asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he has proposed to public boarding schools with high fees to enable them to take part in the assisted places scheme.

Perhaps I might first say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State sends his apologies because illness prevents him from attending the House today.

We hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State will soon be better. However, has the Secretary of State not written to some of these schools indicating that there is a basis for a scheme involving the assisted places money plus these extra funds? Does not this represent a change in the scheme from what the hon. Gentleman himself has argued, as one mainly based on the old direct grant schools, and does it not mean that money will go to children who might have gone to these schools anyway, instead of being deployed in the State schools?

I am sure that the hon. Member understands that one of the problems with the direct grant schools is the distribution of the assisted places scheme, as compared with the oldest direct grant schools, which are often centralised in certain areas of the country. My right hon. and learned Friend welcomed an opportunity of possibly providing boarding places from which the cost of boarding was covered by bursaries from the schools themselves—I believe that 80 schools, offering about 400 places, have mentioned this—but where the only sums paid by the State were the day school fees, which we shall look at carefully, because, obviously, with a limited sum of money, one cannot increase the number.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that at a time of economic difficulty many people continue to make enormous sacrifices in order to send their children to schools in the private education sector? Does he agree that what we should do is try to find ways in which the State sector can learn from the success of the private sector, rather than that Labour Members, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is about to do, should continue their wheedling campaign of envy against the private sector?

I think that one thing that the independent sector can teach the State schools is the ultimate response to parents and what they want. This is not a reflection upon the teachers in the State system or the parents. Independent schools will exist only as long as they give an automatic response to what parents wish.

Reverting to the question that was tabled, may I ask what is the hon. Gentleman's view of local authority finances being used to top up the assisted places scheme to provide places at boarding schools, in view of the figures provided to us by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy indicating that there are local authorities which are spending more on buying places in the private sector than on financing books in their own schools?

My answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is that I do not think that the two things are related. Obviously children who attend schools in the State sector will have to be paid for. In Wirral—one of the authorities mentioned—more is spent on toilet paper than on special education. That does not mean that those schools should not have toilet rolls. A comparison between the two is meaningless. If local authorities decide, within their rights, that the education of pupils can best be served by sending them on bursaries to schools at which the State pays the day fee, that will be allowed.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the university teachers' pay settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reach a decision on the pay of university teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the Association of University Teachers salaries claim.

I hope that a meeting of the negotiating committee can be arranged very shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that great frustration and domestic difficulty are being caused to university teachers in my constituency because of the delay in announcing the decision? Is he further aware that they are particularly frustrated because they have completed their side of the negotiations in line with Government directions? Will he give an assurance that an announcement will be made soon?

We hope that a meeting will be arranged shortly. If the Clegg Commission had reported when it had intended to, the payment would still not have been made by September. We trust that the issue will be settled well before then.

Does my hon. Friend understand that the main concern of such articulate, not to say literate, people is that they may be caught—as they were before—by a policy change? Does he accept that their anxieties rest on that score, rather than on the amount of the increase at issue?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I know that there is strong feeling in the country on this issue. I have received letters, as I am sure every hon. Member has, about the settlement. However, we intend to call a meeting shortly to sort out the matter.

Why has there been a delay of more than seven weeks since the pay proposals were first agreed with the employers and set within the Government's cash limits? Will the Minister assure us that he will not allow university teachers to be used as scapegoats for the failure of the Government's counter-inflation policy, particularly in view of yesterday's announcement that Cabinet Ministers will get as much as £90 a week extra, which will take them up to over £30,000 a year?

One of the concerns of university teachers is the way in which they were treated in 1975 by the Labour Govt. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that. That is why university teachers feel so strongly about this matter. We are considering cash limits and comparability. As I have said, we shall call a meeting shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that university teachers will never forget the manner in which they were treated in 1975? Will he give an assurance that there will be no repetition of that lamentable episode?

The Government do not intend to treat university teachers differently from other people, or in the way that they were treated in 1975.

Has the settlement that was agreed between the employers and the unions on university teachers' pay been approved by the appropriate Cabinet sub-committee? Clearly, a Cabinet sub-committee is vetting public sector pay. The hon. Gentleman has only to tell the House whether the Government approve the settlement reached between the unions and the employers. Do the Government approve?

