asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the level of fees for overseas students.

Since the beginning of this year some 180 representations have been received by my right hon. and learned Friend from hon. Members, students and their organisations, academic institutions and national bodies.

If this uneducated Tory Government are too mean to abolish full cost fees for all overseas students, will they at least give some special consideration to students from Commonwealth countries with which we have had longer and stronger links than we have with the Common Market? Is it not a piece of blatantly unfair discrimination, for example, for students from a British dependent territory such as Hong Kong to be charged full cost fees whereas students from a Portuguese overseas territory such as Macao will pay exactly the same fees as British students once Portugal joins the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman should have noticed that a month ago the Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised the value of Commonwealth scholarships from £34 million to £42 million. An additional £5 million is being given to Zimbabwe to enable another 800 or 900 students to come to Britain. We have helped to facilitate student movement in Europe because we are part of Europe. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we send more students to Europe than the number of European students who come here. The rest of Europe is the only area with which we have a reverse balance of trade with students.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is real concern about this issue in many parts of the House? Will he give us the assurance that he will continue closely to monitor the full cost fees system?

I appreciate entirely what my hon. Friend says. We are monitoring the system continually. My right hon. and learned Friend said that we would do so. We shall continue to monitor the number of students coming to Britain and the countries from which they come.

Is not it true that the number of students coming to British universities has declined and that the balance between rich and poor countries has shifted adversely for developing countries, which need education more than other countries? What will the hon. Gentleman do about it?

There are 2,500 more students in higher education in Britain than would have been paid for under the quota set by the previous Labour Government before they fell in 1979. The figures published last week tell us that between 1975–76 and 1978–79—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) listened, it would do him some good—the number of students coming from the poorest countries to Britain fell by 18 per cent. while the Labour Government were in office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures for my local university at Reading have held up remarkably well? There have been anxieties, but it has done extremely well for overseas students.

I am grateful for that comment. At some universities there has been an increase in the number of overseas students. For example, there has been a 40 per cent. increase at the LSE. At other universities the numbers have decreased. Much depends on the contacts that universities in Britain have made with the rest of the world.

Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that the full cost fees system is a success or a failure? It seems that it is so much of a failure that it requires additional stimulus from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to relieve the burden caused by the decline in the number of applications from overseas students. Does he recognise that increases in applications from certain institutions have arisen from a capacity to buy and not from merit?

The arrangement under the hon. Gentleman's Government—

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was not a member of that Government.

The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was a member of the Labour Party at that time, as was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Under the previous Labour Government, there was an indiscriminate subsidy for every overseas student irrespective of whether he or she came from a richer country than Britain or from a rich family. We levied the fee and we are trying to help those from poorer countries and poor families.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the next census of school meals will take place.

My right hon. and learned Friend has this matter under consideration.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that school meals have an important education and welfare function to perform? Bearing in mind the 25 per cent. reduction in the take-up of school meals during the past year and the real danger that the school meals service will collapse because of Government policies, will the hon. Gentleman provide the relevant figures more regularly and act to increase the take-up of school meals?

As the House knows, that matter has been discussed on several previous occasions. Once again, Opposition Members are trying to exaggerate the situation into making the House believe that the school meals service is collapsing. That is far from the truth. The hon. Member specifically asked me when the next census of school meals would take place. I remind him and the House that the school meals census is a costly operation, which involves local education authorities and my Department in a great deal of work. However, I confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the county of Humberside, which has reduced its rates by 6p in the pound, more school meals have been taken following the introduction of its new system?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. That is a good example, and there are others elsewhere. The legislation passed last year guaranteed that local authorities had more flexibility to make the meals more attractive.

As about 175,000 poor children have lost their right to free school dinners under the Government, will the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that each of those children receives an adequate, balanced diet?

That is a matter for the local authorities and the local social services. Hon. Members understand that fully. I have to remind the hon. Member once again, for about the third time this year, that two-thirds of local authorities are providing the statutory requirement, as enshrined in last year's legislation.

Is the Minister aware that, when that census has taken place, the results will show clearly that meals provided in schools have been drastically reduced because of Government policy? Is he also aware that the other Under-Secretary told us in the House that schoolchildren should even walk to school? Is it a policy to starve children?

The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the case. His question has no relevance to the question put down by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts).

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many special schools for educationally deprived children exist in the Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham metropolitan borough councils' education districts, respectively; and how many are scheduled to be closed.

My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any such schools in Doncaster or Rotherham. The Barnsley education authority has two centres for remedial education, both of which it proposes to close at the end of this academic year.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the cuts in education are drastically affecting the education of children with learning difficulties? Does he not realise that if those children are now educated they can perhaps take their places in the society of the future? Therefore, the cuts in education are placing the local authorities in an invidious position. There should be more such schools and not fewer.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents. I have read some of the correspondence which has been exchanged between him and the local director of education. However, the Barnsley local education authority is proposing to make alternative provision in ordinary schools for pupils who currently attend those centres. That is an important contribution, given the theme which is echoed in the legislation now going through the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received during the past 12 months concerning the transfer to county councils of powers in respect of education which were previously held by city or district councils.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the deep anger and frustration which is felt in the city of Leicester—[Laughter]—and which is no laughing matter there, because the local authority believes that the destruction of the city's education system is caused by its transfer to a Tory-dominated county authority, which has no concept of the problems of deprivation in a city? Will he not see that those powers are transferred back so that the entire system, including nursery schools, which are in a particularly bad way can be reconstructed on an understanding basis?

If the local authority is as angry and frustrated as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is surprising that it has made no representations to me about the matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the electors and ratepayers of Leicestershire wish that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would fight the battles of the future, not those of the past?

It is important that we should have a period of stability in the organisation of education.

Is the Minister aware that the city of Stoke-on-Trent feels the anger and frustration mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), and has referred it to the Minister? It is a city of a quarter of a million people, with a fine educational record, yet its educational services are run from the small town of Stafford. Why does not the Minister restore local democracy?

I can only repeat what I said to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I am advised that I have received no representations during the last 12 months from any city about that matter. Even if I did, I have no intention of making changes in the distribution of responsibility for education, as I believe that it is right to have a period of stability.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is yet in a position to announce his decision on a student loans scheme to replace the existing student grants scheme; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make a statement shortly.

I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to page 3 of today's Glasgow Herald which states that the issue has already been taken—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to put his statement in the form of a question, even if he is referring to his local newspaper?

I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but it is not my local newspaper. However, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask a question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to bring into operation a student loans scheme has been shelved and that that will bring considerable joy to students and parents?

I was interested in my hon. Friend's comment. I have not yet read today's Glasgow Herald, as no doubt many other hon. Members have not. We shall shortly announce our decision and when that announcement is made the whole country will be able to read the announcement not only in the Glasgow Herald, but in any other paper which reports it.

What will the Minister say in that statement? Does he not remember that many potential students in his day and mine were deterred from going on with education because they would have to pay back loans? It took me years to pay back the loan which I received just before the war. Does he not realise that that deters people from continuing their education? Will he assure us that grants will continue and that they will even be extended?

I am sure that we are all pleased to have an intervention from the hon. Member. However, I can go no further than what I have already said. Having repaid his loan, the hon. Member must wait quietly until next week or some time very soon, when the announcement will be made.

May I urge my hon. Friend to realise that "very soon" cannot come too soon for many students who are genuinely concerned about their future? May I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that any decision he makes will not alter the status of students who are now at university, that whatever he decides will make no difference to them during their stay there?

When economic charges were introduced for overseas students, they did not apply to overseas students already at university. We do not intend to change the arrangements for those already at university, even if we change them for others.

The Minister must now be taking for granted the opposition of all Opposition parties and student organisations to those regressive proposals? [HON MEMBERS: "Not the Social Democrats."] I mean all parties represented here today. Will he consider putting in the Official Report a list of all Conservative Members and Conservative students' associations which also opposed any form of loan scheme, from those who are opposed to such schemes on the grounds of public expenditure, such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), to those who are opposed to them on educational grounds such as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James)? Where are the Minister's supporters?

