asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools (a) in England as a whole and (b) in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices.

In 1984–85 prices, local education authorities in England spent an average of £945 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,085 in 1984–85. The comparable figures for Staffordshire are £945 and £1,025.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show an impressive increase in expenditure per pupil at secondary schools in Staffordshire and in the country as a whole since the Government came to office? How does he think the Labour party can justify claims that there have been cuts in education budgets since this Government came to office?

The direct answer to that question is that the Labour party cannot justify such claims. All principal measures show steady improvements in education provision since the Government came to office. Not only is spending per pupil at record levels, but the overall pupil teacher-ratio is at its best level ever and class sizes are smaller than in 1979.

Does the Minister accept that the Government have placed a substantial additional burden on secondary schools, not least in respect of the new GCSE? Is he aware that there are real unresolved needs with respect to the GCSE, that provision is grossly inadequate and that there is extreme anxiety in our schools about that provision? What good news, if any, can he give to schools about immediate decisions on that matter?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that our expenditure plans for the forthcoming year show an increase in cash terms of 18·8 per cent. That will enable substantial improvements to continue, and we have, of course, provided extra money for the funding of GCSE and its introduction.

Will my hon. Friend say whether it is still the case in England—as we were told it was last summer—that for every five teachers and lecturers there are more than three non-teachers employed full time in the education system? Does he feel that there may be scope for further streamlining of administrative structures to ensure that a higher proportion of spending comes through to schools and education?

The responsibility for that rests with local education authorities. However, I am bound to say that my hon. Friend is quite right. In many authorities that claim a high expenditure per pupil a high ratio seems to follow once examination is made of the non-teaching staff. Many local authorities can do more to take out unnecessary non-teaching staff from their payrolls.[Interruption.]

Order. It is good to see that there is such an interest in Education questions. I ask hon. Members to listen to the questions and the answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make an announcement about the establishment of further city technology colleges in addition to the first at Solihull.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further progress has been made towards establishing city technology colleges.

I am making good progress in discussion with a number of prospective sponsors and will announce details of further city technology colleges soon.

Will the Secretary of State come clean and tell us how much money has been committed in non-governmental sponsorship for those colleges? Will he confirm that the level of sponsorship so far committed is so low as to show his plans to be a complete white elephant?

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have heard that the first college was announced in Solihull only four months after I had announced the concept of city technology colleges. That college was sponsored by two companies, Lucas Industries and Hanson Trust. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are several more in the pipestream and I will be announcing them fairly soon [HON. MEMBERS: "Pipestream?"] I am sorry, I should have said "pipeline". But it will be such a flow that it will turn into a stream. I am surprised that the Liberal party opposes these ideas, because city technology colleges increase choice. I would have thought that liberalism stands for more choice.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his city technology college initiative, and I am sure that most people outside the House in the inner city areas will be grateful for them. However, who will be responsible for the curriculum for these new colleges and who will monitor standards?

The curriculum will be determined as laid out in the booklet on the city technology colleges, and it will depend upon a contract between my Department and the charitable trust that will run the colleges. The colleges will be monitored by Her Majesty's inspectors.

Is the Secretary of State not whistling in the dark? It may be that only four months have passed, but these colleges are a failure, and has not the Minister of State almost admitted that in public statements'? Will not such colleges cream off more students from the local schools? When the employers refuse to give the money, as they most surely will, will not the ordinary people have to pay for this white elephant?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the amount of money being provided to the state maintained sector is not being reduced. The money provided for the city technology colleges is extra money, and I expect shortly to announce several more colleges. I was told that one could not be started, but four months after my announcement of the scheme one has been started.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement on CTCs will be widely welcomed? For the past 20 years industry has been bemoaning the fact that people leave school without knowledge of technical subjects. Will my right hon. Friend dismiss the carping from Opposition Members as pure ignorance about both industrial and educational matters?

Many firms in Britain want to support these colleges, some with substantial sums of money, others with more modest sums. They see these colleges as fulfilling a real need in the inner cities, where the educational needs are greatest.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many people regard city technology colleges as a rather ridiculous gimmick, and certainly as an attack on the local education authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said? If the Secretary of State has the additional resources that he says he has, why has he not invested them in polytechnics and universities to improve and build on the scientific base there?

I assure the hon. Lady that we are providing a substantial amount for technological education. This year we are extending TVEI nationwide at a cost of £90 million each year for the next 10 years—that is £900 million going straight to the state maintained sector. The hon. Lady says that the CTCs are a gimmick, but I remind her that many families in the inner cities will welcome the choice that these colleges will provide.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his initiative is welcome in Solihull, in the south of the borough, in my constituency, and in the north, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), where it will usefully serve the people? Is he further aware that it will also be welcome as a facility for Birmingham, being on the boundaries of that city, although he did not get the same co-operation from that city as he did from Solihull?

