To ask the Secretary of State for Education by what methods she consults parents about their view of the level and extent of the education service.

All the Department's Ministers frequently meet parents and their representatives, both in formal meetings and when visiting schools. We regularly consult parents' organisations on a range of issues.

When contemplating parents' views and representations, does the Minister reflect on the fact that since 1989 there has been a doubling in the number of appeals from parents who have been refused their first choice for their children's school? On appeal, some 17,000 people have had their request for a school rejected. Does that not show a failure of the Education Reform Act 1988, and is it not time that we reviewed it to ensure that parents have true choice about school admissions?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite caught up with the rest of his party, or certainly with his party leader. There is a new air blowing through certain elements of the Opposition on choice, and we welcome that. We want to give parents the maximum possible choice of schools. Happily, about four out of five parents get their first choice, but every year a certain number are inevitably disappointed and have to go through an appeals procedure. I suspect that that will always happen, because man has yet to devise a scheme under which everybody gets just what he wants all the time.

Do Ministers' consultations with parents reveal their anxiety about the reorganisation of local government? Can my hon. Friend assure us that new unitary authorities such as that for New Forest, if they come into being, will have the resources to enable them to deliver an education service that is as good as, if not better than, the previous one?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State keeps a close eye on developments in local government reorganisation. We feel that the initial onus is on parents and local people to make representations to the Local Government Commission in the first place if they are uneasy about the possible impact on education of the proposed changes. Beyond that, we think that it should be possible to make arrangements in areas where unitary authorities emerge to protect the education service and to ensure continuity and effective delivery in the newly defined areas. We shall keep a close eye on the matter.

Local government reorganisation is already under way in Wales and will soon be under way in England. Local authorities will set up transitional committees charged with the task of describing their service delivery plans, including those that relate to education. Will it not be almost impossible to carry out that task properly if there is no certainty for local education authorities about the number of schools for which they will have to cater? In view of that, is it not totally irresponsible at this time—

Order. This is Question Time and hon. Members are drifting towards making statements and putting arguments. I am sure that the Minister has heard the question. Can he make some stab at an answer?

Intriguingly, I do not think that we got to the punchline. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may have had in mind something to do with grant-maintained schools.

indicated assent.

I thought that it might be that; in that case, the answer is quite clear. It is incumbent on present, future and even transitional authorities to liaise with the Funding Agency for Schools, as was always the intention in the Education Bill, now the Education Act 1994. I recall that the hon. Gentleman served with great distinction on the Committee that examined that Bill. Those bodies should work together to ensure that sufficient places are provided in each locality. I see absolutely no reason why that should not be the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools will be inspected each year under the new school inspection arrangements; and if she will make a statement.

This is mainly matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. However, I can advise that around 3,000 schools will be inspected this year.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate of inspection in primary schools will be stepped up to ensure that inspection targets are met? Can she also confirm that the inspectors will give praise where praise is due and that they will be not only rigorous in identifying problems but equally helpful in providing solutions?

Clearly, encouragement is also important. I can reassure my hon. Friend that I attach the utmost importance to regular and rigorous inspection of our schools. Around 1,000 secondary schools have been inspected and the cycle is on target to be completed within four years. By the end of this term, about 800 primary schools will have been inspected, and I intend to ensure that the four-year cycle for primary and special schools is successfully completed. I welcome, therefore, the three-point action plan announced by the Office for Standards in Education and will keep it closely monitored.

Further to the answer that the Secretary of State has just given, is she aware that, to meet the target for primary schools, the number of schools to be inspected in the three subsequent years after the current academic year will have to be double the number of schools inspected this year? How can that be achieved without reductions in the length of inspections and the number of inspectors at a time when the budget for Ofsted has been reduced for next year compared to what we were told it would be last year?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not entirely familiar with the action plan which has been prepared by the chief inspector and which we absolutely intend he should adhere to. I wish to reassure the hon. Gentleman that funding will rise next year to nearly £100 million and in the public expenditure survey period to £121 million, which is hardly a cut.

