different kinds of environmental research which are supported through the NERC. Basic research into the environment is funded by the Department of Education and Science. Expenditure on that has increased by more than one third in real terms since we came into office. Of course, the Secretary of State has to consider the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' advice, to which I have already referred. As for environmental research for specific purposes, the requirements of Government Departments and of industry are constantly changing and priorities constantly have to be reassessed. There has been a reduction in such commissioned work at the NERC, but I emphasise that the council has maintained its great strength in basic environmental research.

Of the £120 million increase in expenditure on science and technology in 1989–90 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, how much is accounted for by the 3·5 per cent. increase in costs in the universities and research councils above the level expected a year ago? How much is accounted for by the £47 million increase in earmarked programmes for other than scientific purposes, of which only £3 million is for AIDS? Does that not leave a real increase of only £24 million in the budget for the science base?

The hon. Gentleman is always carping. On this occasion he is trying to look a gift horse in the mouth. I can assure him that this gift horse has real gold teeth. I prefer the language of Sir David Phillips, who described the settlement as very encouraging indeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress in GCSE examinations.

The recent report from Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on the introduction of the GCSE shows that it is off to a good start, due in large part to the hard work and commitment of teachers. The GCSE examining groups, in partnership with the new School Examinations and Assessment Council, are already viewing syllabuses and procedures to ensure that next year is better.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only real and objective test of the GCSE is how those who sat it this year perform at A-level in two years' time? Will she therefore ensure that there is no reduction, watering down or tampering with A-level standards? GCSE must not be seen as a Trojan horse to mask any reduction in our drive towards excellence.

I do not accept that A-levels should be the only test of how good the GCSE examination is, as many other objective tests can be applied. None the less, I agree that it is very important indeed that A-levels must not in any sense be changed or watered down, so that young people who have taken the GCSE can demonstrate beyond doubt how excellent the introduction of the new examination is.

Does the Minister agree that GCSE pupils should be used to tackle the chronic skill shortages that exist in this country, particularly in one area? Does she agree that one skill shortage that is capable of embarrassing the Government, and to which pupils can be drawn, is the special lack of skill displayed by top Treasury civil servants in their failure to operate tape recorders?

I am sure that the new GCSE examination will enable all pupils who complete the two-years of course work and take the end of the year examinations to follow all the skills that will be required by future generations seeking work in this country.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the GCSE results for the past year have been very gratifying indeed and give the lie to all those who criticised the introduction of the examination some 18 months ago? However, does she agree that perhaps it lacks some of the essential rigour that is necessary to ensure good A-level results?

I agree with my hon. Friend that all the carping about the GCSE being introduced too quickly, without enough money and without sufficient support has been proved wrong. In large part, a great deal of the success has been due to the hard work and effort of teachers and pupils and the support that the children have received from their parents. I believe that the A-levels will come out well, just as we expect, as a result of the good preparation that the GCSE has given to the students taking it.

I agree with the Minister. If it had not been for the hard work and dedication of the teaching staff, the GCSE would have been a failure, because the Government did not provide enough resources. Can the Minister guarantee that in next year's round of negotiations more resources will be provided for books and equipment so that the GCSE will not depend solely on the teachers' dedication?

The GCSE is the best resourced examination that has ever been introduced in Britain. Its success has as much to do with the excellent resourcing as with the determination of the teachers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest information available on proposed sites for city technology colleges.

The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Over £30 million—an un-precedented sum—has already been pledged by industry. Much more will be raised.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his CTC initiative is widely welcomed by parents, who see it as an excellent chance for spreading choice and opportunity in education? Will he ensure that the areas that have not yet benefited from the CTC programme will be considered seriously as a means of equipping today's children with the skills that they will need in tomorrow's labour market?

The CTC programme is a great success. Kingshurst CTC opened in September and Nottingham and Teesside CTCs will open next year. Only today, plans for a CTC in Bradford have been announced. Further announcements will be made shortly.