This is not a football match, in which one has to line up one's supporters. One weighs up what is best for one's country. Inside the Conservative Party, unlike the Labour Party where the debate is less important, there has been a continuous debate. From that, a true answer has been distilled, which will shortly be announced to the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what requirement there will be upon local education authorities and schools to implement his schools curriculum document.

None, but I shall shortly be issuing a circular which will invite authorities to formulate a policy for the curriculum in their area; to make themselves aware of current provision in their schools; and to plan future developments in the light of the guidance in our statement.

As many parents, teachers and employers are concerned that some local education authorities may choose to ignore the guidance, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that his Department not only monitors the curriculum but also impresses on LEAs the importance of curriculum guidance?

I have no reason to believe that any local education authority will ignore the document, which has been widely accepted, but we shall issue a circular to draw it to their attention formally. In about two years we shall ask what change has been made.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the document was described by The Times Educational Supplement as verbiage? How does he have the gall to impose new obligations by circular or by law on LEAs only six weeks after Her Majesty's Inspectorate published a document showing that the curriculum was being significantly damaged because of Government expenditure cuts?

If money is short, that is all the more reason to make sure that we obtain the best possible value for it and that more thought is given to the planning of the curriculum. We make it clear in the document that we realise that the restraint on facilities will affect the speed of implementation.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his document is widely welcomed throughout the educational establishment and that the only regret is that it was not published by the Labour Government years ago?

I am aware that, apart from The Times Educational Supplement, on the whole, the document had a good press.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment his Department has made of the progress of education authorities in teaching the use of computers and related subjects; and whether he is satisfied with the Inner London Education Authority in this respect.

The Department receives information from Her Majesty's Inspectorate about the work of schools, colleges and local education authorities in this field, and a survey of authorities' arrangements for the provision of software in schools has been commissioned under the microelectronics education programme. So far as can be judged on the evidence available, the Inner London Education Authority has made a substantial investment in hardware, in-service training and supporting services.

I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of ILEA's prowess, but is that not ironic after the authority has been roundly denounced by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), who is now the Minister responsible for computer science?

It is encouraging to note that the ILEA, like a number of other local education authorities, has invested cash in the programme. I am happy to see that the ILEA chief inspector responsible for computer education is contributing to the national programme sponsored by my Department.

Does not the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister launched the campaign for a computer in every secondary school show how seriously we take the future educational development of microprocessors and microcomputers?

Developments are extremely encouraging. The Department of Industry is sponsoring the provision of hardware, which is complementary to the Department of Education and Science programme for in-service training and software analysis.

rose—

Mr. Roy Hughes, Question No. 8.

rose—

rose—

Order. I missed an Opposition Front Bench speaker, but there is no prescriptive right for Front Bench Members to be called, any more than there is for Back Bench Members. However, it is a "maiden" Front Bench question for the hon. Member.

What is the cost of the in-service training programme?

So far, my Department has spent just under £1 million on 34 projects. About one third have come from 36 local authorities. We are happy to say that more background is now being provided by the Council for Education Technology, which is beginning to mount a series of six-week courses. In the past 12 months, 800 teachers have been through the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider convening a conference of local education authorities to consider the effect of expenditure cuts on education.

I have regular meetings with the local authority associations at which we discuss, among other things, the effect of the Government's expenditure plans on the education service.

Will the Secretary of State at last appreciate the serious deterioration in education, which is confirmed by the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate? Does he accept that if he called a conference of local education authorities he would at least get a first-hand, blow-by-blow appraisal of the situation?

The report was fully debated recently in the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants a re-run of that debate, I shall be happy to take part at any time. I visit many schools, and am fully aware of the position throughout the country. I have never pretended that it is easy to reduce expenditure, but I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the effect of the cuts.

When the Secretary of State next meets LEAs, will he tell them that he will not implement contentious LEA decisions in the months before the county council elections?

It would not be right to hold back departmental decisions just because an election is pending, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Since local government officers are past masters at convening conferences at seaside resorts at the taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense, will the Secretary of State resist the temptation to convene yet another conference?

When I meet local education authorities it is usually at Elizabeth House and not at a nice seaside resort.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in England in each of the past three years, at constant prices.

Net recurrent expenditure at 1980 survey prices for children of primary school age was £375 in 1977–78, £406 in 1978–79 and £422 in 1979–80.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is a connection between standards and the amount spent on education, there is no reason why standards should have fallen in the past three years but strong reasons why they should have risen?

That is true. The intention is to increase expenditure for each child of primary school age to £427 this year and to £432 in 1983–4. As primary school expenditure per child has increased by 64 per cent. in 20 years, we should expect good standards.

As lack of finance has caused primary schools to close in my constituency of Penistone, will the Minister meet parents to discuss the problem?

I imagine that the fall in the birth rate has caused the closures. If schools were full, they would not close. If the hon. Gentleman writes to us, we shall be glad to meet a delegation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular to local education authorities advising them on methods of encouraging the preservation of village schools in rural communities.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to issue such a circular. He recognises the contribution to village life which small rural schools can make, but there are educational and economic arguments for closing schools in some areas as pupil numbers fall. Whether to maintain a school or take it out of use must in the first instance be decided by local education authorities in the light of local circumstances.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in my constituency and in rural areas elsewhere will be very disappointed by that reply? Does he recognise the important educational and community advantages of village schools? Will he reconsider his decision and see what help he can give to parent-teacher associations to encourage the retention of village schools?

As my hon. Friend knows, a tremendous change is taking place. I certainly understand what the closure of village schools has meant in many communities, but the educational and economic arguments are important. My right hon. and learned Friend intends shortly to issue a circular on falling rolls and surplus places and the educational and financial factors which must be considered in the appraisal.

For how many village schools in rural communities has the Secretary of State since he took office approved proposals for cessation of maintenance without replacement by local education authorities?

If the hon. Gentleman tables a question I shall see that it is answered.

Will my hon. Friend dispel once and for all the notion that children at small rural primary schools are suffering in some way from educational disadvantage?

I think that this may well apply in many schools in some areas. We are looking at those issues and problems in my Department's appraisal in conjunction with HMI and local authorities, and it will remain part of the appraisal of falling rolls.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give official guidance to local education authorities on methods they could use in determining whether a change from a system of schools for 11 to 18-year-olds, schools with sixth forms to schools for 11 to 16-year-olds and sixth form colleges will save or cost local ratepayers money.

Yes, Sir. The Department has commissioned management consultants to prepare a method of costing. This will be of use to local education authorities which are reviewing their provision for 16 to 19-year-olds as the joint Government and local authority review recommended.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. Does he agree that it is not possible to place a cost upon the disruption caused by replacing schools for 11 to 18-year-olds which are doing a fine job with schools for 11 to 16-year-olds and sixth form colleges?

I assure my hon. Friend that, as the report made clear, we believe that there is still room for the viable school for 11 to 18-year-olds with its own individual sixth form.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is most unfair for a local authority, having offered a child at age 11-plus a place at a school for 11 to 18-year-olds, to begin to reorganise the system before that child has completed his education?

If one thinks about that for a moment, it means that one could never organise anything because in any year there are bound to be some children who were in the school the previous year. It is necessary for local authorities to look at their provision for 16 to 19-year-olds because the effect of falling rolls would otherwise mean non-viable classes in many small schools.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposal by Wiltshire county council to reorganise secondary education in Swindon on the basis of an age range of 11 to 16 and a sixth form college has caused uproar in the area because people believe that it is educationally non-viable and will be bad for the children? As he must have received representations about this, will he ensure that more consultation takes place? Will he come to Swindon to discuss the matter with the people there?

I have not seen the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he cares to make representations to me about at they will certainly be borne in mind as part of the Department's review of any individual application to change the nature of a school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he is now able to give to local education authorities on the continued provision of instrumental music tuition, both in and out of school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet reached any conclusions about the Forbes judgment on the matter of charging for music lessons by the Hereford and Worcester local education authority.