There is a proper place in which to make this announcement. It will not be made to the hon. Gentleman in this Chamber. Presumably, trade unionists on the Opposition Benches would expect proper negotiations to take place. The recommendation will pass from committee A to committee B, and that is where the announcement will be made.

Will the Minister give a specific assurance that the settlement that is reached will not be subject to the new 9¾ per cent. pay policy?

Committee B has not yet been called. When the committee is called, and when the Government are represented, a statement will be made about the acceptability of the settlement that came from committee A.

Despite my hon. Friend's remarks about the original September announcement in the Clegg report, does he agree that it is unfair that university teachers should suffer from the prevarications and incompetence of the Clegg Commission in the meantime?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As soon as teachers indicate that they would prefer direct negotiations to waiting for the Clegg Commission, we shall agree to undertake them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities regarding the provision of school books.

Officers of my Department and of the local authority associations are currently engaged in detailed discussions about the Government's expenditure plans and their implications for local authority expenditure, including expenditure on school books and equipment.

Has the Secretary of State changed his mind since attending the press conference of the National Association of Head Teachers, where he stumbled into the vicious and hardhearted notion that parents should buy school textbooks? Has he seen that the proposals put forward by a headmaster of a Solihull comprehensive school has been condemned as moral blackmail? Does he not know that all the teaching unions have condemned the proposal that parents should be forced and blackmailed into buying textbooks? Is this not a demonstration of the Government's warped and corrupt priorities? They are forcing parents to buy books, yet they are spending £10·7 billion on defence.

At the risk of not being succinct, I should point out that the House must understand precisely what has occurred during the past few weeks. Once again the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has exaggerated his case. His remarks will not persuade any Conservative Members. He should understand that as he was not present at the press conference that took place in Cheltenham he is unaware that my right hon. and learned Friend did no more than echo the long tradition that parent-teacher associations raise money to buy books and equipment for schools. Such exaggeration was highlighted a few weeks ago. I hope that I shall put the record straight when I point out that in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) on 25 June, my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that an exaggerated article appeared in The Teacher, which indicated that there were no textbooks in a particular school. We have looked into the matter and discovered that it involves a comprehensive school for 12- to 18-year-olds. The school has 26,000 textbooks on its premises. In addition, the library has 8,500 books. I hope that Opposition Members will understand once and for all that they do not serve national or constituency interests when they make such exaggerated claims.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a large amount of hard and software in use in schools, including photocopiers, which is very expensive? Does he accept that there has been a change in the pattern of education, particularly at secondary level, and that expenditure on books will not reach former levels because there is so much alleviating expenditure in other areas?

My hon. Friend has made an accurate historical survey of the past 10 years. Over the past 10 or 15 years there has been a wider use of different equipment in the classroom. Expenditure may therefore have got out of balance in that area.

Has not the situation in Britain's schools been grossly misrepresented? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, according to The Times Educational Supplement, parents raised £23 million last year? Does he accept also that much of that money is of dire necessity because of the shortage of school books? Until the hon. Gentleman has found a way to replace the irreplaceable—the educational value of school books—will he confine himself to fulfilling his duty? Will he ensure that sufficient supplies of necessary materials are available to children in schools? Will he stop being complacent and atavistic in his attitude towards what has gone on in the past?

Nobody in the Department of Education and Science is complacent. One source of gross misrepresentation has been the behaviour of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).

The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that.

The one person who has not got away with it is the hon. Gentleman. If hon. Members read the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 25 June, they will see that the source of information about that school in Staffordshire—as reported in The Teacher—was the hon. Member for Bedwellty. There is no truth in that story.

In view of the fact that the reference in The Teacher was obviously hyperbole, and that the article contained a misprint in that it referred to "Wellington", not Werrington, I fail to see how morale was affected in any of the ways that the Under-Secretary has suggested. Is it not a fact that until his right hon. and learned Friend went to the extraordinary pains and expense of getting a planted question on this matter no one was affected by it?

