asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost to the Exchequer in the present financial year for the education of children under the assisted places scheme; and what would be the comparable cost if those children were educated in the maintained sector.

My Department expects to pay grant of about £3·2 million in this financial year in respect of the 4,185 pupils admitted to assisted places in September. The average cost of providing for that number of pupils to attend maintained secondary schools for two terms this year is also estimated to be £3·2 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the scheme has been an outstanding success, that it represents real value for money for the taxpayer and that it has been welcomed by thousands of parents throughout the land as widening the choice for their children's education? How many children are entering the scheme from the lower income groups?

I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. One-third of parents with children in the scheme have a family income which means that they pay no fees at all. Another one-third have an income which is below the average wage. Two-thirds of the children involved are therefore from families earning below the average wage. There is no doubt that the scheme is bringing into excellent schools, with good sixth forms, pupils from deprived backgrounds.

Cuts in education are biting so deeply that teachers are coming to the House this afternoon to complain bitterly that the public education system is suffering worse than ever before. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that public money is being used to help private education and to give favours to those who are already favoured at the expense of our children?

There is such a queue for private education that it does not need any help. The help is required to enable academically able pupils to go to those schools irrespective of family income. The cost of attending the Edward VI grammar school in Birmingham is £756 a year. I explained in a letter sent to one of my hon. Friends yesterday that the cost of school education in the maintained sector between the ages of 11 and 16 is £1,004, and over the age of 16 it is £1,623. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original reply, he would realise that the overall cost would be the same as if the children involved were in the maintained sector.

In view of the undoubted success of the scheme, has my hon. Friend any plans for extending it?

I shall pass that comment to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is nice to have that vote of total confidence given to the scheme by my hon. Friend.

What are the Government's educational priorities when they can give more than £3 million subsidy for private schools but are not prepared to give any extra money to implement the Education Act 1981 to provide better special education for handicapped children?

I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Opposition Front Bench at Question Time, but I am in slight disagreement with his question. I have already explained that the cost of educating these children in the State sector would be the same. Our priority in the education system is to give all children, handicapped or not, the maximum opportunity possible wherever they attend school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for improving the school curriculum for the less academic children in the last two years of compulsory schooling.

In these two years, the curriculum, without sacrificing rigour and without trying to provide initial training for specific jobs, should have a greater practical slant for all pupils, whatever their abilities and aptitudes, than it now has in most schools. I shall do what I can to bring about this change.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that practicality takes precedence over so-called equality so that the talents of students may be utilised in the best possible way in their future lives? Does he agree that it is stupid to try to make everyone equal when they are not?

Yes. We seek, and shall continue to seek, equality of opportunity, so far as that is practicable.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the introduction of a single examination at the age of 16, which he is thought to favour, would go against the aim of increasing practicality which he has just stated?

I shall try to study the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am still learning the job in some subjects. The complex problem of examinations is one that I still have to master. However, I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Is not one of the problems higlighted by the Scarman report that a large proportion of children in Brixton leave school without being properly educated in the three Rs? Will my right hon. Friend give his attention to that problem?

I agree that is a crucial problem. We shall do all that we can do to help the teachers in what is often a difficult but indispensable task.

In my usual spirit of generosity, may I help the right hon. Gentleman? The proposition put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was that a greater concentration on examinations would reduce the practical value of the curriculum for students in their last two years of secondary schooling. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in the development of what the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) call the three Rs, will he accept that—in the words of the secondary school inspectors' report of 1979—a reduction in the obsession with examinations will lead to the fruition of greater competence in the basics of education?

I do not believe that it is necessary to make a sharp dichotomy between a shade more emphasis on practicality in the curriculum and on examinations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to make any changes in the student grants system.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans for major changes in the structure of the awards system.

How does the Under-Secretary intend to reply to the submission from the National Union of Students that the real value of the grant has been reduced by about 7 per cent. since 1978, and that some costs, such as hall fees, have risen by as much as 40 per cent. during the same period? Will he tell me what advice I should give to the welfare officer of the Liverpool students' union, whom I met yesterday, who says that many students are now facing grave financial hardship?