Local education authorities that now charge for instrumental music tuition will need to examine the terms of the judgment, in consultation with their legal advisers. I am considering whether the judgment calls for action on the part of Government, but I have no current proposals for legislation.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the recent case to which he referred, brought with the backing of the National Union of Teachers, has gravely imperilled music teaching in many schools? Will he confirm once again that he is urgently seeking to ascertain whether legislation is necessary so that parents may voluntarily pay part or the whole of fees for instrumental tuition?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I think that the only effect of that case is to put at risk a great deal of instrumental teaching in schools. There is nothing new in charging for such teaching. More than 40 local education authorities do so at present. Clearly, they will now have to review the provision that they make. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am considering what guidance and help I might give. As I have said, however, at the moment I have no proposals to bring immediate legislation before the House.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Hereford and Worcester local education authority, in whose area the case arose, is certainly of the view that amendment to the legislation is necessary to permit continuation of the practice of charging, which enabled the authority to provide new instruments for the purpose as well as employing peripatetic music teachers?

I am aware that that view has been expressed by many people. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that one must consider very carefully before deciding to change the law in this area. The matter needs a great deal of thought, which we are giving to it.

Before the Minister uses that judgment in the way that he proposes, will he realise that the man who brought the case has since accused the authorities of cutting even more deeply than previously? Is he aware that the judgment will be used to curtail music teaching by reactionary authorities all over the place which would cut deeper and deeper in any case whether the judgment existed or not?

I am not using that judgment in any way. In many parts of this country it has been normal, accepted practice to make a charge for individual instrumental tuition. I therefore confirm that the effect of the judgment is that many of those local education authorities are now reviewing their practice to see whether they can continue the service.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the top priority, as recommended by the Gulbenkian report, should be to help the very limited number of specialist music schools, of which the Purcell school at Harrow-on-the-Hill is one example, because it is at those schools that the orchestras and musicians of the future will develop?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently announced that we are grant-aiding places in the three major music schools in this country which were not grant-aided under the previous proposals.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that music and musical tuition standards in this country are jeopardised far more by the cuts and the loss of peripatetic teachers as well as other music teachers than by any judgment in the Jones case? Does he agree with me and many others who believe that authorities making charges for music lessons inside schools, on the curriculum, whether in music theory or instrumental music, are breaking section 53 of the Education Act 1944? Does he now intend to bring before the House a new miscellaneous provisions Bill to change the law in a way which would be acceptable to Tories but utterly abominable to anyone who cares about music and music tuition in this country?

If local education authorities are providing music tuition which is part of the curriculum in the school in circumstances similar to those obtaining in the Hereford and Worcester case, clearly the judgment of the court applies. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that judgment concerned the provision of musical tuition in the particular circumstances of that case. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I repeat that I have no current proposals for introducing legislation, but I am reviewing the whole situation. One has to accept that, if an authority was attempting to retain the service and to obtain some of the income through a modest charge, that has now been prevented and therefore the service becomes at risk.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that basic scientific research in universities will not be diminished as a result of his proposals to reduce the funds allocated to the University Grants Committee.

The detailed implications of the Government's expenditure plans on all aspects of university activities, including basic science research, are under discussion with the University Grants Committee.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it will be extremely difficult to maintain the momentum of scientific research in our universities without some degree of earmarking of grants by the University Grants Committee?

A working party chaired jointly by the UGC and the advisory board for the Science Research Council is examining the current arrangement for the dual funding of research. I do not think that I can add to that at this stage.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, for example, while the physics department of the University of Hull is doing extremely distinguished work on lasers and the treatment of pre-malignant cervical cancer, it has not been able to appoint a new member of staff since 1968? Is not there a problem in that in many science departments whole groups of lecturers, senior lecturers and professors are ageing together? Should not something be done about getting a proper age structure in university science departments?

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot comment on the individual case. A lot of people were taken on by the universities at a particular time, and the age structure of those teaching in universities is, therefore, not ideal. It means that vacancies for new teachers in universities are difficult to come by.

I accept the general need for reductions, but is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the genuine concern in universities, such as my local one in Edinburgh, that the speed at which the reductions are required will not allow for sensible changes to be made but will force quick savings that will be at the expense of departments such as the technical and scientific ones that we need?

I am aware that there is concern in the universities about the need to make savings. The need exists, but I am reviewing with the UGC the details of the proposals.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that already the availability of equipment, research assistants and general support for research is so far below the standards that able researchers can get in the United States that it is becoming an increasingly great sacrifice for young scientists to remain in this country?

We have made no reductions in expenditure by the research councils.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has as to the acceptability of SMP mathematics and Nuffield physics as qualifications for the engineering industry as compared with traditional mathematics and traditional physics.

My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any evidence that any one A-level mathematics or physics course consistently produces better or worse prepared candidates for careers in engineering; nor is he aware of any systematic study of the preferences of the engineering industry.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to see whether the engineering industry has any reservations about modern mathematics or physics courses? Is he aware that if it does that would have most serious implications for our schools which should consider their mathematics and physics syllabuses with a view to the use that future students of engineering and physics might make of them?

That is an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes that the Cockcroft committee will shortly have some advice to offer on the question of mathematics syllabuses. We are certainly aware that some employers have expressed a preference for more traditional courses, but I hope that the House will be pleased to hear that this is part of a regular scrutiny of the GCE syllabus, and so far neither has given rise to concern about standards of acceptability by engineering companies and universities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the expenditure cuts to be made in respect of the universities.

I made an announcement to the House on 13 March about the recurrent grant for universities for the academic year 1981–82.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a great deal of alarm and despondency within the universities as a direct result of the proposals in the White Paper? Does he realise that evidence given last week to the Public Accounts Committee on this matter indicated that if those proposals were implemented immediately there would be at least 3,000 redundancies among the academics, and that the redundancy payments that those 3,000 would claim would be far more than the salaries they would expect to be paid if they were kept on?

We are discussing these matters with the UGC, but I must repeat that the proposals in the White Paper for 1981–82 constituted a reduction of 3 per cent. in the fundings of universities. That is essential if we are to retain control over public expenditure.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the basic problem is that we have too many universities? What the country really needs is more students with national certificates and fewer graduates, some of whose courses are half-baked.

There is need to rationalise the number of courses being provided by all the various universities and colleges of higher education, and that is what we are doing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend the annual dinner of the Ross McWhirter Foundation.

Has my right hon. Friend, as a London Member, had time to study the declared intention of the London Labour Party to increase the rates of every household in London by £1 per week if it is returned to power in the Greater London Council? Does not that demonstrate Labour's disregard for the interests of ratepayers?

I have no doubt that should Labour unfortunately be returned to power in the GLC that would mean, judging from the Labour Party's statements, a policy of higher spending, higher rates and intolerable new burdens on industry and the commercial enterprises upon which London relies for jobs. Many of those increases would be passed on in higher prices. That would be altogether a calamity. It would be far better to vote for good housekeeping of the kind that we shall give.

Will the Prime Minister tell us to what extent rents and rates in London have increased during the period of her Government? Will she find time in her busy schedule today to meet the TUC representatives from the Northern region to discuss the unemployment which has nearly doubled in that region since May 1979?

Over the past four years rates under the GLC have risen less than inflation. On rents, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to perpetuate the circumstance under which the income from that source was less than half the cost of maintaining local council housing. On the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he knows that I see individual Members if they have a problem about a particular closure, but I do not see general deputations.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the matter? Throughout this week the House will be lobbied by people who will be making representations about rising unemployment all over the country. Unemployment in the Northern region is as bad as anywhere. Will she therefore meet some of these people during the week? What does the right hon. Lady have to say about the fact that company failures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I know that Conservative Members are not interested in this aspect, but in the first half of this year company failures have been at a record high—51 per cent. higher than a year ago. When will the right hon. Lady do something about that?

In reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I should say that I have some highly competent right hon. Friends who will, if need be, receive those deputations. As regards the latter part of his question, there are a number of bankruptcies. That is a measure of the lack of competitiveness and of the overmanning that the Government have had to deal with.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the reports to the effect that the International Monetary Fund is giving the seal of approval to the £ sterling and allowing it to be used for loans to countries that are in depressed circumstances? As the pound has for too long been the sick currency of Europe, is this not one of the Government's proudest achievements?