Methinks the hon. Member doth protest too much. The only person who has engaged in hyperbole is the hon. Member for Bedwellty. It is a shame that once again his reputation is somewhat tattered and torn. I am sorry not to be succinct on this occasion, but I must point out that the Government have announced an increase in expenditure of £35 million over the next three years. In addition, the Government have allowed for an increase of 2 per cent. in expenditure on books in the current financial year.

We very much welcome that increase in expenditure. Will my hon. Friend talk not only to the local authorities but to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, because the rural areas are still suffering from the gerrymandering of the rate support grant? Is my hon. Friend aware that this means that schools in rural areas are doing less well than those with over-provision in many of the large urban areas?

That is a valid point. I hope that a dialogue will take place between my Department and the Department of the Environment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total expenditure on school textbooks and other classroom materials in each of the last five years.

The information for the financial year 1979–80 is not yet available. Expenditure in real terms for the previous four years was respectively—£194 million, £188 million, £181 million and £187 million.

Is the Minister aware that those figures show that it is important to try to maintain the level of expenditure? Following the answers that were given to the last question, is he aware that when fees were made illegal in grant-aided schools under the 1944 Education Act, it was always considered that charging money for textbooks was included in that provision? Is he now saying that the Government take the opposite view and that they believe that the 1944 Act did not cover payment for school books?

Some years ago when I was teaching in schools, and the hon. Member was a teacher himself, I remember money being used from the school fund, raised by parents, to provide sixth form books when there was a shortage. I was trying to help the hon. Member by giving this year's figures but he has chosen to make cheap points. The figures this year are likely to be the same in real terms as those for last year, if not slightly higher.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the estimate of £35 million mentioned in the last question for school equipment and books will be very welcome? Can he assure the House that the money that is earmarked for that purpose over that period will be spent by local education authorities for that purpose?

I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the £35 million. We have put back that amount because it is the amount thtat would have been spent had there not been cuts by the Labour Government in 1976–77. We are restoring the situation to what it would have been without those cuts. On the second point, one cannot have local democracy and at the same time put a gun at local authorities' backs every time they make a decision. All that we can do is to indicate that we consider that books are important as part of the basic structure of school facilities and the education of children, and any money spent on them is certainly never wasted.

Will the Minister stop pretending that there is not a serious crisis in Star schools over school textbooks? Such a crisis exists, and if the Minister will not accept what has been said, quite correctly, from this side of the House, will he ask the Publishers Association, which has repeatedly told us recently that the drop in the sale of textbooks in schools is catastrophic? The association is deeply worried about the situation. What has the Minister to say about that?

I always enjoy the hon. Member's interventions. He is indulging in hyperbole, in the same way as his hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) did. The figures for money spent on school books are largely static in real terms. Schools can always use more books. It would be interesting to know the lifetime of books in schools today, compared with 20 years ago. There was a time when books were replaced every five years, and it would be interesting to have comparisons of figures for the past 20 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the 18-year age group now enters some form of higher education; and what proportion of that year group entering higher education is expected in the coming years.

In the academic year 1979–80 provisional estimates for Great Britain are that new young home entrants constituted 12 per cent. of the 18-year age group in higher education. Over the next four years this percentage is expected to remain at about that level.

Will my hon Friend confirm that school leavers with good A-levels should have no difficulty in pursuing a course of higher education? Does this not apply particularly to those who wish to study science or technology?

Yes, that is the case. The opportunities for school leavers generally at universities and polytechnics will not decline. Provided that the student attains a reasonable standard in his sixth form he can expect to find a suitable place in higher education. While there can be no direction on our part, students would be wise to consider seriously courses in science, engineering and technology generally. That is the thrust of the Government's plans.

What steps is the Minister taking to encourage 18-year-olds to go into applied sciences, to read engineering, and so on? There is a great shortage of young scientists thoughout the country, and not enough encouragement is given by Government to young people to enter these occupations.

I do not think that that is strictly accurate. Over the past three or four years there has been a growing awareness of the paucity of such students in schools and colleges. The previous Administration and this Government have initiated a number of activities, such as the standing conference on school science and technology, the establishment of SATROs—the science and technology regional organisations—and the Finniston committee of inquiry. There is an upturn in the numbers applying for science and engineering courses, particularly among young girls in the latter discipline.