I recently met representatives of the National Union of Students and had a useful exchange of views on that occasion. Its arguments and those of the hon. Gentleman will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend when he settles the level of grants.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the allocation of £500,000 to the Open University to enable unemployed people to study free of charge. Does he acknowledge that there may be difficulties in applying that money, because some people may get work as others leave work? Will he allow maximum flexibility in the way that the money is applied by the Open University in this excellent cause?

The scheme that has been developed by the Open University, in conjunction with my Department, is imaginative and will need to be flexible, as I am sure it will be.

How will the Secretary of State reply to the Public Accounts Committee's demand that student grants should be cash limited? Is the Under-Secretary aware that, inevitably, if student grants are cash limited the Robbins principle will be completely eroded? In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that principle, he can read it on the Order Paper in question No. 20. Do the Government still believe in the Robbins principle, or will they redefine it?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has also now remembered the Robbins principle. The Department will take into account the considerations that he has mentioned, together with other considerations, in replying to the Public Accounts Committee.

In addition to the problem of student grants, will my hon. Friend give further consideration during the next few months to the problem of the parental contribution? I declare an interest.

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend heard what my hon. Friend said.

The Secretary of State said that he was still learning the job. May we take it that Ministers in the Department have learnt the lesson of their predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), and abandoned the pernicious notion of introducing a system of student loans?

My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department are reconsidering student loans. The argument is not perhaps quite as open and shut as the hon. Gentleman makes it sound. Many countries operate loans systems. The effect that they have on students depends entirely on how they are designed.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will allocate a place on the Burnham committee for the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers.

As my hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) on 23 November, my right hon. Friend has written to the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers to say that he does not propose to grant representation on the Burnham further education committee to the association.

Why does not the Burnham committee in general, and the further education committee in particular, reflect more closely the representation of the teachers's unions and their strength in the country? Is it equitable and democratic that the National Union of Teachers, which represents only 50 per cent. of teachers, should have such a dominant voice on the Burnham committee?

As my hon. and learned Friend knows, the NAS/UWT is represented on the Burnham committee, but it is the Burnham further education committee that is in question. Two criteria are applied: first, the percentage of the total number of teachers in the sector which the union has; and, secondly, whether the membership is drawn from any particular description of teachers within that sector. According to those criteria, I am afraid that the NAS/UWT has no representation.

Does the Under-Secretary recognise that an increase in the multiplicity of teachers' representatives on these organisations—particularly when, as he said, they do not have a membership which justifies representation—can only make it infinitely more difficult to allow the teachers to speak with one voice and reach decisions? Does he accept that, in the long run, any increase in representation from different organisations will only worsen labour relations in the teaching sector?

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not entirely agree with him. What is important is whether the union meets the criteria.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those criteria are too inflexible to meet the case in point? This is an important and influential union. Does he accept that the two criteria that he adumbrated are too narrow and should be reconsidered?

These criteria are in the Act under which the Burnham committee was set up. Of course, they can to some extent be at the discretion of my right hon. Friend. Should the situation change, no doubt these matters can he reviewed in future.

Does the Minister realise the complete confusion in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who did not even know the difference between the Burnham further education committee and the Burnham committee? The reality is that on the further education committee—

Order. Instead of giving information, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put his words in the form of a question.

I asked the Minister a question. Is the Minister aware that the majority of teachers in further education are represented by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—whose representatives will be coming to the House this afternoon—and that the National Association of Schoolmasters has few members in further education and should not be represented?

I have no need to defend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has great knowledge of these matters. The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers has at least 2,000 full-time members in further education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his rejection of the Manchester local education authority plan for reorganising secondary education in the city.

My reasons for rejecting the city of Manchester's proposals are set out in the Department's letter to the authority of 12 November, a copy of which was sent to the right hon. Gentleman.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the delay involved in the rejection of the Manchester scheme will add to the anxiety and uncertainty facing both teaching staff and parents in the city of Manchester? Is he further aware that the city of Manchester's ratepayers will be involved in £1 million of additional expenditure as a result of the rejection of the reorganisation scheme? Will he explain how one determines the proven worth of the three schools concerned?