I thank the Solihull education authority for being willing to sell a redundant secondary comprehensive school. I am sure that the educational provision in Solihull will be improved significantly, and, in particular, the staying on rate of 16-year-olds.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that of the 1,800 companies that he has approached to fund CTCs, only eight have replied favourably? Has not British industry, so far from welcoming the idea, given the Secretary of State's plan a decisive thumbs down?

That is simply not true. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from. If he looks at the Financial Times today, he will see that the Davy Corporation has announced, on its own initiative, that it wants to support a CTC in Teesside. What I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman——

How many?

The hon. Gentleman must wait and see. Fairly soon he will have an answer. Why is he denying parents and children in the inner city areas the opportunity to benefit from this sort of education?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to create an integrated national academic qualifications and courses system for those over the age of 16 years.

The structure of qualifications post-16 is a responsibility shared by the Secondary Examinations Council and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. The Government look to these bodies to work closely together to develop greater coherence in qualifications.

Does the Minister agree that the best way forward for those over the age of 16 is to have, first, an integrated qualification which covers both academic and vocational aspects, and, secondly, that that should be done in the context of tertiary colleges? Will she give her sympathetic approval to any plans put forward to establish tertiary education by the many education authorities that are now considering it? I should point out to her that in Wandsworth there is overwhelming support for that idea.

The Government are anxious to ensure that the two bodies that I have spoken about, the Secondary Examinations Council and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, should work together to ensure that post-16 qualifications can be meshed together at some time in the future. The organisation of schools post-16 is a matter for determination by the local education authorities, and we leave it to their good sense and discretion how best secondary education post-16 can be provided.

Does my hon. Friend accept that with some education authorities one does not get good sense and that they try to destroy proven schools with excellent records in their sixth forms? Can she assure us that before any such plans are passed the Department will consider them carefully so that we do not destroy good proven sixth forms for the sake of some Socialist dogma?

I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when considering reorganisation proposals from local authorities, looks carefully at the merits of each case and is in no sense committed to destroying schools of proven worth.

Have the Government not missed a great opportunity by imposing such narrow terms of reference on the A-level review? Was this not a real opportunity to integrate vocational and academic qualifications post-16? Is not the fact of the matter that with the city technology colleges and this sort of review the Government want to keep a divide between the sheep and the goats at 16, and have an effective 16-plus?

No. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications is a recent body, which is busy looking at the different vocational qualifications on offer at present. It is working closely with the Secondary Examinations Council. Ultimately, one hopes for a certain amount of mutual agreement about the types of qualifications for entry into higher education and the post-16 framework.

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

My right hon. Friend regularly receives letters from members of the public and others concerned to improve educational standards. In recent months a large majority of these letters have supported the introduction of a national curriculum as a means of achieving that objective in schools.

In raising standards, will my hon. Friend take note of the pressing need for more highly skilled people to enter the engineering industry? Will she encourage more school leavers to take advantage of the places for technology and science in higher education?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks about engineering and technology job opportunities. The Government have frequently emphasised the need for better and more systematic careers education. We hope to take measures shortly to encourage local education authorities to bring a new coherence to careers provision for young people.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a great deal of talk from the Department about standardised tests of attainment and about a core curriculum, which suggests a centralised approach? On the other hand, is she aware that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 devolved the responsibility for those matters to local schools and headmasters? Are not those policies going in opposite directions?

No, they are not. I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering, not a core curriculum, but the possibility of introducing a national curriculum during the course—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] If Opposition Member do not know the difference, they will have to learn and decide what it is for themselves.

Does my hon. Friend think that the leaders of the teachers' unions have a part to play in raising education standards? Also, does she think that they are playing it?

All teachers have a part to play in raising education standards. For the most part the professional quality of our teachers is excellent. They work hard towards the goal of improving standards and achievements in our schools.

Will not the next real marker for standards be the GCSE to be taken this year? Does the Minister realise that the resources and advice provided by her Department for that examination are wholly inadequate to meet the task and that as a result for 600,000 14-year-olds this year the GCSE will be at best a raw deal and at worst a blight on their future chances?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to study a little longer those matters of education for which he is now spokesman. The GCSE will first be taken in 1988. We have made very good provision — [Interruption.] Will hon. Gentlemen listen?—[Interruption.]

Order.