I am aware that sterling has once again received the blessing of the IMF. I am also happy to observe that we have reduced our overseas debt in relation to our trade to the lowest level since the war.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Institute of Careers Officers announced today that 1 million teenagers would be seeking jobs this year and that this year promised to be the worst year ever? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Government industrial Civil Service, for which she is responsible, is cutting apprentice training? How on earth can private industry increase its intake of apprentices when the Government are setting such a bad example?

Last year, this year and next year are years that involve a particularly large number of school leavers, because of the bulge in the birth rate that occurred some years ago. As a result, more school leavers than usual will be seeking jobs. That is one reason why we have increased the facilities of the youth opportunities programme. We shall do everything we can to increase training facilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister pause to reflect on the cowardly nature of the Government's incomes policy and, in particular, on the despicable way that the Government are treating their own staff, the Civil Service? Will she compare the Government's attitude towards the Civil Service claim with their attitude towards the miners' claim, when the white flag was hoisted before battle had even begun. Similar settlements have been made in other areas. In reality, has not the Iron Lady got feet of clay?

I do not regard a 50 per cent. increase in pay this year compared with two years ago, and a further offer of 7 per cent.—which will lead to an increase of 11 per cent. over last year's pay because of the way in which staging takes effect—together with job security and inflation-proof pensions as bad treatment. Many people would like to have that deal.

Will my right hon. Friend give further thought today to the Civil Service? Is she aware that there is widespread concern at her Government's failure to reduce significantly the numbers of those employed in the Civil Service? Furthermore, is she aware that any capitulation on the 7 per cent. offer will be regarded with horror by the vast majority of the population?

The numbers in the Civil Service have dropped by about 35,000 and will continue to drop in accordance with plans. The offer of 7 per cent. has been made although there is a 6 per cent. cash limit. That is reasonable both in terms of those who work for the Government and in terms of past pay increases. In addition, it is reasonable in terms of what people can afford.

As the right hon. Lady will not meet the leaders of the deputation from the Northern region, will she at least realise that they are complaining about the high level of unemployment? Is she aware that in comparison with other regions in England, Scotland and Wales the Northern region has the highest percentage of unemployment? Is she further aware that, compared with other regions, it has the second lowest number of vacancies? Every vacancy is being chased by 50 men and women as a result of the Government's policy. What message has the right hon. Lady got for those people from the Northern region?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that considerable help is given to the regions in the form of help to the nationalised industries and through regional aid. That will continue to be our policy.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the report today to the effect that the fall in the level of sterling has led to an increase in industry's costs?

I have not noticed the report. However, it means that all raw materials or semi-manufactured goods that are invoiced in sterling will increase in price.

asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 7 April.

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

Is it not unfair to blame Labour-controlled councils for vast rent and rate increases that have been caused by the Government? Should not the Government refrain from shooting the pianist for being compelled to play a rotten tune that has been composed by the right hon. Lady and her Government?

That is just not so. On average, Labour-controlled councils have increased rates far more than Conservative-controlled councils. That is due to their attitude toward public expenditure. Labour councillors think that they know how to spend the money better than ratepayers do.

Given the questions that Opposition Members have asked about the North-East, is my right hon. Friend aware that I am completely willing to meet leaders of the TUC from the North-East? However, they do not appear to have arrived. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when they arrive I shall point out the recent figures that have been produced by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, which suggest that many more factories are opening in our region than are closing?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am sure that he will convey that news to the deputation, should it arrive to hear it.

is the Prime Minister aware that in Merseyside, which has one of the highest levels of unemployment, the Prescot Cable Company is importing cable from Taiwan and thereby importing unemployment into the country? Will she call for a full investigation and report to the House explaining why Taiwan is allowed to export unemployment to the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are a lot of jobs in exports. If we were to adopt a completely protectionist attitude, unemployment would be even higher than it is now.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's proper interest in matters ecclestiastical, will she spare a moment today to refute the rumour that ministerial pressure is being excercised to prevent the introduction of a Bill to preserve the Book of Common Prayer for those who wish to continue to use it in their Anglican worship?

My hon. Friend must wait until permission is sought to introduce the Bill. I think that he will understand when I say that he must not be surprised if many of my right hon. Friends and some of my hon. Friends feel that they must constitutionally support the Synod.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 7 April.

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

Will the right hon. Lady once again turn her mind to unemployment? Does she realise that by tomorrow there will have been five lobbies of Parliament? I venture to guess that none of those involved is worrying about the Book of Common Prayer. Does she realise—[Interruption.] If the public school hooligans would listen they might realise that those people witness factory closures every day. Does the right hon. Lady realise that, where industry was thriving, there are now more than 3 million unemployed? Does not she accept that her policy is a monumental failure? When will she change it and do something about the massive amount of unemployment that is at virtually everyone 's door?

The best way of protecting jobs is to produce goods at a competitive price that those at home and abroad will buy. There is no substitute for that. As long as goods are uncompetitive or not of a type that people will buy out of their pay packets, there will be factory closures.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland Labour-controlled district councils on average have raised their rates by more than 40 per cent., while Conservative and independent local authorities on average have increased their rates by only 11 per cent.? Does that not indicate that the increasing burden of rates is more a function of the way that local authorities are managed than of any action by Her Majesty's Government?

Yes, I totally agree. The fact is that Labour councils are big spenders of other people's money.

Does the Prime Minister accept that her insistence on competition opens the possibility of extinction? How long will she and her Government persist in their attitude to imports—until British industry has been so undermined that it can never recover? Does not she accept that technological change throughout the world now makes that a real possibility?

Those nations which compete most effectively and have concentrated more on productivity than on pay have the highest levels of prosperity.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that this is an abbreviated debate. I hope that hon. Members who are called to speak will remember their colleagues.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for creating unprecedented youth unemployment, continuing anxiety to school leavers and their parents and frustration to educationists and for wasting the human resources vital to the regeneration of the economy.

A debate centring on the employment problems of young people is long overdue. I say that not because of a lack of concern for older people who are out of work. Indeed, I hope that in the months ahead we shall be able to deal with the employment problems of other disadvantaged groups, including the disabled, ethnic minorities, the long-term unemployed, and women. Of course, all those groups contain young people who are directly relevant to the debate. I hope to refer to some of their special difficulties.

Hundreds of thousands of young people, especially school leavers, face the traumatic experience of constant rejection for jobs at a time when they are at their most immature and most emotionally unstable. The effect on them is immeasurable, but it is no exaggeration to say that many will carry the scars of that bitter experience throughout their lives, and we shall all have to bear our share of the social strain.

For all the brave words that we hear, the Government's efforts are increasingly exposed as utterly inadequate to deal with the problems that Government policies have done so much to create. The message that Ministers offer to our young people is a message not of hope but of despair and despondency.

The Secretary of State for Employment wrings his hands regularly once a month when the unemployment figures are announced. He describes the situation as appalling, or finds another unhappy adjective or phrase. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be with us. He was kind enough to tell us that he has had to go overseas on Government business. We understand that, but it is a great pity that he is not here, because he needs to be held as personally accountable as possible.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will offer us more than the pious prayers that we get so often from the Secretary of State. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can be positive I shall be delighted, though I shall also be astonished, because whatever the wishes of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, and however much they talk of their good intentions, they share collective responsibility in a Government who are governing not with guts but with guilt. The Government know what they are doing to the country but they lack the guts to own up and to take the right sort of action. The Secretary of State is unable to put his money where his mouth is, because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not permit him to do so.

I shall concentrate mainly on the youth opportunities programme. Time and again the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister boast of the extra cash that they are pouring in to the Manpower Services Commission's special programmes, and particularly into the YOP. The amendment refers to the programme and the Prime Minister mentioned it at Question Time earlier.

The Secretary of State told us that he has doubled the number of YOP places this year, speeded up the offer of places and put a new emphasis on quality training for work. He added that "as resources permit" the Government would work towards the point where every 16 and 17-year-old not in education or a job would be assured of vocational preparation up to his or her eighteenth birthday. He was talking about all youngsters and not just the unemployed. That was a worthy objective.