Despite the lyrical account of CTCs by the Secretary of State, is it not true that they have run into great difficulties? They are not popular and the amount of money coming from private industry is so insufficient that the Government have to fall back on taxpayers' funds. Why does the Secretary of State not admit that, instead of selectively choosing people for the CTC's, giving them special financial favours and taking money away from the

The hon. Gentleman lives in another world. When I visited the Kingshurst CTC on Friday there was a board on the door showing the names of the 64 companies that have supported it. The hon. Gentleman said that the CTCs are not popular. There was over-subscription for places at Kingshurst CTC by 2:1. Now, Nottingham and Teesside CTCs are leafleting their areas and I am sure that there will be substantial over-subscription by the parents in those areas.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the CTC initiative should be encouraged to the maximum extent? Will he confirm that local education authorities are entitled to set up similar institutions if they so wish and should be encouraged to do so?

I thank my hon. Friend for the help that he gave in fashioning the policies for the CTCs. He is right. If local authorities co-operate—more local authorities are now beginning to do so—it eases the process of establishing CTCs. CTCs will be popular and successful schools.

Does the Secretary of State recall his words when he launched the CTC initiative? He said that the majority of the money would come from private sector initiative. Will he now tell us how much private sector money is involved in the Bradford CTC? Is it the case that, like all the other CTCs that the Secretary of State has announced, the majority of the money is to come from the taxpayer, not from Dixons and the private sector? Is the Minister reluctant to give that figure because it will show how cheap it is for the chairman of a company such as Dixons to buy a knighthood from the Government?

I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a most malicious and unfair allegation. Perhaps he would like to repeat it outside the House, where the person whom he slanders could no doubt take appropriate action. The hon. Gentleman asked about raising funds. We asked sponsors to provide £1 million, which is the initial amount. More than £1 million has been provided for Bradford. In the case of Kingshurst, the £1 million has grown to £2 million and Kingshurst is now searching for £3 million. That is what happens. Once the CTCs are established, more companies support them. It is about time that the Opposition stopped attacking CTCs and recognised that they will be successful and popular.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from inner London boroughs regarding the level of the specific grant-aid for 1988–89 to cover work preparatory to becoming education authorities.

The Government are making available specific grant of £3 million in 1988–89 for the preparatory work of the inner London councils. Some councils have queried their allocations within this figure, but we think that it will be adequate to meet reasonable preparatory costs.

Southwark will spend £460,000 this year in preparing for the handover. The three inner London Tory boroughs have forecast overspends of 32, 64 and 92 per cent. In view of that, how can the Minister of State justify giving each inner London borough only £240,000 when her Department clearly said that it was committed to a successful handover? What should rate-capped boroughs do? Should they skimp on education provision, or should they cut other hard-pressed services?

For this financial year, we think that we have given adequate money, £3 million, to enable councils to carry out the preparatory work that they are required to do. In case there is any query about next year's allocation —the £10 million that the Government have given for 1989–90—we have invited Southwark council in particular to give estimates of what it thinks it might spend. If it does that before Friday, we will consider the estimates.

Does not the tentative nature of the Minister's reply illustrate the enormous problems that will face inner London boroughs? In view of what her right hon. Friend said in debate, will she look carefully at the organisation of special schools in central London? If the boroughs have to look after them instead of having a consortium, which is presently being suggested, will not the expenses be even greater and the efficiency of the special schools service much diminished?

I think that it will give the hon. Gentleman some pleasure to know that we are carefully monitoring the progress of each of the 12 London authorities that are preparing plans. They are working together to seek the best solution for special schools. Not one of them has presented the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman might have hoped to see. They all welcome taking on responsibility for education and appear to believe that they can deliver it better than ILEA.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council; and what subjects were discussed.

The new chairman, Professor John Knill, took up his appointment on 1 October and my right hon. Friend has yet to meet him. However, I met Profesor Knill informally in September and we discussed a range of topics concerning the council's activities.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the breeding failure of a number of sea bird species in Shetland. Finding the causes of that will require a considerable amount of research, not least into the availability and abundance of sand eels. Will the Minister assure us that he will encourage the NERC to play its full part and that, along with other Departments, his Department will provide resources for that research? If the North sea project were to extend to parts of the sea north of the Wash, does he agree that some of the information from that might help?