We have made very good provision for in-service training for teachers and for books and equipment for the GCSE. In the current year substantial sums will be available for both those matters in order to enable teachers to deliver the GCSE.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to ensure that local education authorities make more efficient use of their resources.

The Government's expenditure plans include a number of measures designed to promote efficiency among local education authorities. These include targets for the removal of surplus places from the schools and for tighter staffing ratios in further education.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but what is to be done about the hangers-on? Do not recent figures show that some local education authorities employ twice as many support staff as necessary and then bleat that they have insufficient sums to pay the teachers, provide equipment or maintain the schools?

My hon. Friend is on to a good point and, indeed, he tabled a written question about it last week. The point is that there is a large administrative tail in many local education authorities. Much of the money would be better spent on supporting teaching with more books, services and equipment.

If the Secretary of State is sincere about using education resources efficiently, may I draw to his attention the fact that since the secondary reorganisation in 1982 eight secondary schools in Manchester have been on split sites awaiting permission from the Department to spend money on putting the schools on one site, which would bring greater efficiency? When will he do something about that?

This year current spending on education is planned to increase by 19 per cent., or £2 billion. [Interruption.] As a result of the conduct of the economy over the past seven years the Government have been able both to increase expenditure on social priority areas and to cut taxation.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that nothing in this drive will harm highly efficient, small, rural schools, which turn out such exceptionally good results?

I can reassure my hon. Friend and the whole House that rural schools, principally rural primary schools, provide a necessary and valuable contribution to education and to society. I can assure her that any proposals for closure are examined most carefully before they are approved, if they are approved.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the measures of a local education authority's efficiency is the number of nursery places that it can provide? Does he further accept that some of the best provide nursery places for two thirds of their children and some of the worst provide none? Is it pure coincidence that the best 10 providers are Labour-controlled authorities and the worst 10 are Conservative or alliance-controlled authorities?

A higher proportion of rising fives and children below four years of age are now going to some form of nursery education than ever before. That is the record of this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations have been received by his review group on student grants; and if he will make a statement.

The review group has received written evidence from over 100 organisations, nine of which have been invited to give oral evidence. Some 1,688 letters have been received about the review.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but will he tell us about the evidence and representations that he has received concerning systems of financial support for students in other countries? Is it not instructive that in America the student loan system has been associated with better rates of access to higher education then we have had in this country?

I share my hon. Friend's view. I should only add that a lot of nonsense has been put about by the National Union of Students and others to the effect that it is the Government's policy to replace all grants by loans. That is not the Government's policy. There would be serious disadvantages in going down that road in this country's circumstances. We recognise that an absolutist approach could act as a disincentive to the children of lower income families, women, mature students, the disabled and others. Among other things, my review is looking at a system of top-up loans to supplement grants. The purpose of the review is to improve the overall prospects of students, not to make things worse.

Will the Minister explain to the House how access and age participation in higher education can possibly be increased through a loan scheme as contrasted with an open-grant scheme?

The hon. Gentleman must first explain to the House how an admitted decrease in the value of the grant over the last few years, and during the 1970s, has coincided — particularly in the last few years—with a massive increase in access?

Has my hon. Friend seen reports that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) supports the total replacement of student grants with a system of student loans? Does he know what the Liberal party thinks about that proposal, and will he accept my word that his announcement today, that the Government have no such proposals, will be welcomed in every British university?

Everyone knows that the question of student grants is complicated, but the alliance has confused things beyond reason. I have heard the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) say that he is against loans, but I have here a copy of a speech by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, in which he says:

"Students would be able to take out loans for part of their costs … Students would also be able to take out loans for topping up basic social security levels of support".

Why does the Minister believe that students can survive in real terms on less grant than he had? What is the difference between loans and the overdrafts, into which the Government have forced students?

I am disappointed that the reply of the hon. Gentleman did not direct itself to the perfectly reasonable question that I put to him. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Devonport has now joined us, and I hope that he will give us a reply.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a privilege to go to university and that our grant system is the fairest and most generous in Western Europe? Should we not, as a matter of urgency, be looking at a partial loan, at least, and encouraging our students to look to a career prospect at the end of their time at university? In other words, they go to university with a career aim at the end of it.

I share my hon. Friend's view. I would add only that it is clear now that the Conservative party is the party of social equity. That is why we are considering the possibility of sharing the cost of student maintenance between taxpayers, parents and students.

Is it not the Government's policy that it is desirable to increase the proportion, if not the absolute number, of working-class students attending our universities? Will he accept that even a top-up loan in this context would not be helpful?

