To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he plans to bring into force the amendments to the Harbours Act 1964 made by schedule 3 to the Transport and Works Act 1992;(2) what consultation he will be carrying out with organisations representing users of public rights of way on the implementation of the new provisions for enabling harbour revision orders to be made which will divert or extinguish public rights of way.

The amendments to the Harbours Act 1964 made by schedule 3 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 were brought into force on 15 July 1992 by the Transport and Works Act 1992 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1992 (Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 1347 (c.45)). We shall ensure that, when application is made for a harbour revision order which would divert or extinguish a public right of way, the applicant notifies user organisations of the application so that, if they so wish, they may make objection to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the departmental investigation into the causes of the Braer disaster in Shetland will include consideration of the nature and duration of insurance arrangements for the vessel, and the arrangements which were in hand for any extensions to the period of insurance cover.

It has already been established that the Braer complied with the requirements to have compulsory insurance cover in respect of any pollution damage she may have caused up to the owner's liability under the 1969 civil liability convention on oil pollution. Other forms of insurance on the ship—for example, in respect of her hull or cargo—are not compulsory and are matters for the owner or cargo interests.The purpose of the marine accident investigation branch investigation is to establish the cause of the accident and consider measures to prevent a recurrence. It will not look further into the insurance arrangements unless there is good reason to believe that they are directly related to the accident. The general issue of insurance is within the remit of the inquiry which has been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies had been made of the effect of the channel tunnel on the income from light dues.

The light dues income from vessels using ports adjacent to the tunnel is estimated to have been £650,000 out of a total light dues income of £45 million in 1991–92. The effect of the opening of the channel tunnel on income from light dues is therefore likely to be minimal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 270, what action is taken at the time to prevent a collision if a vessel is observed to be contravening the traffic separation schemes in the English channel.

An identified vessel observed contravening the traffic separation scheme will be contacted and a warning broadcast made to all other traffic using the scheme. In addition, this information will be included in the routine broadcasts transmitted.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of money planned by London Underground to be spent on the Northern line during 1993; and if he will make a statement.

London Transport has not yet finalised its spending plans for 1993–94.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are under his proposals for the railways for the services provided by the royal train to be put out to private tender.

We shall consider arrangements for the royal train in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the closure of the Ipswich to Lowestoft railway line.

None. It would be for British Rail to bring forward proposals to close passenger lines or stations. I am not aware of any such proposals concerning the Ipswich-Lowestoft line. Under our privatisation plans a full statutory procedure will continue to apply to closure proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of the collapse of Charterail for his Department's franchising arrangements for British Rail and the proposed use of charging policy to freight companies for track use.

The collapse of Charterail has no implications for the franchising of British Rail services, nor for the access charging regime for rail freight operators.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the joint Environment/ Transport European Council meeting in Brussels on 25 January.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 28 January, Official Report, column 796.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he received, following his White Paper on rail privatisation, from (a) the passenger transport executives and (b) British Rail about the restrictions on capacity and train paths which exist on the Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham section of track over which the west coast main InterCity route operates.

We are aware from general discussions with BR that this is a very heavily used section of the network.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what advice he received following his White Paper on rail privatisation in respect of the reduction in train paths that would be a consequence of the required or planned renewal of track and infrastructure forming the InterCity west coast main line route;(2) what advice he has received following his White Paper on rail privatisation on the scope for allocating adequate maintenance periods on that track and infrastructure vested in InterCity west coast main line between Crewe and Carlisle.

None. Decisions on maintenance and train paths will primarily be a matter for Railtrack.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the regulator, franchising authority and Railtrack will have to demand disclosure of information concerning customer numbers using routes, and other matters which would normally be deemed as commercially confidential.

The rail regulator will have the power to require relevant information from operators under the conditions of the licences that he will issue to train operators; the franchising director will be able to require information under the conditions of franchise agreements; and such powers for Railtrack are considered unnecessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body will be responsible for certifying that a locomotive or rolling stock which has been the subject of a train failure is safe to move following the vesting of Railtrack.

The train service operator will have primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of his locomotives and rolling stock in line with the arrangements contained in his railway safety case validated by Railtrack.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who he intends shall be responsible for marshalling and providing customer action teams and increasing at short notice the staffing levels both in the retail and operational management area following either a major delay, incident or rail crash.