Decisions on these matters are made by the Secretary of State only on advice from the scientific community and the research councils, once they have had their allocation of funds. My right hon. Friend has not yet received advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils about the disposal of the considerable additional new resources that have been provided. Those resources have not yet been allocated to research councils. I am sure that note will be taken of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about schools wishing to opt out of local authority control; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has received inquiries from a large number of parents, governors and others about the opt-out provisions of the Education Reform Act. The Electoral Reform Society has now arranged, or is arranging, ballots of parents at a number of schools considering grant-maintained status.

Will my right hon. Friend give an early and favourable reply to the governors of St. James' church school in Bolton, who are fighting to save their school from threatened closure? Is it not ironic that Bolton's Labour council should choose such a popular school to close when 99 per cent. of the parents in an 83 per cent. turnout voted so convincingly to seize the Government's lifeline?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on a particular school, because when the proposals come to me I have a quasi-judicial position and I have to examine the proposals carefully. I assure him that if the governing body puts forward these proposals, it has to go through a statutory procedure. I shall deal with the matter—when the statutory period of two months has elapsed—as quickly as possible. I am delighted that so many schools are seriously considering grant-maintained status. This is all part of our great reforming programme. Competition will make for better quality. I understand from the Electoral Reform Society that 15 ballots are expected before Christmas.

When the Secretary of State receives the application from St. James' church school, will he note that £1·5 million must be spent on that school because of a ground fault on which the school is built, which is why the local authority took the decision to close that school? Will he also take note of the fact that 700 plus places are surplus to requirements and have been the subject of a report by the Audit Commission? Will he condemn the opportunism of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham)?

I am not prepared to condemn the opportunism of one of my colleagues, who is making a constituency point. It is because of these factors that the holder of my office cannot, and should not, make any comments about a particular school, because the matter has to come to him and he will have to look at it in his quasi-judicial role.

Will my right hon. Friend always look sympathetically at schools that get good examination results, have strong parental support and are threatened by closure only because of party political manoeuvring by county councillors and inexplicable hostility by local education authority officials?

Those are factors that I have to bear in mind when I am considering these matters. We have already made it clear, in the various guidelines that we have given, that one should not be too hasty in closing down schools of proven worth, as has happened in the past.

The Secretary of State must be aware that he is placing local education authorities in an impossible position. On the one hand, he has been putting them under pressure to close surplus places. On the other hand, any school now faced with closure can decide, understandably, to seek to opt out. What undertakings will the Secretary of State give to enable local education authorities, whether Conservative or Labour, to implement his policy of orderly school closures? What undertakings will he give to ensure that in capital spending, as in current, there will be no favourable treatment, no bribery of schools to entice them to opt out?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman now shifts his grounds of criticism of grant-maintained status. As the Education Reform Act was going through its stages in the House, his argument was that few schools would opt for this status, although we said that many schools would be attracted by it. It was also said that very few parents would vote. The hon. Gentleman should look at the first two ballots. He has repeatedly raised the question of capital, and I want to make it clear that we are not offering financial advantages to grant-maintained schools. We shall have to consider the capital needs of such schools as they apply, and grant-maintained schools will receive current funding on the same basis as other schools in the authority.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to opt out, a school will need to demonstrate strong parental support and good leadership from governors and from the head of staff—all factors that can only benefit pupils? Therefore, is it not a fact that the more schools that opt out, the better it will be for our children?

My hon. Friend is right. This option is now available and requires the considerable commitment of parents and governors, but that is in the full strain of our education policy. We are passing more responsibility down the line to individual schools and governors. We are also increasing competition in the education system. That is good for quality.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will review the procedures for school closures; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister explain how he will maintain his impartiality under section 12, regarding the possibility of school closures, while, at the same time, encouraging those same schools to opt out?

I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the fact that applications have been suspended until 30 November. If the schools are eligible for grant-maintained status, that will allow them sufficient time to decide whether to apply.

Does my hon. Friend agree that school closures and opting out are consistent with Conservative party policy to give parents power? Are we not the party that gave trade union members their power and council tenants their power?

The answers to my hon. Friend's questions are yes, Sir, yes and yes.