The hon. Gentleman is inadvertently perpetuating the myth that access to higher education for those from low-income backgrounds is pre-determined by the current level of the grant. That is not the position. Access is pre-determined to a large extent by the quality of the schools which students attended, and the Opposition have much to answer for on that score.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the demonstrations that are taking place at the University of East Anglia in my constituency about the level of student grants? Is he further aware that in the latest incident a Mr. Osborne, a worker at the university, was physically injured? Will my hon. Friend accept that such demonstrations are counter-productive to the cause of the student fraternity?

In recent months I have often found myself wandering in what are called loan-free zones. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is deplorable that students should behave in the way to which he has referred. In my experience — I have been to many education institutions—the extremists are a minority. I have met many reasonable students who understand perfectly well what we are about in our review. They understand also that any Government will be faced with spending priorities. They know that student grants come from the same budget as the aid budget, the National Health Service budget and everything else.

Will the review be available in time for the debate during the general election, or will it be smuggled out afterwards? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so much money in his pocket, why cannot a little of it be used to increase student grants this year so that a start can be made to counter the erosion that has occurred, or are the Government insisting on penalising students to make it easier to introduce loans in due course?

The hon. Gentleman has involved himself in a double hypothesis. He does not know when the next general election will be and nor do I. I do not know when I shall complete the work on my review. I know, however, that I plan to do a thorough job. Likewise, the hon. Gentleman does not know when I shall complete that work. That being so, how can I possibly answer his supplementary question?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what number and proportion of unpublished reports of recent school inspections by Her Majesty's inspectors contain adverse comment about the state of school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend publishes all formal reports to him by Her Majesty's inspectors following their inspections of schools in England. All the reports refer to the state of school buildings and accommodation. I cannot comment on reports which are still in preparation.

Does the Minister accept that in the unpublished reports there are descriptions of school buildings that are in an unsatisfactory state and that the education of 1 million children is affected by this? Is it not a disgrace that 168 of these reports have not yet been published?

I find it difficult to comment on reports that have not yet come before us following their publication. I should like to have the hon. Gentleman's source of information.

Is my hon. Friend aware that too many head teachers have to spend too much time telephoning various departments of their county hall when dealing with school repairs? Would it not be a good idea if head teachers had more authority in dealing with these matters and local authorities had less?

That is precisely what our plans will bring about.

Is the Minister aware that the district auditor in Manchester has drawn attention to the insufficient funding of preventive maintenance and has concluded that that will lead to irreparable decay and higher maintenance costs. Does the Minister not believe that he is following a short-sighted policy?

I do not, and the facts speak for themselves. Our plans for local authority current expenditure in 1987–88 provide for a 14 per cent. increase, in real terms, in spending on the repair and maintenance of school buildings compared with what local authorities spent in 1984–85.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the accusations about school buildings are not what they seem? Did my hon. Friend notice that last week the Daily Mirror devoted its front page to the story of the demolition of a school in Leeds, Brownhill school? That report was grossly misleading because that Victorian school—a fine school—was demolished by the Labour council only because it was suffering as a result of mining subsidence. Far from there being a shortage of money, that school is being replaced by two new schools.

I understand precisely the point that my hon. Friend is making. I believe that we would have a far better debate in the House and in the country on the future school stock if Opposition Members accepted their share of the responsibility for the state of some of our schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of pupils now expected to be achieved by the first city technology college in each of the first four years of operation; and if he will make a statement.

The build-up of pupils in the first city technology college will depend on decisions yet to be taken about the preparation of the accommodation and the admission of pupils. In our discussions with sponsors we have emphasised that where possible we would like more than one year group to be admitted to a CTC from year one, and that we expect to see them move to full capacity as quickly as possible.

As to the initial stages of this first technology college to be established, about what proportion of the total cost will be covered by the sponsorships that have so far been obtained?

The proportion of the cost for which we have sponsorship relates to the capital, that is the cost of the buildings. My right hon. Friend will be supplying the costs for the revenue expenditure and that will depend on the number of students who enter the college at the first stage.

May I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents in Saltburn and Langbaurgh for the wise decision to keep the Huntcliff school open. I hope that my hon. Friend does not seek to rest on her laurels or those of her colleagues, because in Langbaurgh planning application is already at an advanced stage for a CTC. The public notices are up and the money is coming in, led by Davy International. Please do not listen to Alistair Graham, listen to the people of Teesside. They want the CTC.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the initiative for the CTCs is widely welcomed, not only by people and parents, but by industrialists.