Will the new inspection arrangements focus properly on standards achieved in English and mathematics? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many specialist and advanced teachers cite lack of facility in basic English as the main stumbling block to achievement at a later stage in education?

We have made it clear throughout that the reform of the national curriculum and the main thrust of tests must put facility in English, maths and science at a high premium.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the fact that only 60 per cent. of the primary schools that should have been inspected actually had inspections by this autumn is entirely due to the fact that the privatised market tendering system for individual schools has failed? Will she further confirm that the Government's programme and their claim to be interested in standards have been shown to be an entire myth, given that £13 million has been cut from the Ofsted budget for next year and the reading recovery scheme funding programme has been stopped? Is it not time that the Government admitted that their blarney and hot air about standards of achievement are nothing more than a smokescreen for cuts and failure?

If Opposition Members were remotely interested in standards—time and again, they have proved that they are not—they would welcome the fact that, after only four terms, 2,200 schools will have been inspected by Christmas and 3,000 inspections will have been completed by the end of the year. Schools and governors welcome the inspection process and the information that it gives them, and, above all, pupils benefit. The new system is operating successfully; it is a huge improvement on what went on before. The hon. Gentleman is right: the chief inspector should take early corrective action to meet the target of four-yearly inspections of all schools. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people are now entering higher education; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

The Government's policies have led to record participation in higher education. Some 30 per cent. of young people now enter full-time higher education compared with 14 per cent. 10 years ago.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and the Department on the excellent figures that he has just provided. I also thank him for taking the time and trouble recently to visit our local university in south-east London, the university of Greenwich. His visit was much appreciated by all concerned. It is an excellent university doing a first-class job. May I ask my hon. Friend what he is doing to encourage more links for research between the universities and industry so that we can develop a good partnership?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment and, indeed, his interest in his local university in Greenwich. I was delighted with the provision that I saw there. The message is that local participation and the role of the university in the local community and its link with industry there are extremely important.

Is it not regrettable that many county councils are unable to give people discretionary grants because they simply do not have enough cash? It is no good the Minister saying that they have a choice. If county councils do not have the cash, they cannot give grants. What will the Minister do about that?

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting, if somewhat irrelevant, point. I was under the impression that the local authority financial settlement was about £17 billion. I have held a series of discussions with interested parties in the light of the Gulbenkian report on discretionary awards, and the Department is continuing to review the position with a view to securing achievements; but the funding is there and it is open to local authorities to provide that funding for the purpose.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great success stories in education was the unshackling of colleges from the control of local authorities? Has that not given greater diversity of choice to sixth form students, who, rather than furthering their education, were held on to by schools because of the budget that they represented? Will he ensure that, in future, the careers service is up to this new challenge?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. We believe in diversity and choice. We believe in the benefits of unshackling the further education sector, with its natural and characteristic progression towards higher education where appropriate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what funding has been added to local education authority budgets to meet the extra costs incurred by the implementation of the new code of practice for special educational needs in primary schools.

The code of practice has been widely welcomed as reflecting existing best practice in schools. Many schools will have been following the procedures recommended in the code, and its purpose is to encourage others to do so.

Given the great demands on the special educational needs co-ordinator, as spelt out in the code of practice, will the Secretary of State say what account she has taken—in the funding that she has made available to local authorities—of the problems of rural authorities such as North Yorkshire, which has a large number of small primary schools, and where the heads of schools, who would normally be the special educational needs co-ordinators there, also have formidable teaching commitments?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the code followed extensive consultation and included points on the work load of teachers, head teachers, and so on. Indeed, it was redrafted in the light of the concerns expressed. The Department is funding research into effective practice by SEN co-ordinators, or those who have to fill that role in small rural schools. We will publish the results and will look at all aspects of implementation, as it is obviously very important, including the question of resources. The main point is that the code is building on existing best practice.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the new code of practice. Will she outline what measures are in place to ensure that schools spend what they should on children with special educational needs?