It will be for franchisees and other passenger operators to decide their own arrangements for the care of passengers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his intention on how diversionary routes shall be charged or costed out following the vesting day of Railtrack;(2) which body shall be responsible for deciding the apportionment of costs, charges or damages relating to delay or loss of customers due to a train failure where more than one operator had use of the track or train path, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

These are matters for access agreements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whom he proposes shall be authorised to instigate diversionary routes, and the alteration of operators' timetables as train paths, where a train failure, crash or repair work impedes a particular route, following the vesting day of Railtrack;(2) who would be authorised to provide the appropriate staff when it becomes necessary for emergency hand signalling to be instituted, following the vesting day of Railtrack;(3) which body shall be responsible for managing the flow of train services around a train failure, following the vesting day of Railtrack;(4) whose responsibility it will be to remove debris and clear and restore the track and site when an operator's train has damaged or destroyed track or equipment, following the vesting day of Railtrack;(5) if the franchising authority would prepare the national timetabling through an iterative process; and by what criteria or basis the route which is first on the graph would be determined;(6) which body shall be responsible for organising repair, line clearance and restoration of equipment when more than one train operator was involved in an incident which resulted in the route or train path being blocked, following the vesting day of Railtrack;(7) which body would determine priority services and re-write the timetables of the various operators on those occasions when an engineering possession has been made to a section of track over which more than one franchise or operator of a service exists;(8) whose responsibility it will be, following the vesting day of Railtrack, to minimise delay in clearing the track following a train failure; and who will be expected to provide the rescue locomotive.

Railtrack would have the lead responsibility for these matters, subject to the legislation currently before Parliament.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures he proposes for ensuring inter-availability of tickets following a train failure, or major interruption or delay in a particular service or route after Railtrack's vesting day or the introduction of franchising over one or more routes.

Arrangements for the inter-availability of tickets will be a matter for operators, subject to any requirements imposed by the regulator or franchising director.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from British Rail about additional train paths, junction layouts and platform capacity that may be available at Euston station for prospective franchisers to expand services operating from that terminus during peak travel times.

I have received no such advice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to indemnify or exempt the franchising authority, or operators, from charges of collusive or anti-competitive behaviour when determining the national timetable and connecting services where there exist competing operators and demands for connections of services, train paths, track and related facilities.

There will be no need to grant such indemnities. Railtrack will allocate access to the network and prepare the operating timetable, subject to the oversight of the rail regulator, who will be responsible for authorising access agreements. The regulator will have duties to promote competition and to protect the passenger's interests, and will have to take these into account when deciding whether to authorise access agreements. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 will not apply to the provision of railway services. The regulator will also have the power to refer matters related to the provision of licensed railway services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate whether they operate against the public interest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date the M3-A303-A30 southern route to the west country between London and Exeter will be entirely dual carriageway.

We intend to provide dual carriageways to replace all the remaining single carriageway sections of this route. The timetable for completing this programme of improvements depends on satisfactory progress through the statutory procedures, including public inquiries where necessary, and the continuing availability of funds.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the stretches of road and the distances involved of the carriageway between Andover and Exeter along the A303-A30 which are not dual carriageway; and by what dates it is intended they will be developed to become dual carriageways.

I refer my right hon. Friend to my answer to his earlier question today. The Department's schemes to replace the remaining single carriageway sections of the A303-A30 between Andover and Exeter are as follows:

Scheme	Next key stage
A303 Amesbury-Berwick Down	Public consultation, spring 1993
A303 Wylye-Stockton Wood	Public draft orders, late 1993
A303 Chicklade Bottom-Mere	Public consultation, spring 1993
A303 Sparkford-Ilchester	Publish draft orders, spring 1993
A303 Ilminister bypass dualling	Preferred route announcement, spring 1993
A303 Ilminister-Marsh	Publish draft orders, summer 1993
A303-A30 Marsh-Honiton	Re-publish draft orders, spring 1993, for public inquiry later in year
A30 Honiton-Exeter	Decision following public inquiry, autumn 1993

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body shall be responsible for surveying any crash, or incident involving damage to track, locomotive or rolling stock, with a view to assisting in the apportioning of costs, charges or damages, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

Railtrack and train service operators.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what form of regulation or arbitration he proposes in order to deal with incident costs when the charges that have been identified and attributed to a company or operator are disputed, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

The form of regulation or arbitration to deal with disputes over the attribution of costs after an incident will be a matter for access agreements which will be subject to the approval of the rail regulator.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will impose minimum response times on those charged with clearing routes, track or train paths, as well as subsequent safety inspections, in the event of train failure, crash or derailment, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

This will be the responsibility of Railtrack, as it now is of British Rail. Any related contractual obligations would be covered in access agreements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the franchising authority will be required to prepare a national timetable, and to seek franchises in response to bids by public or commercial bodies to operate existing or suggested services or routes.