The truth of the matter is that industrial chiefs are not sending money for those colleges for two principal reasons. First, they are fed up to the back teeth with the Tory party chairman sending begging letters asking for money to fight the general election. One of them was alleged to have said, "They have a damned cheek asking us for money to fight the election and asking us for money to look after these colleges at the same time." That is the real truth of the matter and that is why the Government are unable to get the money they thought they would get in the first place.

Quite apart from the fact that I would have liked to know the second reason, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all his speculation is completely unfounded. The CTCs are finding good support from industrialists.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has had to his statement on teachers' pay and conditions of employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what view head teachers have expressed to him on his proposals on teachers' pay.

I am awaiting responses from those organisations which I am consulting about my proposals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's strong vote by the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association against strikes contrasts with yesterday's strikes by other teacher unions? That underlines the disunity within the teaching profession. Surely the time has come for all strikes to end, in the interests of children, and for my right hon. Friend and all teachers' unions to produce a successor to the Burnham machinery for the discussion, as soon as possible, of teachers' pay and conditions and, above all, a strike-free deal.

I warmly welcome the fact that the third largest teachers' union, the AMMA, has voted today not to go on strike. This means that in the ballots which have been held fewer than half the teachers overall have voted for strike or other action. In my view, and I think that of most people, these strikes are totally unjustified. Parents do not understand why teachers are causing disruption when what is proposed will mean a 25 per cent. pay increase over 18 months.

Mr. Tim Smith.

Is my right hon. Friend aware —[Interruption.]

Order. I have called the hon. Member to speak from the side Gallery because he cannot find a seat on the Floor.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Norman Willis has said that the two largest teachers' unions should merge and that their rivalry has done teachers no good? Might he not have added that their rivalry has done the children no good either and that the sooner they get back to work the better?

That is very good advice from on high. I should like to add my words to it. I very much hope that as a result of today's ballot those militant union leaders who are still calling out some of their members on strike will stop. The only people who suffer as a result of these strikes are the children. We should not take it out on the children.

As the Secretary of State well knows, the alliance does not believe that the teachers should be striking at the moment. Does he agree that that action will damage not only the children's education but the teachers' cause? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people outside the House and, indeed, outside politics, recognise that his action in withdrawing without limit the rights to negotiate pay and conditions was a deliberately provocative act, so that he now bears the burden of the blame for some of the disruption which is going on in our schools?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the Government introduced the interim advisory committee because the negotiating procedures had led nowhere over the past four years. I have provided a breathing space and a cooling-off period to determine more permanent satisfactory arrangements. I very much hope that all the unions will take advantage of this cooling-off period.

I welcome AMMA's decision today. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the enormous increase in the membership of the Professional Association of Teachers, which, as a union committed not to strike, has increased its membership from 16,000 in 1980, when it was recognised, to 42,000 today? Will he take this opportunity to remind those who deplore the leadership of the NUT and the National Association of Schoolmasters that there is another strong union today?

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The union which has grown most in the past few years is the Professional Association of Teachers, which is committed not to taking strike action. The other union which has also grown is AMMA, which today voted against striking. The union which has dropped in membership is the NUT, which is out on strike. I think that I speak for the whole House when I say that I very much hope that these disruptive strikes will come to an end. They are not justified.

Is it not a fact that, whoever has voted not to come out on strike, three quarters of the teaching profession have voted to do so? [Interruption.] That, despite all the attempts to shout me down, is the reality of what the Secretary of State has done to the education of our children by trying to get rid of a negotiating process which has existed for more than 100 years, and which has never been broken before, except by this tyrannical Government.

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has got his figures all wrong. Fewer than half the teaching profession has voted to take strike action. Indeed, the response to the strike action was very patchy last week. In some counties, only 5 per cent. of the schools were closed. There were stronger responses in the cities and towns, but much less in the rural areas and in the primary schools. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will add his voice in his union to discourage further strike action.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has precluded the setting up of a new, balanced negotiating machinery at the end of the three-year transitional period?

I would emphasise to my hon. Friend that I have said that we now have a cooling-off period in order to determine more permanent and satisfactory arrangements. There are broadly two views, one moving to an independent review body, coupled with certain conditions—possibly a "no-strike" arrangement—or, alternatively some form of joint negotiation. We cannot return to the latter at the moment, because the unions are hopelessly divided. So a cooling-off period is needed.

We deeply regret the continued disruption in our schools. Nobody wants the teachers to be on strike, but is it not the case that when the Secretary of State removed teachers' bargaining rights and imposed his own plan he was taking a dangerous gamble—one that has not come off? Does he not understand that parents who have had to put up with at least two years' disruption are now expecting him to use the authority of his office to bring peace to our classrooms by hastening a return to collective bargaining?