The only extra requirement for schools, resulting from the code, is that they should publish their policy on special educational needs by August next year. In-service funding of £5.6 million will be provided through grants for education support and training to local education authorities to help schools with that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding delays in the processing of applications for student loans in the current academic year.

My right hon. Friend has received a copy of a letter from the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities in the United Kingdom to the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, and 14 other letters about delays in the processing of loans. The Department has also received a number of telephone calls from students, their parents and higher education institutions.

In terms of what the Minister said, there appears to be chaos in the Student Loans Company. What will he do about the thousands of students who failed to get their loans this year? Will he explain a parliamentary answer that he gave me last week in which he said that he was considering putting private finance into that company? What will be the consequences of that in terms of interest rates for students who took out such a loan afterwards?

Perhaps characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has managed to muddle two separate issues. First, there is currently what I consider to be an unacceptable delay at the Student Loans Company in relation to the repeat application procedure. I should acknowledge that more than 200,000 loans have been granted in the current year—the number has risen by over one third—but the new procedure has led to delays, partly owing to the inability of students to return their forms.

May I thank my hon. Friend for his efforts to tackle the problem? Students at my local university undoubtedly had problems, particularly—as my hon. Friend pointed out—with the repeat application procedure. I am glad that my hon. Friend has confirmed that he has no intention of privatising the Student Loans Company. The only pressing issue is the financing of loans.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has said. We are anxious to tackle the position in conjunction with the Student Loans Company, and it is being addressed as a matter of urgency.

Does the Minister recognise that the House will be shocked at the complacency with which he has approached the issue? He has issued not a word of apology to the thousands of students who have been deprived of essential resources. If the elderly had been deprived of the chance of obtaining their pensions, or the unemployed prevented from drawing their dole cheques, there would have been a national uproar. How can the Minister address the House with such complacency when students are denied the resources they need to sustain themselves at college?

Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman seems to have drafted his supplementary question before listening to my answer. I readily acknowledge that I was not satisfied with the position; nor, indeed, is the Student Loans Company, which is doing something about it as urgently as possible. As for the hon. Gentleman's specific point, his hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) asked me about the number of representations that we had received and I gave him the answer—14. The position became apparent recently, and as soon as it became apparent we tackled it vigorously and urgently.

Did my hon. Friend say that there had been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of student loans paid out? Does the problem not lie in the fact that the Student Loans Company listened to inaccurate forecasts from Opposition Members, who said that there would be no demand for student loans? Does the increase not underline the fact that the scheme has become much more popular than the Opposition ever expected?

The purpose of the loans is to be available to those who wish to avail themselves of them; the facility is intended to enable them to pursue their studies. The figure mentioned by my hon. Friend is not entirely accurate—he may have misheard me. The total increase this year is 35 per cent., and that is despite the administrative difficulties that I mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to phase out extra capital grants to grant-maintained schools.

The distribution of capital resources continues to reflect Ministers' judgment of appropriate funding levels in each sector, and our commitment to setting up grant-maintained schools on a sound basis. The detail of the capital grants regime for grant-maintained schools is now a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools.

Another Tory pledge has not been fulfilled. Following the Budget settlement, local education authorities now face cuts while grant-maintained schools still receive three times as much capital per head. Is it not about time that the Government treated local education authorities with fairness rather than prejudice, and eliminated a gap that is not only indefensible but immoral?

The hon. Gentleman is misled and his comments are facile. Let me briefly give him some reasons why. He seeks, presumably, to make a pound for pound comparison, yet he knows, or should know, that every GM school is not able to draw on capital receipts or to transfer from revenue expenditure to capital, like local education authorities can. To take one further instance, GM schools attract VAT, and LEA schools do not. Spending £1 in a GM school, therefore, is not the same as spending £1 in an LEA school. The Government are satisfied that the settlement is fair to GM schools, but not excessively fair.