Railtrack, as the track authority, will plan and produce a working timetable for the rail network and will be required to ensure that a national timetable is published. The Railways Bill places a duty on the franchising director to designate services—whether existing or new—as eligible for provision under franchise agreements. It further provides that public sector operators may not be franchisees.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to maintain rail services in the immediate period following a franchiser or operator arbitrarily or unilaterally vacating a train path or service due to breach of contract or company failure.

The franchising director will be able to step in and provide for continuity of service through the terms of the franchise agreement and the special railway administration procedures as set out in the Railways Bill.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has received from British Rail of the increase in the total number of drivers that would be required by InterCity to have its own dedicated train crews following franchising or privatisation.

We have received no such specific estimate from British Rail. Following franchising it will be for franchisees to determine total staffing requirements in the light of their obligations to provide the services specified in their franchise contracts, and comply with the terms of their licence and their validated railway safety case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his approach to deciding the conflicting bids for train paths, track, platforms and related facilities between the InterCity executive type services and those of the passenger transport executives where currently InterCity services are given priority in their planning and allocation.

This is a matter for British Rail.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that InterCity should maintain its existing rights to priority on train paths over those sections of track where it currently enjoys the status of lead business, following the vesting day of Railtrack and the introduction of franchising.

Our intention is that the initial pattern of franchised services should be based on the services provided by BR immediately before franchising.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public access there will be to the land offered in exchange for land compulsorily purchased along the route of the east London river crossing under compulsory purchase orders 10 and 11, 19 November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

We propose to plant 89 per cent. of the exchange land and protect it until the woodland becomes established. Access to these areas will be via the "Green Chain Walk" and an extensive system of subsidiary footpaths. The remaining areas of exchange land will be fully accessible for public use.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the total tonnage miles of freight carried by railways in the United Kingdom in each of the last 15 years for which figures are available; and what were the comparable actual and percentage figures for road freight transport in each of those years.

Comparative data for Great Britain can be found in table 9.3 of Transport Statistics Great Britain 1993, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Table 1.9 contains percentage figures for the years 1981–1991; comparable data for earlier years may be found in previous annual reports. Equivalent data for Northern ireland are not available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the key factors in determining the currently used United Kingdom search and rescue helicopter response criteria as laid down by the helicopter coverage group.

I am replying as the Helicopter Coverage Group was established under the aegis of the Department of Transport.The key factors affecting the need for SAR helicopter coverage were:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take responsibility for the co-ordination of works on the bridges of London between Hampton Court and the sea.

[holding answer 29 January 1993]: I am currently considering whether any changes are necessary to the arrangements currently in place for managing the bridges concerned. I am not currently satisfied that any change would do other than add an additional layer of bureaucracy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Civil Aviation Authority is taking to introduce emergency training for new air traffic controllers on their initial training courses and for ongoing emergency continuation training for experienced operational controllers as recommended by the air accidents investigation branch.

The Civil Aviation Authority's safety regulation group (SRG) intends to consult industry shortly on proposals for additional requirements for emergency training to be undertaken in all courses for trainee controllers, and as part of the continuation training for qualified operational controllers. In the meantime, National Air Traffic Services has already implemented additional emergency training which will meet these proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the derelict land grant projects funded in each of the last three years and the amount of funding allocation.