The hon. Gentleman deplores the strike. Could he perhaps express that view to a prominent member of the Labour party and chairman of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. Fred Jarvis, and deplore the fact that these unions and their militant leaders are calling teachers out on strike? These strikes are harmful to the children. Those teachers who come out will not be forgiven. The proposals that I have put forward are of an interim nature. What we want is to move towards better, permanent arrangements.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be widespread concern at yesterday's crime figures. which is why many people will welcome the tougher sentences contained in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before the House? Is she not saddened by the fact that, on certain provisions, particularly the clause that would have allowed for a review of lenient sentences, Opposition Members actually voted against them?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The crime figures published yesterday mean that we shall be even more determined in pursuing our policy to see that the police and the courts have the powers and resources that they need and to encourage people to take more steps to prevent crime. I agree with my hon. Friend that the attitude taken by the Opposition, both in local authorities and in this House, does nothing to help us fight crime.

Does the Prime Minister recall my previous request to her to provide people, especially old people, with help to make their homes secure, to provide for the improvement of housing and lighting schemes and seriously to combat unemployment as practical ways of assisting the police in their increasingly difficult task of preventing and detecting crime? In view of yesterday's truly shocking crime figures and of the 50 per cent. increase in crime since her Government came to office, will the Prime Minister now respond urgently and positively to those requests? Or does she take the same supine view as her Home Secretary, that the Government's anti-crime programme is simply taking time to work?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is already help for older folk with crime prevention schemes. It is operated through the community programme scheme, and operated very well indeed. I welcome the desire for more neighbourhood watch schemes, which already number, I understand, nearly 20,000, are working well and are preventing crime in a number of areas.

First, all that the right hon. Lady says about Labour party policy is absolute rubbish and completely untrue. Secondly, anyone of any political colour who seeks to impede the proper work of the police is being simply anti-social. No one should be permitted to fall down on his or her public responsibilities. Thirdly, although the various initiatives which the right hon. Lady listed are all worth while, most of them, sadly, are only worthy palliatives. When will the right hon. Lady take action to strike at the social and economic roots of crime, to give people, especially women and old people, proper protection and to take up the issue of recruitment in order to remove the administrative burden on the police, including that imposed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that keeps—[Interruption.]

Order.

I thought that it would not be long before the Tory party gave up being concerned about crime.

I would have more respect for what the right hon. Gentleman has said if he had supported the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I would have more respect for what he has said if he had supported the proposal to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal, and I would have had more respect if his party had supported us in voting for increased maximum penalties. He did none of those things. His party voted against all three.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would welcome the conversion of the Leader of the Opposition to the cause of law and order if he now demonstrated that he will persuade—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Would not the cause of law and order be better served if my right hon. Friend would illustrate to us the importance of the loony Left not running down the police on every occasion, and of allowing the police to get on with their job instead of having to monitor processions run by such groups?

The activities of some Labour authorities in undermining the police are well known and I believe that until they are totally and utterly repudiated we must take them into account in viewing the way in which the Opposition propose to tackle crime.

Will the Prime Minister — [Interruption.]

Order.

Will the Prime Minister recall the question to the Attorney-General yesterday of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and will she accept that, speaking as the Home Secretary for most of the relevant period, I entirely endorse what he said? Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is now her clear duty to set up an inquiry into the activities of certain elements in the Security Service during the mid-1970s?

The Prime Minister of the day made a statement on that matter, and I have nothing to add to what he said.

Will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that, after she has won the next general election, she will look carefully at the existence of the Inner London education authority, with a view to reform or abolition?

The Local Government Act 1985 contains a power to review ILEA by 1991. We shall, of course, review its activities and its future.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

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

Surely the crime statistics that have been referred to will lead the right hon. Lady to reconsider her view that there is no relationship between unemployment and crime. Surely the huge increase in unemployment has had exactly such disastrous social consequences. Does she reject the old saying, which I dare say she heard at her father's knee, that the devil finds work for idle hands?

It is a sad fact that the peak age of offenders is 15 years, which is below the school-leaving age. It does not necessarily seem to support what the hon. Gentleman said. Academic research has suggested that there is no significant association between increases in recorded crime and increases in unemployment. I accept that, in general, the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used seems to be true, but it is not borne out by the research that we so far have. He will, of course, know that unemployment involved a much bigger proportion of the working population in the 1930s, but crime was nowhere near what it is today.

Will my right hon. Friend care to look at Hansard of three or four weeks ago, when Lord Mishcon, speaking from the Opposition Benches in the House of Lords on the subject of law and order, said that sentencing in this country was too long and too severe and that it should be shortened, as it is in Holland, where an armed robber would receive only four and a half years, as against 15 years in this country? Is that any way in which to combat crime?