I studied this subject profoundly before reaching such an important decision. I very much regret the delay involved for Manchester, its ratepayers, teachers, parents and pupils. That is why I hope that the city of Manchester will come back as soon as possible, when it has had time to reconsider the proposals. Many characteristics have to be taken into account when deciding proven worth. Academic results are not the only characteristics, but they are an important component.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many people in Manchester feel that it is better to suffer the delay that results from the decision than to be stuck with a scheme that will damage our schools for many generations?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Manchester education committee will recommend to tomorrow's city council meeting that it accept all his conditions and that Whalley Range, Parrswood and Burnage high school be excepted from the scheme and that provision be made for single-sex education for those over the age of 16? If the council accepts that proposition tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman give the scheme immediate approval so that it can take effect next September?

I welcome the council's quick reaction. However, I still have a quasi-judicial function, and objectors to the new scheme must be given an opportunity to make objections in accordance with the statute. When that period for objection is over, I guarantee to give urgent consideration to the issues involved.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in the North-West welcome his statement that he is unwilling to weaken schools of proven quality which continue to demonstrate their success in sixth-form provision, and this could apply to other schools in the North-West, such as the Lancaster Royal grammar school and the Lancaster girls' grammar school.

Each case has to be decided on its merits. I am trying to carry out part of the Conservative manifesto.

If the Secretary of State is not prepared to allow Manchester to develop on the basis of a sixth-form college system or to allow Liverpool to make proper use of the under-used Paddington school premises, what discretion has any local authority to achieve the reduction in school places that the right hon. Gentleman demands?

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to generalise about decisions that have to be made on individual merits, as I see them.

What definition of proven need puts the case for three schools over the case for 23 schools, which costs an additional £1 million in delay and which is adopted—I understand—against the advice of the Department and Her Majesty's Inspectorate?

I think that the hon. Gentleman meant "proven worth", not "proven need". The answer to the question that he meant to put is "Educational quality for the children".

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to announce a decision regarding the awarding of a seat on the Burnham further education committee to the Association of Polytechnic Teachers, following the exchange in the House on 21 May and the announcement of consultations by his predecessor on 22 June.

Strongly held views have been expressed for and against the proposition. I have not heard the arguments of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers, so I have invited its representatives to put their case to me before I take a decision.

As this matter has been dragging on for a long time, and as it cannot be the most significant matter awaiting my right hon. Friend's decision, will he try to determine it as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend's comments are valid, and the answer is "Yes".

Will the Secretary of State make it clear that it is not his policy to recognise every small organisation? If he did, none of the representative bodies would be able to reach any agreement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this organisation represents only a small group of teachers, who are admirably represented—for the most part—by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education?

I find this statutory function invidious. I have to take all the arguments into account.

Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend's predecessor considered the matter carefully and decided that the association should be represented? Why is it necessary to consider the matter again?

My hon. Friend has not given the whole picture. My predecessor expressed an inclination in one direction, but decided that it was necessary to hold consultations. I must take the results of those consultations into account.

Now that the Secretary of State has set up a public sector body in which the polytechnics are only a minority shareholder, what arguments are there for giving that small minority body a seat when teachers across the whole range have been adequately and properly represented for many years by one trade union?

Strong arguments are put to me both for and against inclusion. I must resolve the arguments as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current number of meals being served in schools each day compared to 1978.

The necessary information will not be available until the new year, by which time all the returns under the 1981 school meals census will have been received and analysed.

Is it not a fact that the Minister does not want to give the figures because they have decreased considerably? Is he aware that in 1978 the children of the unemployed qualified for free school meals? Why do they not qualify now?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The 1980 census was published in January 1981. The 1981 census will be published at the beginning of next year. If the hon. Gentleman asks this question in a few months' time, he will receive the answer. As the hon. Gentleman must know, there is a statutory obligation that the children of those on family income supplement and supplementary benefit should have free school meals. In addition, two-thirds of local education authorities give more free school meals than they are required to give under the statutory obligation.