I offer my most sincere thanks to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for approving the application for grant-maintained status from Nunmonkton school in my constituency. It is the result of a remarkable campaign by all 19 pupils—[Interruption.]—all the parents and all the villagers. They have led the way against North Yorkshire county council's decision to close the school. It means that the school can go ahead and will be saved, and I pass on the appreciation of all the villagers to my hon. Friend.

I am obviously grateful for my hon. Friend's kind comments. I agree with him that Nunmonkton school has all the prospects of being an excellent school and the House will have no noted the derision with which Opposition Members greeted his announcement that there were 19 pupils at the school. All people worried about small rural schools will know which party not to trust.

Although the Government have talked the language of diversity, have they not given us the practice of discrimination in relation to the funding of GM schools? Has that discrimination not been established both by the Education Select Committee and by the National Audit Office? Once the pot of gold and the bribe are taken away, interest in moving to GM status will wane by the day.

In light of current discussions, I am not sure whether interest in GM schools is waning or whether it would be wise for me to comment on that, if one considers the hon. Gentleman's party. As he should know, revenue funding for GM schools is on the same basis as revenue funding for LEA schools, and he heard my earlier answer on capital funding.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will review the provision of capital expenditure in the school building programme.

The Budget announcement meant good news for schools capital, with an additional £21 million above the published baseline for 1995–96. We have made clear our willingness to consider changes to the criteria for distributing capital, which were agreed with the local authority associations some 10 years ago.

Southend's Lancaster school for disabled children, many of whom are in wheelchairs, has been unable to undertake essential work demanded by the Health and Safety Executive two years ago. Does the Minister see any merit in the all-party representations that he received on 14 November from Essex county council that its spending was inadequate and discriminatory? Has any concession since been made to Essex county council?

As my hon. Friend may be aware, the announcement on 1995–96 capital guidelines will be made shortly and I cannot, for obvious reasons, preview that announcement. I can say to him, and underline, that responsibility for building and conditions for LEA schools remains with the local authority. As I have already made clear, the guidelines were drawn up in discussion with local authorities many years ago and I am open to suggestions from a significant number of authorities that there is room for those guidelines to be changed.

Does the Minister agree that, where a Government have given authority or promoted large-scale urban or suburban development in any region, there is an obligation to provide matching provision for primary schools and secondary schools in those neighbourhoods? Is this a matter not just for one Department of State but for all Departments? Will he assure us that that principle will be followed in the announcement to which he referred?

I can certainly confirm that the most important aspect of the capital criteria is provision for basic needs. Although there are sometimes arguments about the exact cost of specific projects, there is no argument between the Government and local education authorities about the importance of ensuring that every child has a school place when he starts or changes school.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made with the development of an advanced diploma for the GNVQ; and if she will make a statement.

I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to advanced general national vocational qualifications—the new "vocational A-levels". They are a success. They are motivating students of all abilities to work hard and achieve high standards. Ofsted and the Further Education Funding Council inspectorate have confirmed that standards in advanced GNVQs are comparable to two GCE A-levels.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that he will continue to do everything he can to enhance the standing of advanced GNVQs so that they are increasingly recognised not only by employers but, in time, by universities?

Universities are already accepting advanced level GNVQs in significant numbers. Approximately 85 per cent. of people who applied received offers from universities and there is a gate project designed to inform universities and admissions tutors of their exact merits. The Government have done a great deal, but the task now is to ensure rigour and effectiveness in GNVQs and their acceptability by higher education institutions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she is making of the work of the Institute of Education in determining the added value contribution of schools in Lancashire to the education of their students.

The Department has established close links with the Institute of Education about its work on value added in Lancashire schools and on other aspects of school improvement and effectiveness.

Are not the conclusions of the Lancashire study inescapable, showing that the publication of raw data is in itself highly misleading and can be very damaging? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is no more appropriate to publish raw data in that form than to judge the effectiveness of the economy by using a single measure such as inflation?