We believe that it is the duty of the Government to see that sufficient maximum sentences are available to the courts in case they should be needed. We have therefore consistently looked at the maxima and increased them where necessary. For example, attempted rape now attracts a life sentence. In the Criminal Justice Bill, for carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime, even when not used, the sentence will be up to life. The last matter was, of course, opposed by the Labour Opposition.

With regard to the answer that the Prime Minister gave the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), why does the right hon. Lady keep calling in aid an inquiry of August 1977, the contents of which she cannot have seen, saying that the allegations that are currently made were investigated then, when they were not investigated then? Fresh allegations should be looked at. The more the Prime Minister calls in aid an inquiry, the contents of which she can know nothing about, the more she strengthens the case for an inquiry now.

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly referring to matters for which I am not, and cannot be, responsible. May I read once again the statement that the then Prime Minister made — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — to which I cannot possibly add. It was reported on 8 December 1977. The statement was made during the recess and was referred to in the House.

"The Prime Minister has conducted detailed inquiries into the recent allegations about the Security Service and is satisfied that they do not constitute grounds for lack of confidence in the competence and impartiality of the Security Service or for instituting a special inquiry." — [Official Report, 8 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1645.]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate, I could say it in Latin, but I shall not, that the permissive society one generation on has turned out to be the criminal society?

My hon. and learned Friend makes his own point very effectively.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

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

As the head of the Security Service, does the Prime Minister not recognise that if some dissident members of the Security Service in the 1970s tried to destabilise a Government whom they did not like, it strikes at the very heart of democracy? On reflection, therefore, does the Prime Minister not recognise, bearing in mind the answers that were given yesterday by the Attorney-General, that we cannot be satisfied with anything less than a full judicial inquiry about what happened during the time of a Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman is concerned with something that did not happen in my time and about which the Prime Minister of the day made a clear statement. [Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to listen to the Prime Minister.

The Labour Prime Minister of the day made a clear statement about it. The hon. Gentleman must take up that matter with that Prime Minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) said that the Leader of the Opposition had been converted to the cause of law and order. I should like you to ask him to withdraw that phrase.

Order. I do not think that it was unparliamentary, although it might have been rather offensive.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had not realised what a sensitive subject law and order is with the Opposition. In view of the embarrassment, of course I withdraw it.

The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) seems to be perturbed at the thought that the next Parliament might be a hung Parliament. That does not augur well for the sunshine forecasts of a great Conservative majority next time round. He may be taking a more realistic look at the situation than many of his right hon. and hon. Friends. He also mentioned inflation. I remind him that at a time during this Government, inflation reached 26 per cent. It was put up by this Government slapping on VAT at 15 per cent. The Chancellor takes a great deal of pride in reducing income tax, but it is clear that the lower-paid have lost out because of the imposition of 15 per cent. VAT against the reductions made in income tax.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would write and tell me the year in which VAT reached 26 per cent.

Inflation was at 26 per cent. As far as I recall, I did not say that VAT had reached 26 per cent.

I meant inflation.

I will do that.

I have to say to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that I have seen many Budgets in my time, and he has seen a few, but I do not think that either of us will ever see a Budget presented by the Scottish National party.

That was yesterday.

Oh, they have changed their minds, have they? [Interruption.]

Order. We are having a little too much audience participation.

We cannot hope for much from the Labour party, and I would guess that the country can hope for still less from the alliance parties, even if they were to do a deal with the Labour party.

The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) was not exactly ecstatic in his praise. The Chancellor delivered his Budget this afternoon. It contained few surprises. As usual, there were whispers beforehand. Some were accurate, and a few were not so accurate. I regret that there was nothing in the Budget for the ordinary pensioner. I reiterate the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He pointed out that the Government had previously broken the link between earnings and pensions. Pensions are now merely indexed in line with the retail prices index, with the result that the value for a single person is £8·05 per week less than under the old rule, and for a married couple it is £12·75 per week less. That drop has meant a considerable loss to pensioners, particularly those in real need. In that sense, the Chancellor fluffed his opportunity.

"The economic strategy based on neo-classical economics, which was introduced at the end of the 1970s, resulted in an increase in unemployment from 1 million to 3 million. It has now been almost entirely abandoned."

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) takes such a gloomy view of what I consider is an excellent Budget. Like many of his colleagues on the Opposition Benches, he must have had a very disappointing and unhappy afternoon. One only had to look at the sad faces of Opposition Members as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking to realise how many of them wished that they were hearing their own Chancellor making similar proposals.