This information is not available in the form requested. However, the following table shows,

Derelict land grant expenditure 1989–90 to 1992–93
Local authority	1989–90	1990–91	1991–92	11992–93
Northern
Alnwick	0	0	350	0
Blyth Valley	0	0	36,100	100,000
Chester le Street	12,000	0	0	0
Cleveland county council	24,174	35,401	15,463	120,000
Darlington	563,164	668,018	370,164	714,000
Derwentside	180,005	475,920	15,000	135,000
Durham county council	2,024,497	980,666	553,286	1,500,000
Durham city	3,142	2,035	10,145	10,000
Easington	406,866	125,113	149,290	325,000
Gateshead	1,035,454	1,303,606	1,558,246	1,700,000
Hartlepool	80,556	256,776	11,575	500,000
Langbaurgh	202,313	251,102	27,809	250,000
Middlesbrough	11,875	50,284	296,874	550,000
North Tyneside	485,303	773,567	508,513	750,000
Newcastle upon Tyne	194,298	104,810	538,561	450,000
Northumberland county council	758,493	1,429,134	800,706	2,055,000
South Tyneside	299,088	341,907	297,004	200,000
Sedgefield	6,650	10,169	124,360	160,000
Stockton on Tees	75,698	34,885	155,178	500,000
Sunderland	1,239,592	1,403,637	1,593,509	1,700,000
Teesdale	0	0	6,418	0
Tyne and Wear MCC	0	0	0	0
Wear Valley	129,549	39,896	429,818	350,000
TOTAL	7,603,168	8,247,030	7,068,551	12,069,000
North West
Allerdale	1,331,491	1,571,074	312,648	0
Barrow in Furness	0	0	3,000,000	2,000,000
Blackburn	64,847	370,811	374,415	200,000
Blackpool	21,179	23,992	0	18,000
Bolton	9,318	493,239	221,066	660,000
Burnley	26,257	47,573	81,182	200,000
Bury	97,966	156,165	697,395	660,000
Carlisle	0	0	216,043	900,000
Cheshire county council	494,361	1,070,145	1,434,597	1,500,000
Chester	0	0	0	80,000
Chorley	1,876	160,956	228,034	200,000
Congleton	151,707	231,624	47,564	100,000
Copeland	0	0	163,190	900,000
Crewe and Nantwich	42,870	3,828	30,538	50,000
Cumbria county council	3,509,500	2,117,590	2,991,360	0
Eden	0	0	0	130,000
Hyndburn	205,085	174,072	115,890	200,000
Lancashire county council	459,762	740,240	528,947	300,000
Lancaster	58,000	203,071	421,906	500,000
Macclesfield	42,691	101,358	74,661	150,000
Manchester	32,820	0	372,930	1,200,000
Oldham	324,247	724,291	676,265	1,250,000
Pendle	27,159	219,486	0	200,000
Preston	1,606,987	19,240	436,405	300,000
Ribble Valley	6,522	575,532	249,009	200,000
Rochdale	24,194	34,444	0	310,000
Rossendale	601,336	149,385	120,095	200,000
South Lakeland	0	10,350	0	100,000
Salford	3,120,025	563,947	820,103	2,680,000
South Ribble	0	0	41,876	0
Stockport	0	72,448	13,931	500,000
Tameside	272,665	64,487	1,263,999	1,200,000
Trafford	12,316	7,200	19,688	150,000
Vale Royal	123,000	59,045	134,157	200,000
West Lancashire	6,454	0	59,709	200,000

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people applying to councils in each standard region were (a) accepted and (b) not accepted as officially homeless under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in each of the last three years.

Full information for regions is available only from April 1991. Estimates for the first complete year are as follows:

Households, 1991–92
Region	Accepted as homeless	Not accepted as homeless
North	9,010	10,460
Yorkshire and Humberside	12,930	21,020
East Midlands	10,530	10,920
East Anglia	3,610	3,670
South East	58,090	61,740
South West	9,010	10,100
West Midlands	18,550	19,790
North West	23,100	20,170
England	144,830	157,870

Those households counted as not accepted as homeless represent the sum of those whose applications resulted in a section 64 decision being issued during the year and who were found not to be homeless, or in priority need but intentionally homeless, or not to be in a priority need category and were not accepted for rehousing.In the quarter ended September 1992, local authorities accepted 35,520 households and 43,060 decisions of non-acceptance were issued.Regional estimates of acceptances for earlier years are published but these do not take account of the change in definition from April 1991 when intentionally homeless people were no longer counted as accepted. Consistent information on non-acceptances is not available for earlier years.Figures for acceptances (including intentionally homeless provided only with temporary accommodation) for each quarter appear in table 1 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Results for … Quarter 19 … Supplementary Tables" and from the third quarter of 1990 in table 1 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Statistics for the … Quarter 19 …" Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward Government legislation on hedgerows.