Is there any evidence that the introduction of the cafeteria system—even in primary schools—has led to an upturn in the number of those eating schools meals?

Unfortunately, it is too difficult to say. We shall know the answer in January or February when this year's census is published. However, my hon. Friend is right. There are signs that the upturn has started.

Will the Minister take it from me that there has been a distinct drop in the number of meals available to schoolchildren? Does he accept that the main concern of those involved in education is that, geographically, the poorest areas have suffered most? Will he please promise to discriminate positively in favour of the weakest in our society?

There is a considerable variation between one education authority and another. However, that does not seem to be based on the poverty or otherwise of the authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to monitor the effect on nutrition of recent legislation. That will take place in the not-too-distant future.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to expand the provision of nursery education within the State system.

There is provision in the Government's expenditure plans for modest capital expenditure to enable those authorities that wish to do so to increase their nursery accommodation, mainly by converting spare primary accommodation.

Why did the Minister introduce new regulations concerning the attendance of children in nursery classes? Is it not essential to expand nursery education now, with the help of the Government, bearing in mind that such a large number of families, particularly in deprived areas, are living close to the poverty line, thanks to the Government's policies?

A total of 6,000 more children were in nursery education in January this year compared with January last year. The hon. Lady may be interested in the figures for Wolverhampton. In 1980, 62 per cent. of 3- and 4-year olds were in nursery and primary schools, whereas in January 1981 the figure had increased to 65 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in present circumstances it may be no bad thing not to expand nursery education, so that more young children can be at home with their mothers?

We always welcome my hon. Friend's interventions, and we shall undoubtedly take his views into account.

Is the Minister aware that we wish there had been nursery schools when the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was young?

There is room for improvement; he was brought up in a cave.

Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the Select Committee, the Rampton committee and, most important of all, the Scarman committee, have put strong emphasis on the need to increase and improve nursery facilities? Instead of announcing modest capital expenditure, will he now announce an increase in current expenditure to facilitate that development?

I am sure that the House would be much poorer without the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). Had he attended nursery school instead of a home playgroup, and had his views changed as a result, we would all have been the worse for it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that a vast expansion of nursery education would be equivalent to lowering the starting age of children at school? Would it not be far better to encourage the pre-school playgroup movement?

The pre-school playgroup movement has been the greatest self-help movement since the war. We should do all that we can to pump-prime it. I believe that it will celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary in 1982 and is planning a special week. I trust that all hon. Members will take an interest in the movement at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) on 12 November, Official Report, c. 160, he is now in a position to make a statement on the report of the Cockcroft committee relating to the teaching of mathematics in secondary schools.

My right hon. Friend is arranging for the report to be published as soon as possible. We expect it to be of wide interest to parents and employers as well as to the education service.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the conclusions of that report, local education authorities should use the advantage of falling rolls substantially to step up in-service training and retraining in this subject?

I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I entirely agree with him.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us a date for publication, as everyone wants to read the report, not least the Select Committee?

The report was received on 10 November. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be published early in the new year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to alter the arrangements made for the financing of student unions so as to make subscriptions to them voluntary rather than mandatory.

With the exception of Oxbridge junior common rooms, there are no subscriptions to student unions, which are now financed through the recurrent income of their parent institutions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a growing movement within SACUM—Students Against Compulsory Union Membership—believes that part of Tory philosophy is responsible freedom? Does he not believe that the case of Paul Soden, who was excluded from Manchester polytechnic because he was not prepared to pay that part of the annual subscription that was due to the students' union, is quite wrong, particularly as he qualified and was eligible for admission to the polytechnic? Will my hon. Friend give this case and the whole matter of voluntary membership his urgent attention?

The Department is indeed giving the whole matter urgent attention. I think that at the back of my hon. Friend's mind are worries about political and other activities that do not appear to be connected with the original purposes of student unions. I believe that Mr. Soden was unwilling to contribute to the students' union that part of the fees that he calculated to be necessary. That would be a difficult precedent to accept, because students might then regard themselves as free not to contribute that part of their fees which, for example, they regarded as covering other departments that they did not use.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is worrying to hear that the Department is urgently considering this matter? Is he further aware that the "loony" Right of the Tory Party has been sniping at student unions for more than 20 years? Is he also aware that, apart from the odd tomato, the cultural, athletic and education benefits to be gained from such unions are part of a student's overall education? Does he agree that the student movement has produced at least as many distinguished Members of this House as has All Souls?