As the Government are making it virtually impossible for local authorities to make closure proposals and, therefore, there are many surplus places throughout the country with which the Government are not assisting local authorities, will the Minister alter the procedures by which capital moneys for local authorities are calculated so that those schools under the authority of the local education department will have the opportunity to compete fairly with those schools which the Secretary of State is funding separately?

The hon. Lady has missed the whole point of the Education Reform Act, which is to provide parents and governing bodies with more power by encouraging their schools to be filled according to parental choice. In due course that will have an effect on the capital allocation and maintenance programmes for those schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the full quota of school governors under the statutory arrangements has been obtained; and if he will make a statement.

The information available so far from local authorities suggests that most schools are successfully filling all the places on their governing bodies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a gratifying response in the first year in which extended opportunities for gubernatorial positions have been available? In view of the importance of forging closer links between school and industry, is she satisfied from the returns so far that a goodly proportion of people with business experience are taking up those positions?

Yes. We are extremely satisfied with the response that we have received from parents in the election of parent-governors. In those authorities where they have managed fully to constitute their governing bodies, we are also delighted to see that there has been fair representation from business and industry. When I visited my hon. Friend's county of Essex yesterday, I found that the county has been particularly successful in that venture.

Will the Minister make sure that there are no deterrents to people becoming school governors, such as the establishment of a CTC, as has happened in Bradford, where the establishment of a CTC may well threaten the existence of secondary schools? If that is the case, as seems likely, people will not be enthusiastic to become governors and it will be yet another blow against the state sector, as was the establishment of CTCs in the first place.

There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to worry. There is a need for new schools in Bradford, and the governing bodies will be constituted by the normal procedures of electing both parents and business men. He can be assured that in Bradford of all places a CTC will be welcomed by the community and needed by the pupils.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take to improve the quality of teacher training and to make it more relevant to the needs of modern industry.

The Government already have in place a number of measures designed to improve teacher training and to give due importance to business and economic factors, in particular the tough new criteria for pre-service training courses introduced in 1984 and the comprehensive in-service training grant scheme introduced in 1987. My Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Training Agency are currently collaborating on a range of specific projects in this area.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he agree that many of our excellent education reforms will be undermined if teachers are not adequately trained? Does he accept that we should take a hard look at some teacher training colleges to ensure that the courses that they offer and the methods that they use will properly equip our children for society? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps teacher training colleges should be next on our agenda for reform?

Teacher training is the issue of the moment. It is our view that we should focus on quality, relevance and practicality of training. We do not want the colleges to become playgrounds for behavioural scientists, and thankfully, the majority of them are not. This is a serious question that must be addressed as a matter of great priority.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to mark the arrival of the President of Senegal. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of observing the enormous damage to the environment during her most successful visit to Poland, on which my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish warmly to congratulate her? Is she aware that during her absence the United Nations published a survey of tree damage in 22 European countries, among which Great Britain appears to he one of the greatest sufferers? In the light of this new and alarming evidence, will she accelerate the Government's response to the latest report of the Select Committee on the Environment on air pollution, which has been outstanding for about six months?

I thank my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. I did not observe tree damage in Poland although I saw a number of chemical factories in the distance and became aware of the problems that Poland is having. I know of the report to which he has referred. We should like to see the entire report, because we think that the summary does not tell the whole story. I am aware of the work that my hon. Friend undertakes as the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, and I shall make further inquiries to ascertain when we can expect to have the reply ready. I shall do my level best to accelerate the process. I am well aware of the important work that is carried out by the Committee. Similarly, my hon. Friend will be aware of the £1 billion programme on which we are embarking to try to reduce acid rain, to which our coal-fired power stations contribute. It is unfortunate that our coal contains a large amount of sulphur, and it is expensive to get rid of it.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that only a minority of pensioners have difficulty in making ends meet?

Pensioners' incomes have increased enormously during the lifetime of the Government. Every pensioner has a basic pension, and most have a second pension. Those who do not have a second pension have income support. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the increases in income support were announced last week.

The House and the country will note the Prime Minister's refusal to answer my question about the Chancellor. Can she tell us whether her refusal is because she agrees with the Chancellor, or because she disagrees with him?