The Government continue to support the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). It is too soon to anticipate that my hon. Friend's Bill will fail in this session.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any of the land offered in exchange for land along the route of the east London river crossing under compulsory purchase orders 10 and 11, 19 November 1991, is designated as (a) a site of special scientific interest or (b) as being of special character and metropolitan importance under the Greater London development plan; and if he will make a statement.

(a) None. (b) The land within the London borough of Bexley offered in exchange for public open space to be acquired for the east London river crossing is designated as an area of special character in the Bexley borough plan, adopted in February 1985, which implemented the policy aims set out in the Greater London development plan.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the local government finance settlement for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

[pursuant to his reply, 28 January 1993 column 854]: Unfortunately, owing to a computing error, the notional amounts for Enfield, Gateshead, and Cleveland specified in the "Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1993–94", which was laid before the House on 28 January 1993, are incorrect. We are today laying before the House the "Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) (Amendment) Report (England) 1993–94" which specifies for these three authorities the correct notional amounts which are £199,624,000, £152,785,000 and £397,941,000 respectively. I shall arrange for copies of this report to be sent to all local authorities.

CPS		SFO		DPP(NI)
1987
	—		—		—
1988
	—		—		—
1989
R v. Pottle and Randle		R v. Saunders and others			—
R v. Batley			—		—
1990
R v. Kokabi		R v. Deller, Page and Rycott			—
R. v. Coren and Greenwood			—		—
1991
	—	R v. NatWest Investment Bank Limited and others			—
1992
A current case			—	Latimer, Hegan, Bell and Allen v. Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland
R v. Bennett			—		—

The cases referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) are set out in the table. As explained in that answer, the information is provided from the recollection of officers since such information is not recorded centrally. There are two corrections to the original answer. R v. Coren and Greenwood was originally recorded erroneously as 1987. R v. Batley was counted twice and therefore the number recorded for the CPS in 1989 was two and not three.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from non-governmental organisations regarding the development of the United Kingdom's national plan on forests; and how he intends to involve non-governmental organisations in the process.

[holding answer 27 January 1993]: I have been asked to reply.I have received one letter on this subject, from Friends of the Earth.The Forestry Commission will be co-ordinating the preparation of the national plan for the implementation of the forest principles agreed in Rio de Janeiro, and will seek the views of non-governmental organisations before it is completed.

To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) of 21 January, Official Report, column 327, if he will indicate to which cases the public interest immunity certificates apply.

The information is as follows:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the size of the GEST—grants for education support and training—allocation in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and projected for 1993–94 together with the size of the allocation (a) nationally and (b) earmarked for the training of teachers of young people with special learning difficulties; in cash and real terms.

Expenditure in England supported by the grants for educational support and training (GEST) programme is given in the table. The GEST programme in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

	Cash £ million	Real terms2£ million
(a) GEST total1
1990–91	353	393
1991–92	364	389
1992–93	377	377
1993–94	320	311
(b) of which GEST supported expenditure on the training of teachers of young people with special educational needs:
1990–91	7.1	7.9
1991–92	7.5	8.0
1992–93	8.1	8.1
1993–94	10.0	9.7

Numbers of school leavers in England Examination attainments in modern languages
Thousands
Academic Years:	1982–83	1983–84	1984–85	1985–86	1986–87	1987–88	1988–89	1989–90	1990–91
GCSE/O/CSE passes grades A-G
French	243.84	242.24	239.28	231.18	230.17	225.45	230.72	229.21	243.25
German	68.04	67.90	65.36	63.71	62.61	62.63	63.19	70.52	72.68
Italian	2.26	2.44	1.95	1.78	1.68	1.75	1.47	1.55	1.93
Spanish	13.80	13.69	13.03	12.50	13.12	13.60	14.61	15.74	18.17
Russian	1.48	1.31	1.34	1.17	1.38	1.15	1.04	1.21	1.29
A/AS level passes grades A-E
French	16.23	16.01	15.16	13.22	13.50	13.15	15.13	19.28	19.79
German	6.42	6.78	5.88	5.54	5.36	5.03	5.68	6.76	7.45
Italian	0.26	0.36	0.21	0.22	0.33	0.32	0.16	0.28	0.31
Spanish	1.83	1.89	1.59	1.91	1.61	1.53	2.02	2.36	2.30
Russian	0.21	0.26	0.27	0.26	0.24	0.28	0.29	0.33	0.43

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils entered for GCSE examinations in British government and political studies, citizenship and/or community studies, in each year since 1990; and what proportion of the total school population of 15 and 16-year-olds they represented.