Surely the question of increasing the number of entrants to higher education at the age of 18 cannot go to the top of the educational agenda now, when there is a need to expand the number of part-time places, particularly to encourage professional people to return to courses to update their knowledge and skills?

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that flexibility and retraining are important. I hope that all those engaged in education will acknowledge that.

The Minister sounds rather complacent about this matter. How much emphasis is placed on the question of technical education in the review that is being undertaken of provision for 16 to 19-year-olds? I believe that the Minister told us that the result would be available in he autumn.

I confirm that. I hope to report to the House by the end of November. Certainly, it is an all-important subject. The aspect of technical education is something that has emerged from the curriculum survey and our views and findings on that will be made known before the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the conclusions of the inquiry into the education service in inner London.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to publish the report of the committee currently examining education in inner London under the chairmanship of Lady Young.

As my right hon. and learned Friend explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on 11 June, when the Government have completed their examination, he will make a statement to the House.

Am I right in believing that any decision announced by the Government will be based on the interests of children's education rather than on political dogma? Even if it is decided that ILEA should remain unified for a time will we be able to continue the debate so that children who have passed the secret 11-plus will have a better opportunity of attending the secondary school of their choice? Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency that is not necessarily so at present?

The interests of children's education will be paramount in any decision. I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. ILEA is one of the few authorities that handicaps children who prove themselves very bright at the age of 11.

That is untrue.

Does the hon. Gentleman's original answer mean that the report will not be published? If so, what do the Government have to hide?

The Government have nothing to hide. We are prepared to look at the question of ILEA, which was considered by the Herbert Commission in 1963, and in the Marshal and the Baker reports. It is important to get the matter settled this time. Perhaps I might clarify my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) by saying that, within ILEA, if a child has a top grading, the parents often find that instead of going to a school of their choice the child is moved elsewhere to balance school intakes.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the committee examining the future of ILEA considers the option canvassed in one newspaper, namely, that those inner London boroughs that want to withdraw should be allowed to, provided that proper financial arrangements can be made? Does he accept that that would involve local communities more directly in their own educational services, which is what happens in the remainder of the country?

I am sure that that is one matter that will be considered by the committee, together with the right of withdrawal of individual authorities, the break-up of the authority, grouping or even direct election to ILEA.

Can the Minister confirm that the Greater London Conservative Advisory Committee has recently pronounced against the break-up of ILEA? How many submissions has the Minister's Department received on that matter, and what proportion has been against the break-up of ILEA? Why has his Department not undertaken to have direct consultations with parents in the authority's area, when it is clear from the spontaneous reactions of parents in London that they are very much against the break-up of ILEA?

Considerable numbers of individuals and groups have written to my Department. I have not seen the report that the hon. Lady mentioned. I shall look into the matter and make sure that she has a copy. If it comes from the Greater London Conservative Advisory Committee it will be of great benefit to the House. On the hon. Lady's second point, if a decision is made by the Secretary of State that there should be an alteration in the arrangements for inner London, further discussions and debate will take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he is doing to study the comparative pay of technicians working for universities, with those of outside industry.

A comparative study of the pay of university technicians has been referred to the Standing Commission on pay comparability, and a report is expected by the end of the month.

Does the Minister consider that technicians' pay awards should be determined by cash limits, or by pay comparability?

I do not know what the report will say. I know the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is important that universities have proper laboratory back-up. We have tried to hasten the report. When we have it, we shall consider the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now consider seeking to raise the school leaving age to 17 years.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that 500 boys and girls applied for four jobs at a shop in Sheffield the other day? As the Government are so grotesquely incompetent in providing work opportunities for our boys and girls, will they consider expanding full-time education opportunities so that these boys and girls can train for a useful career for the future, when we have a civilised Government?

I do not believe that raising the school-leaving age to 17 will necessarily solve the problems to which the hon. Gentleman rightly draws our attention. The message generally is that more flexibility is required to assist earlier training in schools and other educational institutions to match national needs. Raising the school-leaving age to 17 would increase expenditure by about £300 million, and I am not convinced that it would match national needs.