The Manpower Services Commission will agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Its chairman has said publicly very much the same thing. The TUC will agree with him. It has called for that kind of approach. So will the CBI. Part of its six-point plan is to relieve unemployment and to increase training, as shown in the recently published document "The Will to Win". I see that even the Duke of Edinburgh made the same point yesterday. They will all back him. However, most of those to whom I refer also agreed about the Budget. That is where the major obstacle to implementing these ideas lies. It lies in the Government's economic strategy—if it can still be called a strategy.

The Secretary of State for Employment and his Ministers have not a clue about how or when they can hit their target. Will resources permit them to do so this year, next year, some time, never? While they fiddle and fail to persuade their colleagues there is a grave danger that the existing youth opportunities programme will come to grief.

I am sure that a number of my hon. Friends will want to make specific points about the programme. The most explicit version of the fears about YOP are contained in the recent Youth Aid review. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) was chairman of the working group that drew up that valuable document. It stresses the growing concern over job substitution and the abuse of the scheme by some employers. About 30 per cent. of the places are now reckoned to come into that category. This has caused considerable and understandable anxiety among trade unionists.

The review emphasises, as does the Manpower Services Commission, the inadequate level of the current allowance. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on reports of Government plans for a flat rate allowance for all young people aged 16 to 19. I hope that he will say something about the potential effect, if such a proposition were carried through, on employment schemes such as YOP, and the reported conflict within the Government and the opposition of the Secretary of State to that course of action. The review points to an increasing inability to find jobs for YOP trainees when they have passed through the scheme. We are talking about real jobs. Conservative Members used to sneer and ask "Where are the real jobs?" when referring to the youth opportunities programme. That sort of remark is no longer heard from the Conservative Benches.

The review also underlines the difficulty for employers in making work experience places available. That is hardly surprising when one considers the record number of bankruptcies in the private sector and the vicious squeeze on public sector employment. All these matters are vital to the continued credibility of the scheme. The Opposition certainly want it to remain credible.

The biggest difficulty is the sheer weight of numbers which the youth opportunities programme is now expected to carry. Its original purpose is being undermined. The jam is being spread more thinly. More young people are now taught how to compete against each other for fewer jobs. That cannot be the right approach. It is no wonder that Youth aid called its report "Quality or collapse". That was not a question; it was a statement, or a demand.

Rising unemployment now threatens to swamp the expansion of YOP which was announced by the Secretary of State in November with such gusto. There is a widespread belief that we are heading for the worst ever year for teenage unemployment. Within the Manpower Services Commission there is now a belief that funding for 440,000 places this year will be decidedly inadequate and that it may need to find at least another 50,000 places without even taking account of the effect of the Budget on unemployment.

Two weeks ago The Times Educational Supplement reported:

"Manpower Services Commission officials fear that the programme may have to cope with close to 500,000 youngsters. The commission has been given enough money to provide for a maximum of 440,000 entrants in the financial year which begins next month. But its area boards and regional directors say that they need room for at least another 43,000 in the light of the latest unemployment trends. The commission's senior officials have told its special programmes board that even that may be a conservative estimate".

Our young people today face a bleak future. In disaster areas such as Merseyside and the North-East—it would be possible to mention others—most youngsters leaving school now expect to go on the dole. Even in once prosperous areas like the West Midlands the problem is acute. In inner London, at least 10 school leavers are chasing every job, three times the comparable figure a year ago.

I was talking last week to a major employer in the City. He told me that his firm's labour turnover was virtually nil, because everyone was hanging on to his job and that this meant that the firm would take on very few young people, including graduates, in the autumn, contrary to usual practice. The firm would be taking 50 compared with a normal intake of 350. The situation will get far worse. In my borough of Islington one-fifth of manufacturing jobs have been lost in a year. It is no wonder that the school leaver programme has grown sevenfold in a year.

It is the admission of a desperate situation for the Government to turn to military training, albeit voluntary, as an answer. Irrespective of the merits or the demerits of the idea, it is likely, if pursued, to damage the credibility of the YOP, certainly if the MSC is involved. It can only be a drop in the ocean and can do nothing to tackle the real problems faced by young people.

I agree with my hon. Friend; it is a drop in the ocean. However, the Minister, speaking in an Adjournment debate a few days ago, suggested that this was a pilot scheme. I suggest, therefore, that if the Government get away with this proposal it will be a matter not of 1,000 but of 100,000 young men involved in what could become compulsory military service.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is a matter that we shall have to watch and examine with care. I hope that before any proposal is implemented it will be brought before the House for careful scrutiny.

The Manpower Services Commission is rightly anxious to introduce short-term changes to improve the quality of youth opportunity training. Those changes should be supported, but there are deeper implications. The lasting solution, as our motion suggests, lies in the regeneration of the British economy and in a change of course by this hidebound Government. If, however, the Prime Minister continues to have her way, one feels that young people will grow old in the dole queues. She will still be saying that she has got it all right. Even with a different Prime Minister and a different Government, which we need, a changed approach to the youth opportunities programme will be required. It has to be built on to produce, preferably, a full-scale 12 month programme of vocational preparation and further education for all 16 to 18-year-olds who want to take it. Much less is done in this country than in other Western industrialised nations. We have every reason to do far more.

There are other important matters with which I can deal only briefly. The acute cutback in apprentice training is one such issue. Apprentices are being laid off by some firms. Other firms which have taken on apprentices in the past are not now doing so. As a consequence, the skill shortages of the future are being ensured. The Manpower Services Commission warned the Government recently that the recession threatens a collapse of this provision in some areas. It shows how short-sighted the Government have become if that can happen. It is time for the Government to set out their views. We should know what the Government intend to do to try to relieve the situation.

A whole range of problems for young people arise from the Employment and Training Bill; I do not intend to dwell on them. That piece of dogmatic nonsense is being taken apart by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee. I wish, however, to refer to the great difficulties for physically and mentally handicapped school leavers. All the voluntary bodies involved with these youngsters express great concern. They believe that these young people face a critical situation. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's plans for coping with the problem.

A specific area to which I want to refer is unemployment among young blacks, which is growing faster than unemployment generally. These young people, like the disabled, are particularly vulnerable. There is no doubt that they face discrimination in the job market. The Commission for Racial Equality believes that there is a serious upward trend in this respect. It is perhaps inevitable with high unemployment. These young people have other disadvantages. Yet there have been no worthwhile Government initiatives in this area since the general election.

Last July the Commission for Racial Equality put forward specific proposals. It suggested more preparatory courses for youngsters with a poor knowledge of English and said that special efforts should be made, particularly in regions with high ethnic minority communities, to promote black self-help groups. It made other similar proposals. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether progress has been made in that connection.

The code of practice on discrimination in employment has been kicking around for months. All that it needs is ministerial approval, but that is being denied. It is time that the House knew when the code of practice is to be made available. There seems to be a dangerous complacency among Ministers in what is a potentially volatile if not explosive sphere. A clear Government lead and commitment are needed.

We are letting our young people down. I do not pretend that the answers are easy, but I charge the Government with failing miserably to measure up to the size of the problem.

The chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, Sir Richard O'Brien, summed up the commission's aims and objectives after its meeting on 25 March. He said:

"This is a critical time for training. Our traditional approach is inadequate and faces dislocation and failure. The needs of the 1980s are very different from those of the past. The Commission has spelled out the objectives we must pursue. We now need commitment to achieving them and that means a commitment to ensuring that we have effective machinery and adequate means to enable the national training system to deliver what is required of it. The future of Britain as a competitive nation is at stake. So too are the job prospects of millions of workers".

I agree with Sir Richard. Those aims and objectives must now be backed by the Government with more than empty rhetoric, because we are dealing with the question of investment in our nation's future. The refusal to act, the price of neglect, will leave a tragic and indelible mark on our society, particularly on a whole generation of young people that is being cast aside without hope. It is for that reason that we shall vote for our motion in the Lobby tonight.