The right hon. Gentleman obviously tries to ask very selective questions and thus to avoid discussing the enormous improvement in the incomes of pensioners during the lifetime of this Government, and the fact that Britain's spending on the elderly is the third highest in Europe as a proportion of gross domestic product. Pensioners now have more security in their basic pensions, and in the increases in those pensions than they ever had under the tricks of the Labour party.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that only a small minority of pensioners have difficulty in making ends meet, or is she as ashamed of him as she should be?

If it had not been for the excellent stewardship—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer questions in my own way. If it had not been for the excellent stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should not now have the highest standard of social services, including pensions, that this country has ever known; nor should we have been able to make up some of the shortfalls in pensions for which the Labour Government were responsible.

In view of the agreement entered into—

The anti-Christ.

Order.

I am glad that my message has got across.

The position on the territorial waters is the same as it was before the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I am aware of no change.

Is the Prime Minister aware that a decision is expected imminently from the Government on the future of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. on Wearside? In view of her welcome support for the unions at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk, will she now take her fur hat to Wearside and express an equivalent solidarity with the workers, the unions and the community there?

An announcement will be made about the shipyard in Sunderland when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is ready. He is not yet ready, or he would have made such an announcement. Let me point out that Solidarity is a great deal more than a trade union. As a matter of fact it is not recognised as a legal trade union—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to reply.

It is not recognised as a legal trade union, and obviously it would wish to be.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

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

As today is the first anniversary of the Enniskillen bombing, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, and as we recall that Private Jason Winter from my constituency was one of those killed in the recent coach bombing, will my right hon. Friend pledge that she and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will continue their excellent work in explaining to the American people and the new Administration what our forces are trying to achieve in Northern Ireland?

The House expressed its sympathy at the time that those brave people were killed in that terrible, atrocious incident. Yes, I will gladly take up my hon. Friend's invitation to try to do my best once again to explain to the people of the United States that our forces are in Northern Ireland as an aid to the civil power, to see that the rule of law is upheld, that the terrorist does not win, and that the terrorists cannot achieve by bombing and bullet what they cannot achieve by the ballot. It would be terrible if they were able to do that and, if the forces were not there, it would mean that the terrorists had won.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that in this country life expectancy at 65 is now significantly below 21 other comparable countries, including Cuba, Uruguay and Sri Lanka? Does she think that the widespread poverty of a third of our pensioners has anything to do with that? After 10 years, when will her Government do something about it?

I saw the report to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring. It is not life expectancy at birth. I think that if he looks into the question of life expectancy at the age of 65, and takes into account life expectancy at birth, he will find a very much better result for this country.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report of the private notice question yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and especially the contribution from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? Is it not clear from those exchanges that the Opposition are far less interested in getting extra benefits for those who need them than in making—[Interruption]

Order. Not again. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the statement made yesterday by the Minister of State, Department of Health—that there is no point in further negotiations with the nurses because that would be a continuation of the lobster quadrille—is offensive and disgraceful? Does she not see that the porpoise right behind her and treading on her tail is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has this week led the Government, her, the country and the pensioners a merry dance?

It was because of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's excellent running of the economy that the nurses were able to have an increase in pay which cost the taxpayer—not the Exchequer—£928 million extra and which gave the nurses an increase in pay in real terms of 45 per cent. more than they had had under a Labour Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official enagements for Tuesday 8 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the overwhelming vote by the parents of children at St. James' church school in south-east Bolton to opt out of local authority control? Does that not prove that this Government offer the radical policies that the great majority of the people in this country want?

Yes. I saw the report in the press this morning of the overwhelming vote by the parents of St. James' school. I think that it is quite clear that most of the parents in this country welcome the extra choice that they have had under my right hon. Friend's policies and wish to be much more involved in their children's education. My hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make the final determination on this matter.

How does the Prime Minister summon up the appalling gall to go to Poland to preach freedom and democracy when she is doing exactly the reverse in this country.

What absolute nonsense—utter and complete nonsense. What the Opposition cannot stand is that I had such a very warm welcome is all parts of Poland.