The hon. Gentleman has more direct experience of "loonies" in politics than I. Indeed, they have driven him out of the Labour Party. There is a real question to answer about ultra vires activities by student unions, and this is a more complex question than that of mere membership of student unions, which are normally recognised in the charters of universities or the orders governing polytechnics. We are looking seriously into that question.

Is it not a fact that in a large number of institutions of higher education the student union is, for example, an integral part of the feeding arrangements of students? Surely it would be as sensible to have voluntary subscriptions to unions as it would be to have voluntary subscriptions to chemistry laboratories or libraries of medieval French.

As always, my hon. Friend makes my point more elegantly. There is much to be said for his suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the number of teachers who (a) qualified in 1980 and 1981 and (b) obtained teaching posts.

About 21,000 persons successfully completed courses of initial teacher training in England and Wales in 1980, of whom 72 per cent. had obtained teaching posts in the United Kingdom by the end of October 1980. Corresponding figures for 1981 are not yet available.

It is dreadful to think that 28 per cent. of qualified teachers have not obtained jobs. Does the Minister not realise that the mere maintenance of the present teacher-pupil ratio at a time of falling rolls means lower standards? Would it not be preferable to give those teachers real teaching jobs rather than other jobs, thereby forcing other people on to the dole?

The hon. Gentleman, who had a distinguished teaching career, rightly said that 28 per cent. of trained teachers had not found jobs. It is as well to remember that many of them have either taken other jobs or gone abroad. The 28 per cent. figure relates to 1980. Under the Labour Government, 31 per cent. had not found jobs by the end of October 1978, and in 1977 the figure was 40 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still a shortage of mathematics and science teachers in many areas? Will he draw that fact to the attention of school leavers who are considering teaching as a career?

My hon. Friend is correct. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sent a circular letter saying that attention is being paid both to the quality of the training and the subjects in which the teachers are being trained. There is no point in studying subjects for which there is already a surplus of teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the age group 19 to 25 years he expects to be attending universities and polytechnics in each of the next 10 years.

The percentage of the 19 to 25 age group attending universities is expected to fall from about 3·6 per cent. in 1980–81 to about 3 per cent. by 1984–85. A further 1·5 per cent. of this age group were attending polytechnics in 1980–81. It is not possible to give the projections requested for the polytechnics, or for the universities beyond 1984–85.

Which members of the Cabinet would have managed to get into university if they had been part of the "bulge" generation and had faced the cuts that the Government are now imposing on universities? Is it not scandalous that the Government are denying to the next generation the opportunities that many members of the Cabinet and of the House enjoyed?

I am sure that none of my right hon. Friends would have had the slightest difficulty in getting into university in any age. Many of them would have been in universities, even in the eighteenth century—[Interruption.] There will be a fall in the participation rate, which we all regret.

Apart from the needs of people between the ages of 19 and 25, what encouragement does the Department intend to give to mature students going back to university or polytechnics on a continuing and optional basis?

My hon. Friend draws attention to an important subject. This year the University Grants Committee, for the first time in its distributions, tried to protect mature students specifically. It remains an important aspect of Government policy to do that.

As we now know that the fall in the number of university student places will be about 20,000 in three years, is not it incumbent on the Government to state the equivalent fall in the number of polytechnic places?

Policy decisions remain to be taken after discussion with local authorities about the implications for polytechnics and other colleges in the maintained sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to replace the University Grants Committee with another mechanism for allocating Government funds to universities.

No, Sir.

Is not the University Grants Committee being asked to change overnight from being an elderly tortoise to a young tiger? Is it really equipped to deal with cutbacks and redundancies? Will it and the Secretary of State look specifically and humanely at individual universities that can show that the net cost to the public purse would be less if their costs were spread over five years rather than over three years?