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

`this House regrets the high level of unemployment amongst young people during the present economic recession, but welcomes the Government's massive expansion of the Youth Opportunities Programme and the new undertakings given by the Manpower Services Commission to provide young people with opportunities on the Programme; and strongly reaffirms that only through the Government's economic strategy can a lasting improvement in the economy be achieved and much-needed new and secure jobs be provided for young people.'.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) for having explained why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not present today. As the United Kingdom is to assume the Presidency of the Community in July this year, it was important that he should attend today a meeting of Employment Ministers at The Hague.

It is proper for us to debate youth unemployment. No one can doubt the importance of the subject. To be out of work is always a great misfortune, and although the penalties which flow from being unemployed may not be as great financially as they used to be—though severe hardship can occur even today—the condition is as soul-destroying as ever.

For young people it is far worse. Greater bitterness must arise from thwarted ambition. Great frustration must result from youthful energies unexpended. There must be crushing boredom, and there is the humiliation of not being able to bring home a wage to help one's family—something that most young people look forward to doing, as their school days end. Clearly, it is the Government's duty to do what they can to help these young people. In a moment I shall outline what steps we are taking.

First, I shall make some general points—more in sorrow than in anger. We have had several debates on unemployment. Not long ago the Leader of the Opposition threatened us with repeated debates on the subject. However, it has become more and more clear as the months have passed that there is not much enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches for these great occasions. When the hon. Member for Islington, Central started to speak there were eight Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber. Yet the Opposition have chosen to debate this matter today. They allege that it is causing much bitterness and hostility in their ranks, and that is why they have chosen to debate this subect on a Supply day. I do not think much of it, if the best that they can do is to produce eight supporters.

The Under-Secretary should note that my hon. Friends are not in the Chamber because most of them are listening to the representations of people from the North-East who have come here today to protest about Government policies. They are not here because they are meeting constituents and organisations from other areas.

At least my hon. friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is here because he believes that what happens in this Chamber should take precedence over other matters. I repeat that there is a pretty low ratio of Labour Members to the number of people unemployed—one Labour Member to every 312,000 unemployed at the beginning of the debate, and now one Labour Member to every 200,000 unemployed. That is a poor coefficient of compassion.

The Under-Secretary is being less than fair. Every hon. Member from the Northern region, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and myself, are in Westminster Hall at a mass meeting of TUC representatives, or in the Central Lobby, or in other parts of the building talking to people who are unemployed. It is not fair to say that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), is the only person here who represents the unemployed in the North.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) has exercised his right to explain the absence of those from the Northern region, but that is not the only region in the country.

Perhaps Opposition protests would ring more true if last week, having had a three-line Whip on the Forestry Bill, they had mustered enough people on Monday night to vote on unemployment in the Midlands. Their record today is in tune with their record on that occasion.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear to the country, because some of the remarks in the press are giving an entirely false impression.

I pay the hon. Member for Islington, Central the compliment of believing that he cares deeply about youth unemployment. I am sure that he acknowledges that others, too, care. If there were an easy cure for youth unemployment, surely no Government would fail to write the prescription. The waste is tragic, and youth unemployment is hated by all thinking people. The political disadvantages of refusing to take steps when steps can be taken are obvious.

The hon. Gentleman knows the scale of the problem and the history of its growth. However, I shall say a brief word about the history. In July 1974 there were 80,000 under-20s unemployed. By July 1976—two years later, after just over two years of Labour Government—the number of young people under 20 who were unemployed had risen from 80,000 to 390,000.

There was an increase of no less than 380 per cent. in those two years of Labour Government. By July 1978 the figure had risen even higher, to 441,000. By July 1980 it had risen to 532,000—the peak.

The figure of 532,000 cannot be wholly the result of the present Government's policies. The hon. Member for Islington, Central certainly knows that the Labour Government cannot take the credit for youth unemployment being down to 80,000 in 1974. He knows that the Labour Government must take a large share of the responsibility for the figure of 390,000 unemployed in July 1976.

Was there not then—to quote the motion—

"unprecedented youth unemployment, continual anxiety to school leavers and their parents and frustration to educationists"?

Incidentally, I find the last phrase rather odd. The object is not to put young people into work to stop educationists being frustrated. I cannot think of any educationists who are not frustrated. All who had anything to do with my education were frustrated. The object is to look after young people and to ensure that they can find work.

I am tempted to say that the last Administration served at least one useful purpose—as a bad example to us all. I am tired of being lectured. The trouble with Opposition Members is that they treat the public like fools. The British people know that there is no easy way out. They know that no soft option is available. They know that one cannot lower the duty on petrol by putting up the dog licence, as one of my Socialist constituents argued the other day. They know that the laws of mathematics operate in Government as much as in the corner shop and the pub. They know that if the productivity of a country's industry rises by 15 per cent. while earnings increase by 300 per cent.—which is our record in the last 10 years—that country is living on borrowed time as well as borrowed money and that it had better sort itself out.

Is the Minister aware that people who have canvassed for the May elections do not find that reaction? They find that former Conservative voters are bitterly hostile to the Government for increasing unemployment. Many of them say that their children who have left school are taken on for six months and then sacked so that a fresh crop of cheap labour can be taken on. If the Government really want to do something about that, instead of creating phoney jobs, why do they not cause reflation through a vast house building and improvement programme, which would bring real jobs and satisfy real needs?

The hon. Gentleman is right. A few people always say "Stop the world, I want to get off." That is the reason for the rise of the Social Democrats. I am talking about the majority of people who keep their heads and know that no such soft options exist.

We are suffering from a world recession. The level of youth unemployment here is comparable with that in some other industrialised countries, such as the United States of America, France and Australia. But the self-inflicted wounds hurt the most; they are the least excusable. One is sickened by some people, even now, making wholly unrealistic pay claims which, if granted, can only postpone economic recovery and increase the unemployment for which they are only too ready to hold others responsible.

The answer to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is that we must emerge from the recession in a position to compete in the world's markets. If we exercise restraint now, if we master inflation, if we cure some of the deep-seated ills in our economy, we shall succeed and youth unemployment will drop dramatically. If we do not, it will not.

An important job has to be done now. To do them credit, the last Administration responded properly to rising youth unemployment by accepting the proposals in the Holland report and introducing the youth opportunities programme. In Opposition we backed that report, and since coming to office we have backed YOP to the hilt. It has grown into an excellent scheme.

Of course criticisms are voiced from time to time. I pay tribute to the TUC for remaining solidly committed to the scheme, in spite of natural fears of substitution. I am sure that the TUC is right to give its support because YOP is not just a way of cushioning young people against the hopelessness of prolonged unemployment. By providing opportunities for training and work experience it gives young people a real chance to improve their prospects of obtaining a satisfactory permanent job at the earliest possible moment.

The Minister said that the Government were backing YOP to the hilt. Is he aware that the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission is not backing it to the hilt? Some training establishments still have vacancies. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom but there are 40 vacant training places for short industrial courses because the MSC will not allocate young boys and girls for training. Will the Minister look into that?

Obviously that is an important matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison)—will investigate it. I was saying that generally the total resources committed to the YOP have increased dramatically since we came to office.

Work experience, work preparation and basic training help young people to develop confidence, maturity and basic skills. The programme has enabled many young people to obtain work. It will enable many others to help both themselves and the country when the upswing comes. We recognise that there is plenty of room for improvement, as there always is. Efforts are constantly being made to increase the range of opportunities open to the trainees by giving them as broad a range of experience as possible.

Most sponsoring employers allow trainees to try their hands at a number of tasks so that the work options open to the individual may be increased. When the sponsor is a small employer with little varied work experience to offer, efforts are made to link schemes so that a person placed with such a small employer has the chance to experience more than one job.

I acknowledge that the YOP can be abused. Entrants can wrongly be regarded as cheap, temporary labour. The MSC is constantly on the watch to ensure that sponsors do their duty. I am glad to say that the evidence shows that the majority do that. A few bad sponsors have been got rid of and others, at the insistence of the MSC, have provided new arrangements.