I understand that the Lancashire study is producing results consistent with other work—namely, that the prior attainment measures at age 11 are the best predictors of performance at age 16. In the light of that, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be doing all he can to persuade the National Union of Teachers to co-operate in the administration of tests for 11-year-olds.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the enormous support given to school performance tables by the parents of children in Lancashire is reflected elsewhere in the country? Does she further agree that we are witnessing a desperate attempt by the Opposition to shift their ground? Are they not moving from ignorance, prejudice and outright opposition to performance tables in an attempt to fudge the issue and claim that they supported them all along?

I agree with my hon. Friend that performance tables are popular and easily understood and that they provide the facts. Schools recognise that they are a major factor in encouraging improvements in performance. They are important to parents, pupils, governors and the communities served by the schools involved.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Lancashire county council and a range of other Labour authorities which have been working on added value, not to denigrate the schools involved but to increase standards and opportunities and to ensure that all children have a chance to achieve? Does she accept that she has done a complete about-face in accepting that added value and not crude league tables is the way forward?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, far from performing a U-turn, Ministers launched a consultation exercise on assessment in 1992 and at the same time asked for respondents' initial views on publishing value added measures. No doubt that escaped the attention of the Opposition, who at the time were busy opposing the publication of performance tables.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to improve resources in primary schools.

It is for local education authorities to decide the level of resources to be available to primary schools and to the other education services for which they are responsible.

What advice can the Secretary of State give to head teachers in Tameside and Stockport who find that they are receiving between £300 and £200 per pupil less than neighbouring schools just across the border in Manchester? Given that they have checked up on the way in which local authorities spend their money, and given the capping that those authorities are under, it seems extremely difficult for those head teachers to find out why they should be receiving so much less than schools in Manchester. The only explanation that they can come up with is that the Government are treating schools in Thameside and Stockport unfairly. Does the Secretary of State agree that if league tables are to be used, at least some measure ought to be taken of the amount of money that schools have to spend in the first place?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that even with the capping rules all LEAs will be able to increase their education budgets next year if they so chose. They will be greatly helped by the low level of inflation, which is two percentage points lower than was forecast when the 1994—95 settlement was agreed. Local authorities therefore receive a windfall benefit this year. That will benefit the hon. Gentleman's local authority as well as all others.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way in which we could help to improve the resources in primary schools is to recognise those LEAs and those schools which are already educating the rising-fives? In the current financial settlement, that is proving difficult without any Government grant. Will my right hon. Friend give an early response so that those who are making that pioneering progress are getting some kind of assistance from the central taxpayer?

That and other matters are under consideration in our review of work on education for children in the pre-school years.

Does the Secretary of State accept the evidence that there are lasting benefits from educating pupils in smaller classes in their early years? If so, when will she seek a significant national shift of funding towards primary schools?

Funding priorities are a matter for local education authorities. I must repeat that to the hon. Gentleman. The size of classes therefore depends on the decisions made by LEAs. In any case, there is no evidence that marginal increases in class sizes threaten standards.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to introduce further school league tables; and if she will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend intends to publish the national curriculum assessment results for 11-year-olds in national school performance tables once the assessment arrangements for this age group are satisfactorily established. Full consultation will be undertaken in due course on the presentation of the data.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be best not to try to dress up school league tables with subjective and therefore dangerous value added judgments? Will not a Rolls-Royce always be a Rolls-Royce and a Mini always a Mini? How can objectivity, which is vital, be achieved in that important area?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that it would be quite wrong to seek to massage or tweak the published performance data on schools to try to conceal bad performance. However, I think that there is broad agreement that an appropriate and factual measure of value added by schools is something towards which we are working and which we would probably envisage implementing in stages over the next few years. Nevertheless, I must not underestimate the difficulties. The recent report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the Schools, Curriculum and Assessment Authority brought out rather well the difficulties and the potential in that area and we are working towards that end.