Will my hon. Friend consider whether students could leave school before the age of 16, in circumstance where they would continue in a learning environment?

Yes. The matter is considered regularly. In recent months my right hon. and learned Friend has been asked to consider proposals for more flexible school leaving arrangements, and the matter is under consideration.

Will the Minister reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), because the situation has reached proportions of national shame, with 2,000 school leavers appearing before selection officers for three technical positions?

I do not believe that I ignored the matter that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) raised. We are aware that there is a grave problem, but we are aware also that over the next couple of years economic recovery is our most important problem. I do not wish to stray on to employment matters, but it would be interesting to know how many semi-skilled and skilled jobs are on offer. That is why I mentioned earlier training in the school environment.

Instead of obliging youngsters to stay on at school until the age of 17, would it not be preferable to encourage them to undertake further education and training after leaving school, bearing in mind that the majority of youngsters who cannot find jobs have left school without training or the ability to do skilled work?

There has been an absence of such provision in schools over the past 15 years. Many local authorities advertise fully the advantages of further education, which the Department of Education and Science welcomes. However, this is a matter for local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage the greater use of school premises out of school hours.

The Government's policy is to encourage the fullest possible use of school premises by the community. The Department and the Welsh Office have undertaken a sample survey of the extent to which schools are used for this purpose, and my right hon. and learned Friend expects to receive results shortly.

Bearing in mind the tremendous investment in school buildings and facilities, does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities place far too many restrictions on their use, particularly at a time when the prospects for young people who are not fully qualified are pretty dim and when we need more teaching of mathematics and science? Will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities to make better use of school facilities, particularly in regard to those critical aspects?

So far as we are entitled and able to do so, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall endeavour to do that. The greater use of schools and educational establishments by the community can be of enormous benefit. I hope that local authorities and teachers will consider removing any barriers that they may have created to the wider use of school premises. School premises have an enormous part to play in any community.

Will the Minister accept that I consider that that is a good idea? However, can he assure me that in areas such as my constituency, where such provision is necessary, councils will not be accused of wasting money on overtime or employing more caretakers? Will he assure us that there will be no attempt to cut expenditure on such provision?

That is a matter for the London borough of Newham. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the use of school premises is a matter for local authorities and head teachers, who must resolve questions of charging and cost.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) has raised an interesting issue. Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of the addtional use of school premises often comes down to whether caretakers are prepared to allow bookings to be made? As we do not want caretakers to work too long hours, is there any way in which organisations seeking to use school premises could attend to the premises by cleaning and setting out the facilities?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting and important aspect of the problem. In the final analysis, it is up to everyone in local authorities and schools to try to eliminate the existing barriers. I have no doubt that the barriers exist, and I hope that all concerned will get together to thrash out the problems.

Instead of passing the buck to local authorities, will the Minister take the initiative and send a circular to authorities encouraging them to make use of facilities provided at public expense, particularly so that they can employ more people in the present desperate situation and ensure that facilities are fully used?

It is not a question of passing the buck. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the DES, and he knows what the 1944 Act permits. We appreciate the points that he has made, but he must understand that local authorities have the final decision. The previous Administration sent out a circular and we have conducted a sample survey of some 2,000 primary schools and 1,000 secondary schools to find out precisely what provision is made. As soon as the results are to hand, we shall tell the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will make an order to fix the time within which voluntary and county schools should alter the composition of their governing bodies to conform to the requirement of the new Education Act.

We made it clear to the House during the passage of what is now the 1980 Act that the further application of the new provisions would be a gradual process, and we have no immediate intention of making orders under section 2(11) to impose a statutory requirement to change instruments of government already in force.

While welcoming the further implementation of the parents' charter, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think that the rather open time scale, with the local government election cycle pending from spring next year, will lay us open to a certain amount of gerrymandering of time scales, if not, indeed, of boundaries?