The problem is not all training on the job. Two years ago only 17 per cent. of work experience trainees received off-the-job training. Now the figure is about 40 per cent. and is increasing. Off-the-job training is often important to cope with the problems of numeracy and literacy and other work-related basic skills. The MSC is constantly concerned to improve the quality of training and to fit the opportunities to young persons' needs and capabilities. That means that as more qualified people become unemployed placements are being made with professional, commercial and scientifically based sponsors who are prepared to relate on-the-job learning to relevant technical and specialist further education. The aim is as much to encourage the young person to maximise his or her potential in further or higher education as it is to obtain work. We believe that the YOP is doing a good job.

Is it not a matter for concern that the number of people going back into full-time employment from these schemes is falling? About 41 per cent. now go on to the dole instead of continuing in employment. Indeed, the figure of those continuing in employment fell to 59 per cent. from 80 per cent. last September. Is that not a matter for concern?

Of course it is a matter for concern if anybody who has done a YOP course does not find employment immediately thereafter. My case, which I thought would be conceded by all hon. Members, is that having done a YOP course those people are better able to seize work opportunities when they arise. The point that the hon. Gentleman was making is the general economic point but I cannot, in a debate of this nature, go further than I have gone in that regard and point to the Government's commitment to squeeze inflation out of the system, which in the long run is the only way of ensuring full employment.

The Government have given the undertaking that those 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who have been unemployed for three months by October 1981 should have an offer of a place by Easter 1982. There is confusion in the minds of the careers officers as to whether this includes those who have previously been on a YOP scheme. Could the Minister clarify what the undertaking means?

I was going to deal with the two prime undertakings, of which I am sure the hon. Member knows—one being that school leavers will have a YOP opportunity by the following Christmas rather than the following Easter, as is the position now; the other being that all other 16- and 17-year-olds who have been out of work for three months will get a YOP opportunity within three months of that period. But my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester has the prime responsibility for this field and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if it is dealt with later this evening. I have no ready answer to that problem, but inquiries will be made.

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves this point, can he give the House the up-to-date figure for the number of YOP trainees who are actually placed in employment at the end of their training now, as compared with, say, a year ago?

I can give some figures—I shall come to that shortly—for the number of school leavers and related matters. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I think that I had better stick to the statistics that I have. If they do not meet the points which he wishes us to cover I will certainly have investigations made and try to get the figures by later this evening.

The YOP, to our mind, must be doing a good job when seven out of 10 of those who went on courses which finished during the year ended last autumn either got a job or entered another YOP course or full-time educational training. As a result of all these matters, we have decided to increase the size of the programme for 1981–82 so that it will be able to offer up to 450,000 places.

The hon. Member for Islington, Central mentioned the total number of places which would be available. The position is that the Manpower Services Commission has not asked the Government to revise the originally agreed figure of 450,000, but naturally the matter will be kept continually under review. At the moment, however, the figure remains as it was at the end of last year, at 450,000 places—a 40 per cent. increase over last year—with 160,000 young people involved at any one time. It means an increase in spending from £209 million in 1980–81 to £320 million in 1981–82. These figures are remarkable when the Government are for ever being painted as lacking compassion and unable to bring themselves to spend money even when it is needed for social purposes of this kind.

Although I accept that the amount of money being put into statutory programmes is increasing and that the Government are trying to respond in that direction, does the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously want the House to believe that that is a substitute for the 10,000 apprenticeships which have been lost over the last 12 months alone in private industry?

I really do not think that I can be expected to go further than I have. The hon. Gentleman may have his panacea. He may have some brillant new Liberal policy which would, if put into effect, remove youth unemployment tomorrow. If he has such a policy, we have heard nothing of it yet. We are not really concerned with panaceas; we are concerned with what should be done here and now to alleviate a present problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) raised a matter which is highly pertinent to his area and mine—the accelerating problem of unemployment among black youths. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman offer any words of encouragement, or optimism, to this group of young people who are becoming disenchanted with the political system, which represents a real danger to all of us?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to raise the matter, but I would not be on good terms any longer with my hon. Friend if I were now to deliver his speech as well as my own. I promise the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend will deal with that particular matter when he winds up.

I dealt with the present undertakings to the young unemployed in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I concede, of course, that we should not be too proud about an expansion in the programme which has come about following an increase in the number of those out of work. But an increase in the cost of YOP to the extent that I have mentioned is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Furthermore, I believe that the impact made by this programme will be not only transitory but perhaps of lasting benefit. It may go a long way towards meeting the needs of our country for a better motivated and better trained young work force.

One matter that is all too often forgotten is that even in these times of recession the great majority of school leavers find jobs. Of the 700,000 young people leaving school for work last summer, only 20 per cent. remained on the register at the end of the year as unemployed school leavers. We must see that those in work also receive suitable vocational preparation. Many hon. Members will know about the pilot programme of unified vocational preparation which has been running since 1976 and which aims to provide training for young entrants into work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 November 1980 that we were continuing and developing the programme so that by 1983–84 it will cover 10 per cent. of all young people who currently enter jobs in which they receive no further vocational preparation. We believe that this is of key importance. The need for the country to have a better trained work force at every level cannot be overestimated. There certainly must be a more flexible system of training for skills and we hope that within a few weeks now the MSC's proposals for a new initiative will be published.

The Government are fighting the causes of unemployment and youth unemployment and they are also fighting the effects. We need to raise the vocational skills of those most clearly in need of help—the young unemployed. We also need, however, to provide for those with jobs so that they are more likely to keep employment or, if they lose it, to regain it. We need the help of employers, unions, voluntary bodies—everyone—in this task. It cannot be a job for Government alone. I believe that the Government are playing their part and dealing properly with a serious problem.

I therefore ask the House to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.

I am extremely grateful to be called in this debate, particularly—as was made clear during Prime Minister's questions and since the beginning of the debate—because there is at this time a lobby from the North-East of England on unemployment.

With regard to unemployment generally—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I am not seeking to challenge your conduct of the debate, it is, to say the least, singularly unusual for the occupant of the Chair to select a further Conservative Member immediately after a Conservative Minister.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). I assure him that he will find that the matter will be rectified very speedily.

Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are hardly an) Labour Members left in the Chamber.

I return to the point that I was about to make. Unemployment troubles us all. 'There is nothing more certain than that. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), who has just raised a point of order, suggested a little while ago that I was sitting here seeking to represent the unemployed of the Northern region. I do not presume to do that, but with him and others from the region I do my best for them. I certainly feel strongly for them, and I seek in successive debates in this House and at all other times to do what I can for them.

I agree very much with what my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said. If there were a magic answer that could rid this country of unemployment in general and of youth unemployment in particular we would rejoice and introduce it, whichever party was in office. But there is no magic answer; therefore we must do our best, particularly for young people. If we do not feel strongly about young people being unemployed we do not understand young people in general, because the vast majority of them loathe it.

I try to understand the problem. In recent weeks I have visited two comprehensive schools in Newcastle upon Tyne and the polytechnic college there to talk to young people about to emerge into the working world. It is a matter of giving them encouragement. There is too much despondency. We should try to suggest to able young people that they will be needed, if not at the moment certainly in the foreseeable future.

Training and qualifications are therefore all-important. I welcomed the Holland report and the eventual youth opportunities programme. I pay tribute to the youth opportunities programme as it has worked in the North-East of England. The objective of the Manpower Services Commission in the Northern region was that 41,000 school leavers should participate in the youth opportunities programme from Easter—in other words, from approximately a year ago. The achievement is that 42,000 school leavers have participated, thanks not least to the massive expansion of the programme by the Government.

As a result, there are fewer than 400 young people without any experience of training in the Northern region. Of those who have known work experience, a recent count shows that approximately 50 per cent. are now employed.

I appreciate that several Labour Members, the spokesman for the Liberal Party, and others have suggested that that percentage is falling. That may well be so, but it is even more necessary to emphasise the importance of training. I appeal to those who have been through work experience and who are not yet employed to accept the immediate position and to have great hope for the future, because work experience is in itself a qualification.

When the economy revives we shall have in the Northern region more qualified young people than ever before. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that what we have lacked in the past, in regions such as the North-East of England, is skill. It used to be said that we had two great disadvantages as an area. One was location. Often in debates there has been reference to the long haul for our goods. The other disadvantage was lack of skill, which arose from our great basic industries having been such enormous employers in the past.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems that we face, in terms of lack of skills, particularly in the North-East, is that the very dire circumstances in which our people live result in our exporting skills every week by migration?