The Minister seems to recognise that it is necessary to ensure that one is comparing apples with apples. Does he agree that schools such as Cambridge Road school in my constituency, which has inadequate playing facilities, and John Street school, which is in a battle with the community action programme about the availability of classrooms, are disadvantaged? Should not his priority be to correct that disadvantage before seeking to make comparisons?

I certainly hope that the local education authority would make a priority of such schools. That is something on which everyone could agree. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should somehow excuse or explain away inadequate school performance simply because of difficulties in respect of premises or location. The truth, and the real giveaway here, is that many schools in difficult and deprived areas operating in difficult circumstances are producing magnificent results year after year. We want to find out how they do that and then make sure that everyone else does the same.

Is not the vital point about league tables not so much the quality of the analysis as the fact that they make schools concentrate on outcomes rather than inputs? If we had concentrated more on outcomes over the past 20 years, would we not have a better education system?

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are now reaching the stage at which most people in education are at long last looking at outcomes, results and achievements and are no longer obsessed with how much money is required to produce those results. Money is and always will be important, but the main requirements and factors affecting educational performance have nothing whatever to do with money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice she receives from the Department of Health about the nutritional value of school meals.

The Department is represented alongside the Department of Health on a project team drawing up voluntary nutritional guidance for school meals providers. This forms part of the nutrition task force's programme of action to achieve the targets set in the Government's "The Health of the Nation" strategy.

I am grateful to the Minister for that interesting reply. Would he be interested in new evidence which shows that one in nine of our schoolchildren starts the day without breakfast, and that more than half have snacks, biscuits and crisps later in the day instead of a hot school meal? As part of its studies, will the project team consider the link between poor nutrition and the performance of our schoolchildren, and will the Minister publish the results?

I should like to ponder the hon. Lady's last two points, but she was correct to highlight the problems that too many school children face by not having even one decent meal a day. One reason why school meals are so vital is that, assuming that parents take them up, they ensure that every child has at least one square meal a day. When the proposals are published next summer, I hope that they will persuade more schools and local education authorities to put more effort into that very important area.

Ignoring Labour party propaganda on the subject, and in view of the recent worrying publicity in the borough of Harrow about the fact that a small number of children from low-income households are not receiving proper nutrition at lunchtime, may I ask my hon. Friend to have special discussions with Harrow local education authority to ensure that that problem is resolved?

I invite my hon. Friend to forward to me any evidence of problems which may exist in Harrow. On the wider issue, he will be aware that it is precisely to ensure that children from low-income families are properly provided for that an LEA is required to provide free school meals for the children of parents on income support.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will increase the amount of Government grant paid to Derbyshire education committee.

In 1995–96, Derbyshire's education standard spending assessment will increase by 0.7 per cent. I will shortly be announcing annual capital guidelines for education capital work in 1995–96.

That grant is not good enough. Is the Minister aware that more than six years ago, when the reorganisation plan for north Derbyshire was in process, the Government promised that Bolsover school would be placed on one site with the necessary money to implement that? More than six years have elapsed, but the Government have failed to carry out their promise. Instead, they have been cutting the grant for Derbyshire schoolkids ever since. It is time that they put a stop to that.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman enjoys his daily rant, even if the House is coming to expect it. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that, as the House is aware, it is the responsibility of LEAs to bid for capital work separately. As I reminded the House in an earlier answer, the order for those capital bids was determined some time ago in conjunction with LEAs. Those priorities must be the basis on which the Government fund capital funding.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire county council holds back from schools as much of its budget as it possibly can? Will my hon. Friend confirm that schools in Derbyshire would receive more money if they followed the lead taken by 30 per cent. of secondary schools and became grant-maintained?

My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that, for all sorts of reasons, strangely enough not alluded to today by Opposition Members, grant-maintained schooling makes a lot of sense. As to the way in which Derbyshire local education authority handles its funding, that is its responsibility, including the way in which it funds individual schools within the total sum that it chooses to set aside.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has to reduce the numbers of pupils per class in primary and secondary schools.