We have heard a number of speeches from Conservative Members, not all of them quite as enthusiastic as that of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I did not detect a great upsurge of enthusiasm or very convincing cheering from Conservative Members when the Chancellor sat down. I wonder whether the Chancellor had lost that page and never found it. Some of the expressions on the faces of his hon. Friends gave the impression that they felt that something was missing from the Budget that they had been led to expect; that there would be more, but it has not actually arrived.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the tax relief proposals for oil exploration will be of considerable benefit to Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I was coming to.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a statutory maturation allowance. I am sure he would be honest enough to agree that the maturation allowance under statute was something for which the industry itself asked in the first place.

Yes, I agree absolutely, but my point is that the industry has not got it. I welcome the fact that the industry has put the application to the Government properly, but if I am not mistaken the point is that it is a statutory requirement that Scotch whisky should mature for three years. That is a major factor in the marketing of Scotch whisky. It is statutory, even if it was requested. The fact that that cost is incurred should be taken into account. The industry is looking for something reasonable. I do not regard it as unfair discrimination in favour of Scotch, but a recognition of the cost of making Scotch whisky over three years as opposed to the production cost of gin and vodka, which can be made in three hours and put straight on to the market.

I want to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his fourth Budget speech. Like his previous Budget speeches, this was well constructed and commendably brief. The House is indebted to my right hon. Friend for the style with which he presents his Budgets and for making what could so easily degenerate into a tedious repetition of dull economic facts an interesting parliamentary occasion.

Is it not rather strange that the Opposition Front Bench is unrepresented?

I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend believes that I have some responsibility for that, but I can assure him that I have not. However, I agree with him that that is very strange.

I will drink to that.

My hon. Friend has said that he will drink to that. Some of my hon. Friends will smoke to it as well, although I shall not.

In view of the fact that the Government have been unable to raise the £150 million to implement immediately the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, does the hon. Gentleman not think that the indexation of drink and tobacco would have raised more than that amount of money and would have been a worthwhile way of providing for disabled people who are not being provided for by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman is far too intelligent to think that such matters are interchangeable. There are other means of raising the money to which he referred.

What my hon. Friend has just said is completely contradicted by a research note produced by the Library, which is currently being issued, which shows that output is 0·2 per cent. higher over the same period. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to refer to that.

If my hon. Friend refers to the official statistics, he will find that my figures are correct. They are published by Her Majesty's Government's statistical service. I repeat that in the last quarter of last year, manufacturing industry was almost 10 per cent. lower than it was in the last quarter of 1973, and that was 13 years ago.

What about these Library figures?

These statistics from the Government are more reliable than some that my hon. Friend may have got from the Library.

Before the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) reached his peroration I was about to say that I agreed with many of the concerns that he expressed about unemployment and the need to remedy the decline in manufacturing capacity. In this Budget the unemployed have been forgotten and one of the few references that the Chancellor made to them was that there would be a threefold increase in the number of job clubs. I am sure that that will give great heart to the millions who are out of work. Even the references to improving vocational training incentives seemed to brush aside the recent report from the National Audit Office about value for money in respect of adult training programmes which the Government have been operating in recent years in an effort to try to reduce the unemployment statistics.

It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), but this is also a sad occasion because I understand that he will not be with us in the next Parliament. I for one will miss him because I remember what a good colleague he was at Western European Union and on the Council of Europe. I do not agree with a word that he says. I am surprised to find that he is so puritanical about credit cards and spending. No doubt, he would like to have a much harsher regime. However, it is always pleasant to debate and argue with him.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."

I read the Financial Times letter to the editor, but I thought that it said from 1948 to 1979.

If that was the case, their record is even worse because in that period we had low growth and rising inflation, particularly in the latter stages from 1974 to 1979 when the economic situation was undoubtedly deplorable. This morning Radio 4 pondered on a suitable collective noun for those advisers. I would suggest that "a folly of advisers" would be appropriate.

"The rich arrived in pairs and also in Rolls-Royces And talked of their affairs in loud and strident voices. The poor arrived in Fords, whose speeches they resembled And laughed to see so many lords and ladies there assembled. But the people in between were underdone and harassed And out of place and mean and horribly embarrassed."

Is it Belloc again?

No, it is not Belloc again. It is a much more distinguished quotation than that. It reads:

"If you want to retain power you have got to listen to what people …say and what they want. If you talk to people in the factories and in the clubs, they all want to pay less tax. They are more interested in that than the Government giving money away in other directions."

The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) is the first Member to show some enthusiasm for the Budget——