I take my hon. Friend's point. Our information is that an increasing number of schools are appointing parent governors, elected from the parents' body, and teacher governors. It is our intention to allow that movement to continue. When we find that certain authorities are taking no action, we shall introduce the order to bring everybody into line.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet decided upon the future role, if any, of regional advisory councils.

The regional advisory councils were set up and are maintained by their constituent local education authorities. These authorities will no doubt consider the future role of the councils in the light of future developments nationally.

Does not that reply suggest that, yet again, the Department has no policy in this area? Will the Minister clarify the matter?

The Department has a policy, and part of it is to consult teacher associations, university vice-principals and heads of polytechnics. The regional advisory councils are the area councils that represent all parts of higher education, and they have played a full role. We cannot say exactly what they will do in the new set-up that is likely to emerge, but I have no doubt that they will evolve a useful role.

Is it not about time that these inept bodies were abolished?

That is a straight and honest statement. It is interesting to note that such statements come only from this side of the House. I know my hon. Friend's view on this question, but they are not necessarily held by everybody else in the country or even by everyone on this side of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the numbers of mathematics, science and foreign languages teachers in England; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to increase the numbers of mathematics teachers in schools.

No, Sir, my right hon. and learned Friend is not satisfied. There is a persistent shortage of some subjects to which training institutions are giving priority, but recruitment is falling short of its targets. The Government's special schemes of training, retraining, and further training are to continue to 1982–83, and we are shortly to discuss further measures with representatives of the local education authorities.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if he is falling short of recruitment targets in the present economic situation, that says a great deal about the type of recruitment and training schemes? Is he aware that both parents and teachers are concerned about the present situation, where many classes are being taught by comparatively inexperienced teachers who, however dedicated they may be, are not qualified in the appropriate subject? Will he do something to ensure that recruitment and training schemes are urgently stepped up?

The hon. Lady must understand that we are taking a number of initiatives, both with local authorities and with other employers of labour who have personnel who are retiring, perhaps with science degrees. We are trying to get them to come back for retraining, and a number of teachers have been recruited in that way. I do not underestimate the persistent problem that we have had for a number of years. We are trying all possible remedial action to deal with it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in this microchip age, all of us—Government, industry and the country as a whole—must get our sums right, and that mathematics will be vital? Will he encourage people in the Civil Service, where there are to be a large number of redundancies, to come out and be retrained to teach in our schools?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting matter, to which we shall give close attention.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Dr. Albrecht, the Minister President of Lower Saxony. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

When will the Prime Minister recognise that the massive increase in unemployment, the dumping of cheap exports in this country, high interest rates, an overvalued pound and the consequent irreparable damage being done to British industry constitute an utter condemnation of the obsolete monetarist policies that she is pursuing? Is there any point along the road to disaster at which she will turn aside from those misguided policies?

With regard to the dumping of goods, we try to take action as quickly as possible through the European Commission. With regard to interest rates, the money supply figures permitted a slight reduction in interest rates, which was a move in the right direction. With regard to the unemployment figures, I believe that it is generally accepted that the top priority must be to fight inflation. Only when that battle is won will there be a firm enough base on which to expand manufacturing industry. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's strictures on manufacturing industry, I must tell him that during the lifetime of the previous Government the output of manufacturing industry fell.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will remain steadfast to the communiqué issued in Venice on the Middle East, and will remain opposed to any attempt by Israel to alter unilaterally the status of Jerusalem?

That matter was dealt with in the communiqué issued from Venice. The communiqué is being put into effect by contacts being made with the many parties involved in the Middle East problem.

Does the Prime Minister feel that the Government's incentive Budget of a year ago has stimulated a great industrial revival?

There are many firms that are world beaters and doing extremely well, and I doubt whether they would be doing as well but for that incentive Budget. Many people who would otherwise have remained overseas have come home to start up new businesses.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a wage claim of 35 per cent. from the miners in the present economic circumstances is unrealistic? Does she further agree that the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers should receive every encouragement from hon. Members to reach a more moderate settlement?

This is the season of trade union conferences. Parliament gets accustomed to a number of high claims being made. It is not so much the claims as the settlements with which I am concerned, as is everyone who is concerned with the cost and price of coal this year and the price of electricity. What the miners decide will determine the price of electricity next year.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 8 July.