Determining the size of a class is a matter for the school concerned. Last year, teacher numbers increased by 1,300 and education support staff increased by more than 6,000.

The Minister said recently that the number of children in classes made no difference to the performance of those children. Would he prefer his child to be taught in a class of 30, 25 or 20?

That would depend entirely on the quality of the teaching, the quality of the school, the dedication of the staff and so on. The hon. Lady is quite correct; I have said, and I repeat today, that there is no proven causal connection between class size and educational output. If the hon. Lady thinks otherwise, I should be glad to see any evidence that she can produce.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister believe in the principle of referendums?

I have indicated in the House on several occasions that there may be circumstances in which I would support one. Clearly, in the case of Northern Ireland that is so, for I have already announced one.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

Bearing in mind reports today of an official survey showing that 11-year-old pupils do not have sufficient command of English to answer questions in science and mathematics, and bearing in mind the mounting evidence of the damage being done by the National Union of Teachers' boycott of tests, will my right hon. Friend urge Opposition Members with influence on that union to urge it to drop the boycott today?

What my hon. Friend says illustrates the importance of regular testing of pupils and equally regular reporting of the results. I welcome very much the fact that most teachers' unions have now called off their boycott. It is high time that the NUT did the same, and I hope that it will do so.

On railway privatisation, is it right, as the report to the Transport Select Committee states, that the costs of legal consultancy fees and relocation costs for British Rail alone are now £100 million, and that when underwriting and City fees are added in the total cost may be as much as £700 million? Are those figures right or wrong?

They are certainly not figures that I recognise, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter I will give him a more detailed answer.

I believe that the £100 million figure was given in a parliamentary answer. Perhaps the Prime Minister will check that. Is it also right, as the report indicates, that if the privatisation targets are to be met, the rail network will virtually have to be halved or there will be savage reductions in the timetable across the service? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that if there is found to be the remotest possibility of those things happening he will cancel the privatisation?

The right hon. Gentleman is using yet another of the scare stories which have surrounded the privatisation process for some time. Since the start of the rail privatisation process, there has been no shortage of scare stories; that is just the latest one. As recently as 24 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport stated and restated unequivocally that franchise services would be broadly based on the existing timetable. That remains the position.

The Prime Minister has not given that guarantee. If he proceeds with a privatisation which has no popular support, which will put the future of the railways at risk— [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should not be barracking from a sedentary position.

If the Prime Minister proceeds with a privatisation that has no popular support, which will put the future of the railways at risk and, in the process, spend hundreds of millions of pounds which should be spent on providing a better public transport service, will that not show how completely out of touch the Government are with the British people?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. His comments about rail privatisation are precisely the same as the comments that his predecessors made about almost every privatisation that has occurred. Each privatisation has proved a success. The initial costs of past privatisations have been more than outweighed by efficiency and benefits, and that will be the case for rail users as well. The right hon. Gentleman relies on precisely the same scare stories which existed for each privatisation that has occurred. If he seeks further assurance, it will come tomorrow when the franchise director launches the pre-qualification documents. The right hon. Gentleman will then see how wrong he is.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the position of Gibraltar within the European Union.

I have no plans to do so.

As the present appalling restrictions at the Spanish border, with four-hour delays for people and eight-hour delays for vehicles, seem designed to cripple the economy of Gibraltar, and as the European Union seems unable to prevent these illegal blackmail activities, will the Prime Minister give guidance to Ministers to the effect that there should be no further concessions to Spain in the EU until the problem is resolved? Is the Prime Minister aware that it would hearten the loyal people of the rock if he would visit Gibraltar and assure them of the full support not only of the Government but, I hope, of every party in the House of Commons which believes in freedom?