I accept that there has been migration, but there is considerable hope for the future. More and more of the people with greater skill—and the much more extensively skilled young people in particular—will find employment.

Earlier this afternoon, during Prime Minister's questions, I suggested that there were more factories opening than closing in our region. That is the case. The figures produced recently by English Industrial Estates suggest that there is a considerable new interest in trading estates in the region.

We have known in the Northern region—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West is as well aware of this as I am—the enormous problem of the closure of the Consett steelworks. It would be a substantial problem for any region. Yet in Derwentside, in the Consett area, there are 57 factory units now under construction. Twelve are already reserved. There is considerable interest in the balance. There are already an assured 700 future jobs.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what numbers of jobs are involved in the Consett example that he gave us—the number of jobs displaced through the closure of the steelworks and the number likely to be created by the new factories?

The approximate number of jobs lost through the closure of Consett steelworks was 3,500. But already there has been a considerable very refreshing initiative from many people in Consett. A good many of those who have been made redundant are seeking to set up small businesses. Some of them have already done so successfully. That will help to reduce the figure of 3,500. So will the new units. These units are being funded by resources specially allocated by the Government for the steel closure areas of Scunthorpe and Consett, and between £4 million and £5 million will be available annually for the next three years. That will do a great deal to create new employment to replace the old.

In addition to the 700 jobs that will come from those units there is a good deal of industrial activity elsewhere. Findus Foods—a firm that we welcome to the Northern region—will provide 1,000 new jobs when it opens in September.

I say all this in the name of optimism. We need a bit of optimism. The optimism is well-founded. New industry has come into the region. There will be work for many young people who are now unemployed.

Training availability under the youth opportunities programme is greater than it has ever been in the Northern region or anywhere else. There can be a 13-week short training course, which can be associated with 26 weeks with an employer for work experience, and then there can be a further six weeks' training. The results are already there to see. We have more skilled and able young people for the take-up in the economy, ready for the new industrial expansion, than we have ever had before in the region.

As my hon. and learned Friend said, youth opportunities are not an end in themselves but they provide very valuable training, and industry will benefit. I congratulate the Manpower Services Commission, particularly that section of it which is in the Northern region. I also congratulate and pay tribute to co-operative employers for their help. Lastly, I pay tribute, in his absence, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who understands very well the enormous problems of regions such as mine.

The overall aim of the YOP is to obtain the maximum benefit for the individual youngster. It is pleasing to learn that in the last week the Manpower Services Commission in the North-East of England is to allocate some of the best of its staff to see how the quality of training can be further improved.

I wholeheartedly support the amendment. Only—in the words of that amendment—through the Government's economic strategy can a lasting improvement in the economy be achieved, and with it a reasonable level of employment for all.

I shall not follow entirely the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), but I will take him up on one matter. It is accepted that Government Back Benchers support the Prime Minister at Question Time, and I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for that, but I certainly object to his offering the Prime Minister an opportunity to give a misleading slant by saying that things are not so bad in the North-East because, after all, more factories are opening than are closing.

I do not have to hand the number of factories that are opening, and I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said, but if 100 small factory units are opening it does not compensate for the loss of 750 jobs at Vickers, Scotswood, in one fell swoop, or the loss of 350 jobs at Tress, Newburn, at one fell swoop and the hundreds of jobs lost in the shipyards. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister, in response to her hon. Friend, to make this sound like a success story.

I make no apology for talking this afternoon only about the city of Newcastle. I want to give the figures for unemployed young people in Newcastle in January 1980 and January 1981. In January 1980 2,645 under-twenties were unemployed. In January 1981 the figure had increased to 3,342. In January 1980 2,391 people aged between 20 and 24 years were unemployed. By January 1981 the figure had increased to 3,121.

All told, 5,036 young people of 25 years of age or under were unemployed in January 1980, and 6,463 were unemployed in January 1981—a 28·3 per cent. increase in 12 months. In 1980 the number who had been unemployed for over 26 weeks was 1,862. In 1981 the number was 3,184. That means that 37 per cent. of the unemployed in the city were under 25 years of age in January 1980, whereas in 1981 the figure was 49 per cent.

In January 1980 just over one-third of the unemployed under-twenty-fives had been out of work for over six months. In January this year almost half the under- twenty-fives had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks.

The conclusions are that unemployment among young people in Newcastle rose by 28 per cent. in 12 months and that the proportion of young people out of work for over six months rose to almost half of all unemployed young people. That is a damning indictment of the Government, and for that reason, if for no other, I shall support the motion.

The problems of youth unemployment in the Northern region are serious, and are worsening month by month. Many traditional Newcastle employers have drastically reduced their work forces, and small firms in the inner city have been closing down. Young people have felt the impact of these events.

In addition, reductions in public spending have meant a sharp fall in the number of young people gaining employment in the public sector. In various departments of the city council at the civic centre in Newcastle graduates are applying for what 10 years ago were regarded as office boys' jobs. Several scores of jobs which would have been regarded as juniors' jobs four or five years ago are now going to graduates. Hundreds of young people with two, three or four A-levels are applying for office-boy-type jobs with local authorities. Again, that is a dreadful indictment of the Government.

There has been a noticeable reduction in the number of apprenticeships and training courses offered by large firms in recent years. This trend over the area is showing every sign of continuing. Office employment can be expected to continue to decline as public expenditure restraint and the introduction of new technology have a continuing impact over the years.

The Manpower Services Commission advises that at least a 50 per cent. increase in school leaver unemployment will occur this year. That is in addition to the devastating figures that I have already quoted.

The youth opportunities programme was originally intended as a temporary expedient to provide a bridge between school and permanent employment. In the North-East, and in Newcastle particularly, it has become a major component of the job market for young people. Thank goodness that we have the youth opportunities programme. I fear to think what would be the situation without it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) deserves credit for the work he did on the youth opportunities programme in the Labour Government.

Youth unemployment is a national problem. I compliment the Newcastle city council and the Tyne and Wear county council on their efforts to alleviate the effects of unemployment in the area. This they have done by creating permanent employment opportunities within the local community and subsidising temporary jobs whenever and wherever possible. They have also accepted, regretfully, that youth unemployment is an unfortunate fact of life and have tried to make the situation for the young unemployed more tolerable by opening youth centres at various times during the day and organising worthwhile opportunities to give the unemployed youngsters some interests.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the major reasons why small firms especially have not been able to employ more young people has been the high level of rates imposed, particularly by Labour local authorities, which at the margin have so eroded their profits that it has been not worth while to take on new people and to invest in the future in that way?

The hon. Gentleman trots out that Tory hack stuff that no one believes any more. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) is in his place. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with him about the incidence of high rates. High rates are not confined to wicked Labour-controlled authorities. They are to be found throughout the country. I see no prospect of improvement in the near future.

The burden of job loss is not falling equally on all sections of the community. There are three groups that have suffered more than their share—women workers, young people and elderly workers. In Newcastle in July 1979 there were 9,651 men unemployed and 4,059 women, a total of 13,710. In July 1980 those figures increased to 11,502 men and 4,948 women, a total of 16,450. That represents an increase of 19 per cent. in male unemployment and a 22 per cent. increase for women. There was an overall increase of 20 per cent. Over the past six years male unemployment has doubled, while among women there has been a fourfold increase.

Unemployment is not a simple problem. It is one that must be considered group by group. At the beginning of 1980 slightly more than 5,000 young people aged 16 to 24 years were unemployed in Newcastle. That was about 40 per cent. of total unemployment. In July 1980 the number had increased to 7,200 with the addition of school leavers. That was over 47 per cent. of total unemployment.

The operation of the labour market is such that young people in areas such as Newcastle, where unemployment is high among all age groups, form an increasing proportion of the total unemployed. Many of the traditional employers in the city have been reducing their work forces while small firms in the inner city have been closing down.

We have the hope that is provided by the small factory units that the Tyne and Wear county council and the city council have been energetic in developing.

Hear, hear.