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

Is the right hon. Lady yet able to say how she will find thousands of new jobs for redundant steel workers? Can she say what intervention she will make to save the tottering textile industry? Is she not experiencing just a tremor of panic as the British manufacturing base collapses because of her outrageous policies?

It is ridiculous to say that the British manufacturing base is collapsing. With regard to the problems of steel, the British taxpayer has poured about £5,000 million into the steel industry over the last five years. A number of closures have to be made, and Shotton was one of them. About £15 million was put into the Shotton area to try to mitigate the effects of some of the redundancies and to start new jobs.

In view of the fondness of the Opposition and certain sections of the press for the bad news all the time, will my right hon. Friend take time today to draw up a list of all those aspects of the economy in which there are signs of an improvement in productivity? Will she consider the possibility of a Queen's Award for increased productivity?

I have not considered a Queen's Award for improvement in productivity, but my hon. Friend is right. There are areas where there have been great improvements in productivity—

The miners.

The miners, I agree, have made improvements in productivity. The average miner's wage at the coalface is £147 a week. They have made improvements in productivity. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) will be delighted to receive confirmation from the Opposition Benches of what he said.

When the right hon. Lady refers to closures in the steel industry that have to be made—I use her words—is she referring to the prospect of either Port Talbot or Llanwern steelworks being closed, because that is the greatest fear afflicting South Wales at present? If so, what would be the consequential impact on the coal mines of South Wales? Would we then be ready to close coal mines that are capable of producing coal in an efficient way because there is not the demand from the steel industry? If not, what is the Government's policy? How will the right hon. Lady protect the people of South Wales and elsewhere from the ravages of Government policy?

With regard to the proposed steel closures, the new chairman who has just gone into the British Steel Corporation is making a full and up-to-date assessment of the position of British Steel and will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he has had time to make that assessment.

Is the right hon. Lady aware—she must be—of the controversy over the subsidising of coal production in other countries compared with the subsidy here? Her Government propose to taper the subsidy on operating costs so that it is wiped out in two or three years' time. I ask her, in the interests of this country in 20 years' time, whether she is prepared to see coal mines closed, in the knowledge that the coal that could be produced will be for ever forgone and that succeeding generations will never be able to mine it?

The external finance limit of the National Coal Board in the current year is about £834 million. That is a considerable subsidy by the British taxpayer to coal mines. There is also a substantial subsidy to steel. There are high subsidies to coal in other countries. The trouble is that we provide subsidies for far too many industries—coal, steel, British Leyland, shipbuilding and, last year, electricity. It is one thing after another. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that some industries have to produce the subsidies that others receive.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that those subsidies were made at a time when growth in manufacturing and other industries of this country was increasing at the rate of 3 per cent., when inflation was below 10 per cent., and when we had a decent incomes policy? When will she abandon her present policy, so that we can get back to that situation again?

During the stewardship of the previous Labour Government average earnings increased by 113 per cent., retail prices by 106 per cent., and manufacturing output fell by 2 per cent.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Does my right hon. Friend envisage any circumstances in which there will need to be an early amendment of the Act of Settlement 1701?

The Act of Settlement remains in force and the Government have no plans to change it.

Will the Prime Minister say whether her recent statements mean that she now has an incomes policy for the public sector, and free collective bargaining for the private sector?

I have what most employers have had ever since employers began—a policy for the pay that one pays to one's employees.

Against the background of the welcome rejection of the recommendations of the Boyle report, will my right hon. Friend find time to comment today on the statement of the president of the Nottinghamshire miners that the Government are out to create an unequal society, so why should the miners not get what they can?

I should think that many miners are pleased with the pay that they are earning, which is £147 a week for coalface workers. I think that that is evidenced by the fact that, according to reports, there is now a queue of young people wanting to become miners.

To return to the Act of Settlement and the current speculation about whom the Prince of Wales may or may not marry, is not the most important consideration the fact that he should be able to lead his own life and find his own way to happiness, like everyone else?

I have already replied that the Act of Settlement remains in force and that the Government have no plans to change it. There is nothing that I can usefully add.