We are ready to consider my hon. Friend's latter proposition if it is worked out in a way that will achieve savings for the taxpayer in the years desired. On the former proposition, the UGC has presided over expansion for many years and honourably undertook, and is equipped for, the peer reviews necessary for the allocation of funds.

Following the exercise by which the universities try to establish by various means the savings that would accrue as a consequence of delaying the cutbacks, when does the Secretary of State expect to make a final decision and response? Will it be before next February, when so many important meetings will take place in universities about arrangements for the following year against the background of quick and big cuts?

I am studying urgently the paper that I have received through the UGC from the vice-chancellors and principals relating to an important aspect of the subject. I understand the urgency.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is that no single body covers the whole of higher and further education. Is it not a great mistake to divide higher education between universites and the other aspects? Will my right hon. Friend consider that?

Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is presiding over efforts by the local authorities to achieve a more coherent approach.

Is it not crazy, when the country is crying out for better technology, to impose the worst blows on the technological-based universities such as Salford, Aston, Bradford and others? Is the Secretary of State aware that 700 engineering places are to go at Salford as well as 500 other students and 550 staff?

After the reductions there will be at least as many places as there were before for such training.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 December.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Brazilian Foreign Minister. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen, after which I shall attend a dinner given by Mr. Speaker.

Has the Prime Minister had time to read the article on the front page of The Guardian this morning about the Government's proposal to scrap the National Health Service as we know it? Does she recognise that the Health Service is the most popular public service that we have? Is she aware that any threat by her to undermine the basic principles on which it is based would create a revolutionary situation in the country? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, give a categorical assurance that not even she will stoop to such skulduggery?

The principle that adequate health care should be provided for all, regardless of ability to pay, must be the foundation of any arrangments for financing the Health Service. Some time ago, on 30 July 1981, my right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State, announced that a working party had been set up to examine different methods of financing the Health Service. [Interruption.] Only the minds of members of the Opposition are closed to new ideas. They will not even look at new ideas.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the leaders of the second largest trade union in Britain on having accepted yesterday a pay settlement of 5 per cent. that covers almost 2 million workers in the engineering industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that workers who, in the national interest, settle for such moderate pay rises will have little patience with others with industrial muscle who seek to damage the nation at the expense of other people by putting in extravagant claims?

I saw the report to which my hon. Friend refers. That settlement will help to keep prices competitive and will therefore provide a better chance of expansion and more jobs in the engineering industry. I congratulate all concerned.

As the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is of such crucial importance, and since great suspicion is bound to be aroused by any approach by the Government to the National Health Service, may we have an assurance that there will be a debate in the House before any further proceedings on this issue are allowed?

The British museum is where right hon. Gentleman should be.

All right, I know that the barbarians on the Government Benches are not interested in a great institution such as the British museum, but we hear with great alarm that the director of the British museum is saying that if nothing is changed the museum will have to close in two years. If Tory Members do not care about that, we do. May we have an undertaking that the Prime Minister will intervene today to put a stop to such barbarian nonsense?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, the setting up of the working party was announced in July. It is continuing its work and will identify alternatives for financing the Health Service. I expect that those alternatives will be looked at to see what details are required for further work. There was a debate on the National Health Service two weeks ago. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if not his hon. Friends, will welcome the fact that there are now 1,000 more doctors and 21,000 more nurses and midwives than there were under the Labour Government.

Will the Prime Minister take account of what is said by the director of the British museum? Does she agree with him—because he knows the facts—that if these conditions prevail the museum will have to be closed in two years? Will she intervene to stop that right away?

I have already said that the grant for museums this year was nearly 8 per cent. above that for last year. Next year it will be above that for this year. That is reasonable under all the circumstances.