Information is not readily available for 1990 or 1991 but by the summer 1992, 589 pupils aged 16 attempted GCSEs in politics and 4,617 attempted GCSEs in community studies. These numbers represent 0.1 per cent. and 0.8 per cent. of pupils reaching the age of 16 in the academic year 1991–92.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers have left the profession in each year since 1982.

The table shows the numbers of teachers who left full-time service in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England and Wales in each year. They include retirements and teachers who transferred to other sectors (such as independent schools, special education or further education) or to part-time teaching. In addition, many of those who leave service each year return to teaching after a career break. Surveys of teacher resignations carried out by the Local Government Management Board show that fewer than 1 per cent. of teachers annually leave teaching to take up other employment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students have passed O-level, GSE/GCSE and A-level examinations in languages in each year since 1982; and if he will give a breakdown of the languages concerned.

The estimated numbers of school leavers who have passed O-level/CSE/GCSE and A-level examinations in selected modern foreign languages for each year since 1982 are shown in the following table.

Number of leavers from full-time maintained nursery, primary and secondary school sector
Year to March	Number
1982	33,291
1983	31,781
1984	31,274
1985	32,831
1986	32,473
1987	31,238
1988	31,711
1989	36,882
1990	38,330
11991	39,700
1 Provisional.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has about attendance levels at school annual general meetings, costs of calling them and the numbers that are inquorate.

All parents of pupils registered at a school are eligible to attend the annual parents' meeting. Information as to the numbers of parents attending annual parents' meetings and the costs of calling them is not collected by the Department. It would appear that in general, parental attendance is disappointing, although there are instances of very successful meetings.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education by what date he will publish the January 1992 figures for the proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery education in each local authority.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 21 January, Official Report, column 353.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education which companies at present sponsor city technology colleges; and how many governorships those companies hold.

The following private sector sponsors have committed sums of £0.2 million or more to individual city technology colleges or to the development of the programme:

• ADT Group plc
• BAT Industries plc
• Boots Company plc
• British Record Industry Trust
• Cable & Wireless plc
• Mr. H. de Capell Brooke
• Dixons Group plc
• Sir Harry Djanogly
• Esmee Fairburn Foundation
• Findlay Publications plc
• Forte plc
• Haberdashers' Livery Company
• Mr. J. Hall
• Hanson plc
• Sir Philip and Lady Harris Charitable Trust
• IMI plc
• Kodak plc
• John Laing plc
• Landau Foundation
• Sir Geoffrey Leigh
• Mr. D. Lewis
• Lucas plc
• Mercers' Company
• Safeway plc
• Southwark Diocesan Board of Education
• Tarmac plc
• Unisys Ltd.
• Vardy Foundation
• Wellcome Foundation
• Weston Foundation
• Wolfson Foundation
• Mr. H. Wong

The major sponsors of each college form a trust which has strategic control of the management of the college. The trustees are responsible for electing a governing body, whose members will normally include representatives of sponsors, but no central record is held of the current composition of each governing body.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local authority school reorganisation proposals are awaiting a decision from his Department; and how many have been awaiting a decision for more than (a) one month, (b) three months, (c) six months and (d) one year.

At 28 January, 104 proposals published under section 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 were awaiting a decision. Of these, 101 have been awaiting a decision for more than one month, 72 for more than three months, 31 for more than six months and six for more than one year.Proposals outstanding for less than four months may in certain cases fall to the local authority for determination.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those schools which have recently been sent a letter from OFSTED about their poor performance; and when each of those schools last had a full HMI inspection.

This is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. HMI have not inspected all schools on a regular basis, and OFSTED believe it would be invidious to publish the names of those which, on the basis of inspection evidence, give them cause for concern. The new inspection arrangements being established under the Schools Act will ensure that all schools are regularly inspected, and those at risk of failing their pupils are identified in a published report.