On my hon. Friend's second point, I can guarantee that we have no intention of deviating from the commitment that we made to the people of Gibraltar in the 1969 constitution. That commitment is there and it will remain. With regard to his first point, we have already made strong protests to the Spanish Government about the secondary checks imposed by the Guardia Civil at the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain. It is very important that the controls should cease and we have made it absolutely clear that the Spanish Government must bring them to an end. They are aware of our views, and we are in contact with them about it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Can the Prime Minister explain how an assembly for Northern Ireland will strengthen the United Kingdom while a Scottish parliament will apparently weaken it? The situations may be different, but surely the principle is the same.

As the hon. Lady graciously admits, the situation is not just different—it is wholly different. A tax-raising assembly is proposed for Scotland, whereas in Northern Ireland an assembly is proposed which will give Northern Ireland proper control over local government matters. That power already exists in Scotland.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

Amid all the discussions about the European Union in the long term, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a practical and urgent agenda to try to ensure that the single market is working fairly and openly, so that British companies have a genuine opportunity to compete successfully in civil aviation, energy and other spheres in which there are currently impediments to competition?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about that and about its importance. At Essen during the weekend it was self-evident that that is an agenda on which Britain is increasingly winning the arguments. There is wide recognition of the fact that the liberalisation of aviation, energy, telecommunications and a range of other areas is vital to Europe's future competitiveness. A great deal of work needs to be done to ensure that. It must figure very prominently in the Community's agenda in future, and we will ensure that it does.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the havoc wrought in the west of Scotland at the weekend by severe flooding in which lives were lost? Is he further aware that the Scottish Office Minister who visited the Paisley area yesterday gave us little comfort? Will the Prime Minister visit the stricken areas and make a statement that adequate funding will be available to reimburse families and local authorities?

I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing regret at the loss of life and the very significant damage following the severe flooding in Strathclyde. As the hon. Lady may or may not know, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry and local government was able to make a statement about the flooding to the Scottish Grand Committee this morning. He said that grant aid from central Government might be available under the Bellwin scheme.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the "Scottish Engineering Quarterly Review" issued this week, which shows that orders are up, investment is up, recruitment is up and optimism is strong? Is he further aware that today Jetstream Aircraft at Prestwick announced yet another order? Is that not good news in the run-up to Christmas?

I must confess that I have not seen the journal to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will ensure that it is delivered to me regularly in future. I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's good news and delighted to hear about Jetstream. A further order will be another welcome endorsement of the success of Scottish manufacturing.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

The Prime Minister will know that the blood transfusion service is a unique service in the United Kingdom national health service. Last year, the British people gave 2.5 million units of blood freely and saved thousands of lives. Does he appreciate the dismay and disgust at the Bain proposals to privatise the service and close down five regional centres, from Plymouth to Lancaster, with 1,000 job losses? When will the Prime Minister put the national health service before private greed and abandon that proposal?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the NHS is getting more resources and more funding year after year. He also knows that there are areas which can be dealt with in the private sector without harm to patient care and that where that releases resources for patient care it is economically and medically sensible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the results of the past four general elections show that the good sense of the British people can normally be relied on? Against that background, does he further agree that, if the 1996 intergovernmental conference produced substantial changes in the European Union the use of a referendum might be justified, but that in the intervening period speculation about the type of question to be asked is entirely bogus?

In advance of the IGC, it is extremely difficult to know precisely what the question in a referendum might be. I have said that I am not prepared to close the door on the possibility of one, but, equally, that there are important constitutional matters to be considered and it would be very unwise to make snap judgments as to how to deal with that matter. As I understand it, two days after I stated that last week, it suddenly became the Opposition's position as well.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

According to official figures given to me by the Child Support Agency last week, that body has processed just four claims for compensation in the past 12 months. Will the Prime Minister ensure urgently that the thousands of families who have suffered from the incredible incompetence of that body are fully compensated for their financial and emotional losses?

As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at the child support arrangements. He will be responding to the Select Committee's report and will make an announcement as soon as the Government have finished their deliberations. Proposals for any changes will be brought forward at that time.