Does the Prime Minister accept Chancellor Schmidt's recent statement that the British and French nuclear weapons will have to be discussed in the present intermediate missile negotiations that have just commenced? Will the right hon. Lady use this opportunity to reconsider her position on Trident? Will she also tell the House what her view is about a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first statement, alleged to have been made by Chancellor Schmidt, I do not know about it. He has never made any such statement to me. If that is what he thought, I would have expected him to make a statement to me, to President Mitterrand or to both of us together. With regard to Trident, I understand that the United States is going for D5. Until the United States has made a final decision, we cannot make a final decision. The right hon. Gentleman's third point was about a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone. I always view with great suspicion suggestions for nuclear-free zones, particularly by a country that could easily withdraw its weapons behind the Urals and still have the capacity totally to destroy Europe.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to address a letter of congratulation to all those at British Aerospace who have achieved the major deal with the United States Government to supply £500 million worth of Hawks, to be used by the United States Navy? Is that not an example of yet another British company being a world beater?

I give my warm congratulations. The contract has yet to be precisely defined, but the Hawk is an excellent aircraft. It is wonderful to see other countries recognising that fact and viewing the possibility of placing orders with Britain.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister think again about tomorrow's announcement? Is it not hypocrisy to profess concern for the poorest in society and at the same time deliberately to inflict a third and savage increase in council rents, a further increase in prescription charges, an increase in the national insurance contribution and lastly a cut in the dole?

As there is to be an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow, it is possible that I shall be doing more thinking about it today. Without confirming or denying any of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will subscribe to the principle that those in work should make it their duty to look after those who are out of work.

Will my right hon. Friend today consider the new training initiative? Does she agree that it constitutes the most determined effort ever by any Government to tackle the grave problem of youth unemployment? Will she ensure that any schemes arising from the initiative have a high vocational content so that the young people will have a practical hope of an effective job to go to?

I hope that the House will warmly welcome details of the new training initiative when they are announced at about the turn of the year. They are designed to give more young people more training so that they have a better prospect of getting new jobs. Taking that together with the youth opportunities programme and the prospect of the scheme for young workers, which comes in on 2 January, I believe that there is a good deal of hope for young people leaving school that they will be able to get training, further education or jobs.

Did the Prime Minister notice that last Thursday the people of Crosby passed judgment on her Government, and as the new Member for Crosby will take her seat this afternoon, is it not the Prime Minister's turn today to feel jolly jealous?

Hardly. I do not believe that there is anyone in the House to be jealous of.

Will my right hon. Friend consult her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland now that the decision has been given about the go-ahead for the NATO base in the Western Isles to ensure that that base, which is essential to the protection of the United Kingdom, and which will create many jobs in that area, is no longer held up?

I shall do my best to comply with my hon. Friend's request. He is as anxious for the whole of the United Kingdom to be protected as I am, and that sufficient jobs go to Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister if she will take steps to publicise the additional benefit that can be obtained by persons registering for earnings-related benefit in the last week of the current, compared with the first week of the following, year.

The abolition of earnings-related benefit at the beginning of next month, and the transitional arrangements that accompany it, are being publicised through posters in DHSS local offices and unemployment benefit offices, through a new leaflet, and in the media.

If the Government's economic strategy is working, why is it necessary to abolish the earnings-related benefit, which will mean that new claimants will be £11 a week worse off?

That matter was fully debated when it was put through the House. There was an opportunity to vote on it. I have nothing to add to the detailed discussion that took place.

Will my right hon. Friend also give publicity to the fact that pensions have been increased by 52 per cent. under her Administration? When the cost of social security benefits is increasing so rapidly, is it not common sense to give top priority to those most in need, including pensioner couples, widows and disabled people?

Yes, Sir. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly what we have done. In fact, retirement pensions have kept up with the cost of living.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the imposition of the NATO base on the Western Isles is resisted by most of the people there—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman's question is not related to earnings-related benefit.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to repeat that the Government's policy on the taking up of social benefits is to give publicity to what is available and to encourage the maximum take-up at the same time as the Government pursue their perfectly legitimate campaign against the fraudulent claims about which we are sometimes abused?

My hon. Friend has expressed it perfectly. I cannot improve upon what he has said. I can only endorse his remarks.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that when poor families apply for any benefit, the benefit office checks to see whether they are entitled to any other benefits at the same time?

That is an administrative matter. It seems to be a good idea that that should happen. I shall, of course, convey the suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who may have heard it, to see whether it is administratively possible.